Global Research

First published by Global Research in February 2008

This article discusses the potential health risks of genetically engineered foods (GMOs). It draws on some previously used material because its importance bears repeating. It also cites three notable books and highlights one in particular – Jeffrey Smith’s “Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods.” Detailed information from the book is featured below.

Genetically engineered foods saturate our diet today. In the US alone, over 80% of all processed foods contain them. Others include grains like rice, corn and wheat; legumes like soybeans and soy products; vegetable oils, soft drinks; salad dressings; vegetables and fruits; dairy products including eggs; meat, chicken, pork and other animal products; and even infant formula plus a vast array of hidden additives and ingredients in processed foods (like in tomato sauce, ice cream, margarine and peanut butter). Consumers don’t know what they’re eating because labeling is prohibited, yet the danger is clear. Independently conducted studies show the more of these foods we eat, the greater the potential harm to our health.

Today, consumers are kept in the dark and are part of an uncontrolled, unregulated mass human experiment the results of which are unknown. Yet, the risks are enormous, it will take years to learn them, and when we finally know it’ll be too late to reverse the damage if it’s proved conclusively that genetically engineered foods harm human health as growing numbers of independent experts believe. Once GM seeds are introduced to an area, the genie is out of the bottle for keeps. There is nothing known to science today to reverse the contamination already spread over two-thirds of arable US farmland and heading everywhere unless checked.

This is happening in spite of the risk because of what F. William Engdahl (right) revealed in his powerfully important, well documented book titled “Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation.” It’s the diabolical story of how Washington and four Anglo-American agribusiness giants plan world domination by patenting animal and vegetable life forms to gain worldwide control of our food supply, make it all genetically engineered, and use it as a weapon to reward friends and punish enemies.

Click front cover the order directly from Global Research

Today, consumers eat these foods daily without knowing the potential health risks. In 2003, Jeffrey Smith explained them in his book titled “Seeds of Deception.” He revealed that efforts to inform the public have been quashed, reliable science has been buried, and consider what happened to two distinguished scientists – UC Berkeley’s Ignacio Chapela and former Scotland Rowett Research Institute researcher and world’s leading lectins and plant genetic modification expert, Arpad Pusztai. They were vilified, hounded, and threatened for their research, and in the case of Pusztai, fired from his job for doing it.

He believed in the promise of GM foods, was commissioned to study them, and conducted the first ever independent one on them anywhere. Like other researchers since, he was shocked by his findings. Rats fed GM potatoes had smaller livers, hearts, testicles and brains, damaged immune systems, and showed structural changes in their white blood cells making them more vulnerable to infection and disease compared to other rats fed non-GMO potatoes. It got worse. Thymus and spleen damage showed up; enlarged tissues, including the pancreas and intestines; and there were cases of liver atrophy as well as significant proliferation of stomach and intestines cells that could be a sign of greater future risk of cancer. Equally alarming, results showed up after 10 days of testing, and they persisted after 110 days that’s the human equivalent of 10 years.

Later independent studies confirmed what Pusztai learned, and Smith published information on them in his 2007 book called “Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods.” The book is encyclopedic in depth, an invaluable comprehensive source, and this article reviews some of the shocking data in it.

Compelling Evidence of Potential GMO Harm

In his introduction, Smith cites the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) policy statement on GM food safety without a shred of evidence to back it. It supported GHW Bush’s Executive Order that GMOs are “substantially equivalent” to ordinary seeds and crops and need no government regulation. The agency said it was “not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.” That single statement meant no safety studies are needed and “Ultimately, it is the food producer” that bears responsibility “for assuring safety.” As a consequence, foxes now guard our henhouse in a brave new dangerous world.

FDA policy opened the floodgates, and Smith put it this way: It “set the stage for the rapid deployment of the new technology,” allowed the seed industry to become “consolidated, millions of acres (to be) planted, hundreds of millions to be fed (these foods in spite of nations and consumers objecting, and) laws to be passed (to assure it).” The toll today is contaminated crops, billions of dollars lost, human health harmed, and it turns out the FDA lied.

The agency knew GM crops are “meaningfully different” because their technical experts told them so. As a result, they recommended long-term studies, including on humans, to test for possible allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. Instead, politics trumped science, the White House ordered the FDA to promote GM crops, and a former Monsanto vice-president went to FDA to assure it.

Today, the industry is unregulated, and when companies say their foods are safe, their views are unquestioned. Further, Smith noted that policy makers in other countries trust FDA and wrongly assume their assessments are valid. They’re disproved when independent studies are matched against industry-run ones. The differences are startling. The former report adverse affects while the latter claim the opposite. It’s no secret why. Agribusiness giants allow nothing to interfere with profits, safety is off the table, and all negative information is quashed.

As a result, their studies are substandard, adverse findings are hidden, and they typically “fail to investigate the impacts of GM food on gut function, liver function, kidney function, the immune system, endocrine system, blood composition, allergic response, effects on the unborn, the potential to cause cancer, or impacts on gut bacteria.” In addition, industry-funded studies creatively avoid finding problems or conceal any uncovered. They cook the books by using older instead of younger more sensitive animals, keep sample sizes too low for statistical significance, dilute the GM component of feeds used, limit the duration of feeding trials, ignore animal deaths and sickness, and engage in other unscientific practices. It’s to assure people never learn of the potential harm from these foods, and Smith says they can do it because “They’ve got ‘bad science’ down to a science.”

The real kinds show GMOs produce “massive changes in the natural functioning of (a) plant’s DNA. Native genes can be mutated, deleted, permanently turned off or on….the inserted gene can become truncated, fragmented, mixed with other genes, inverted or multiplied, and the GM protein it produces may have unintended characteristics” that may be harmful.

GMOs also pose other health risks. When a transgene functions in a new cell, it may produce different proteins than the ones intended. They may be harmful, but there’s no way to know without scientific testing. Even if the protein is exactly the same, there are still problems. Consider corn varieties engineered to produce a pesticidal protein called Bt-toxin. Farmers use it in spray form, and companies falsely claim it’s harmless to humans. In fact, people exposed to the spray develop allergic-type symptoms, mice ingesting Bt had powerful immune responses and abnormal and excessive cell growth, and a growing number of human and livestock illnesses are linked to Bt crops.

Smith notes still another problem relating to inserted genes. Assuming they’re destroyed by our digestive system, as industry claims, is false. In fact, they may move from food into gut bacteria or internal organs, and consider the potential harm. If corn genes with Bt-toxin get into gut bacteria, our intestinal flora may become pesticide factories. There’s been no research done to prove if it’s true or false. Agribusiness giants aren’t looking, neither is FDA, consumers are left to play “Genetic Roulette,” and the few animal feeding studies done show the odds are against them.

Arpad Pusztai and other scientists were shocked at their results of animals fed GM foods. His results were cited above. Other independent studies showed stunted growth, impaired immune systems, bleeding stomachs, abnormal and potentially precancerous cell growth in the intestines, impaired blood cell development, misshaped cell structures in the liver, pancreas and testicles, altered gene expression and cell metabolism, liver and kidney lesions, partially atrophied livers, inflamed kidneys, less developed organs, reduced digestive enzymes, higher blood sugar, inflamed lung tissue, increased death rates and higher offspring mortality as well.

There’s more. Two dozen farmers reported their pigs and cows fed GM corn became sterile, 71 shepherds said 25% of their sheep fed Bt cotton plants died, and other reports showed the same effects on cows, chickens, water buffaloes and horses. After GM soy was introduced in the UK, allergies from the product skyrocketed by 50%, and in the US in the 1980s, a GM food supplement killed dozens and left five to ten thousand others sick or disabled.

Today, Monsanto is the world’s largest seed producer, and Smith notes how the company deals with reports like these. In response to the US Public Health Service concerning adverse reactions from its toxic PCBs, the company claims its experience “has been singularly free of difficulties.” That’s in spite of lawsuit-obtained records showing “this was part of a cover-up and denial that lasted decades” by a company with a long history of irresponsible behavior that includes “extensive bribery, highjacking of regulatory agencies, suppressing negative information about its products” and threatening journalists and scientists who dare report them. The company long ago proved it can’t be trusted with protecting human health.

In his book, “Seeds of Destruction,” Engdahl names four dominant agribusiness giants – Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Agrisciences and Syngenta in Switzerland from the merger of the agriculture divisions of Novartis and AstraZeneca. Smith calls these companies Ag biotech and names a fifth – Germany-based Bayer CropScience AG (division of Bayer AG) with its Environmental Science and BioScience headquarters in France.

Their business is to do the impossible and practically overnight – change the laws of nature and do them one better for profit. So far they haven’t independent because genetic engineering doesn’t work like natural breeding. It may or may not be a lot of things, but it isn’t sex, says Smith. Michael Antoniou, a molecular geneticist involved in human gene therapy, explains that genetic modification “technically and conceptually bears no resemblance to natural breeding.” The reproduction process works by both parents contributing thousands of genes to the offspring. They, in turn, get sorted naturally, and plant breeders have successfully worked this way for thousands of years.

Genetic manipulation is different and so far fraught with danger. It works by forcibly inserting a single gene from a species’ DNA into another unnaturally. Smith puts it this way: “A pig can mate with a pig and a tomato can mate with a tomato. But this is no way that a pig can mate with a tomato and vice versa.” The process transfers genes across natural barriers that “separated species over millions of years of evolution” and managed to work. The biotech industry now wants us to believe it can do nature one better, and that genetic engineering is just an extension or superior alternative to natural breeding. It’s unproved, indefensible pseudoscience mumbo jumbo, and that’s the problem.

Biologist David Schubert explains that industry claims are “not only scientifically incorrect but exceptionally deceptive….to make the GE process sound similar to conventional plant breeding.” It a smoke screen to hide the fact that what happens in laboratories can’t duplicate nature, at least not up to now. Genetic engineering involves combining genes that never before existed together, the process defies natural breeding proved safe over thousands of years, and there’s no way to assure the result won’t be a deadly unrecallable Andromeda Strain, no longer the world of science fiction.

The industry pooh-pooh’s the suggestion of potential harm, and unscientifically claims millions of people in the US and worldwide have eaten GM food for a decade, and no one got sick. Smith’s reply: How can we know as “GM foods might already be contributing to serious health problems, but since no one is monitoring for this, it could take decades” to find out. By then, it will be too late and some industry critics argue it already may be or dangerously close.

Today, most existing diseases have no effective surveillance systems in place. If GM foods create new ones, that potentially compounds the problem manyfold. Consider HIV/AIDS. It went unnoticed for decades and when identified, many thousands worldwide were infected or had died.

Then there’s the problem of linkage. In the US and many countries, GM foods are unlabeled so it’s impossible tracing illness and diseases to specific substances ingested even if thousands of people are affected. It can plausibly be blamed on anything, especially when governments and regulatory agencies support industry claims of reliability and safety.

It’s rare that problems like the L-Tryptophan epidemic of the late 1980s are identified, but when it was thousands were already harmed. L-Tryptophan is a natural amino acid constituent of most proteins and for years was produced by many companies including Showa Denko in Japan. The company then got greedy, saw a way to increase profits from a product designed to induce sleep naturally, and gene-spliced a bacterium into the natural product to do it. The result was many dozens dead, over 1500 crippled, and up to 10,000 afflicted with a blood disorder from a new incurable disease called Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome or EMS.

It’s a painful, multi-system disease that causes permanent scarring and fibrosis to nerve and muscle tissues, continuing inflammation, and a permanent change in a person’s immune system. It cost the company two billion dollars to settle claims. Hundreds have since died, in all likelihood from contracting EMS.

This is the known toll from a single product. Consider the potential harm with Ag biotech wanting all foods to be unlabeled GMOs worldwide and governments unable to balk because WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) and Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) rules deny them. They’re also prevented under WTO’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS). It states that national laws banning GMO products are “unfair trade practices” even when they endanger human health. Other WTO rules also apply – called “Technical Barriers to Trade.” They prohibit GMO labeling so consumers don’t know what they’re eating and can’t avoid these potentially hazardous foods.

The 1996 Biosafety Protocol was drafted to prevent this problem, and it should be in place to do it. Public safety, however, was ambushed by Washington, the FDA and the agribusiness lobby. It sabotaged talks and insisted biosafety measures be subordinate to WTO trade rules that apply regardless of other considerations, including public health and safety. The path is thus cleared for the unrestricted spread of GMO seeds and foods worldwide unless a way is found to stop it.

Independent Animal Studies Showing GMO Harm

Rats fed genetically engineered Calgene Flavr-Savr tomatoes (developed to look fresh for weeks) for 28 days got bleeding stomachs (stomach lesions) and seven died and were replaced in the study.

Rats fed Monsanto 863 Bt corn for 90 days developed multiple reactions typically found in response to allergies, infections, toxins, diseases like cancer, anemia and blood pressure problems. Their blood cells, livers and kidneys showed significant changes indicative of disease.

Mice fed either GM potatoes engineered to produce Bt- toxin or natural potatoes containing the toxin had intestinal damage. Both varieties created abnormal and excessive cell growth in the lower intestine. The equivalent human damage might cause incontinence or flu-like symptoms and could be pre-cancerous. The study disproved the contention that digestion destroys Bt-toxin and is not biologically active in mammals.

Workers in India handling Bt cotton while picking, loading, weighing and separating the fiber from seeds developed allergies. They began with “mild to severe itching,” then redness and swelling, followed by skin eruptions. These symptoms affected their skin, eyes (got red and swollen with excessive tearing) and upper respiratory tract causing nasal discharge and sneezing. In some cases, hospitalization was required. At one cotton gin factory, workers take antihistamines daily.

Sheep grazing on Bt cotton developed “unusual systems” before dying “mysteriously.” Reports from four Indian villages revealed 25% of them died within a week. Post mortems indicated a toxic reaction. The study raises questions about cottonseed oil safety and human health for people who eat meat from animals fed GM cotton. It’s crucial to understand that what animals eat, so do people.

Nearly all 100 Filipinos living adjacent to a Bt corn field became ill. Their symptoms appeared when the crop was producing airborne pollen and was apparently inhaled. Doing it produced headaches, dizziness, extreme stomach pain, vomiting, chest pains, fever, and allergies plus respiratory, intestinal and skin reactions. Blood tests conducted on 39 victims showed an antibody response to Bt-toxin suggesting it was the cause. Four other villages experienced the same problems that also resulted in several animal deaths.

Iowa farmers reported a conception rate drop of from 80% to 20% among sows (female pigs) fed GM corn. Most animals also had false pregnancies, some delivered bags of water and others stopped menstruating. Male pigs were also affected as well as cows and bulls. They became sterile and all were fed GM corn.

German farmer Gottfried Glockner grew GM corn and fed it to his cows. Twelve subsequently died from the Bt 176 variety, and other cows had to be destroyed due to a “mysterious” illness. The corn plots were field trials for Ag biotech giant Syngenta that later took the product off the market with no admission of fault.

Mice fed Monsanto Roundup Ready soybeans developed significant liver cell changes indicating a dramatic general metabolism increase. Symptoms included irregularly shaped nuclei and nucleoli, and an increased number of nuclear pores and other changes. It’s thought this resulted from exposure to a toxin, and most symptoms disappeared when Roundup Ready was removed from the diet.

Mice fed Roundup Ready had pancreas problems, heavier livers and unexplained testicular cell changes. The Monsanto product also produced cell metabolism changes in rabbit organs, and most offspring of rats on this diet died within three weeks.

The death rate for chickens fed GM Liberty Link corn for 42 days doubled. They also experienced less weight gain, and their food intake was erratic.

In the mid-1990s, Australian scientists discovered that GM peas generated an allergic-type inflammatory response in mice in contrast to the natural protein that had no adverse effect. Commercialization of the product was cancelled because of fear humans might have the same reaction.

When given a choice, animals avoid GM foods. This was learned by observing a flock of geese that annually visit an Illinois pond and feed on soybeans from an adjacent farm. After half the acreage had GM crops, the geese ate only from the non-GMO side. Another observation showed 40 deer ate organic soybeans from one field but shunned the GMO kind across the road. The same thing happened with GM corn.

Inserting foreign or transgenes is called insertional mutagenesis or insertion mutation. When done, it usually disrupts DNA at the insertion site and affects gene functioning overall by scrambling, deleting or relocating the genetic code near the insertion site.

The process of creating a GM plant requires scientists first to isolate and grow plant cells in the laboratory using a tissue culture process. The problem is when it’s done it can create hundreds or thousands of DNA mutations throughout the genome. Changing a single base pair may be harmful. However, widespread genome changes compound the potential problem manyfold.

Promoters are used in GM crops as switches to turn on the foreign gene. When done, the process may accidently switch on other natural plant genes permanently. The result may be to overproduce an allergen, toxin, carcinogen, antinutrient, enzymes that stimulate or inhibit hormone production, RNA that silences genes, or changes that affect fetal development. They may also produce regulators that block other genes and/or switch on a dormant virus that may cause great harm. In addition, evidence suggests the promoter may create genetic instability and mutations that can result in the breakup and recombination of the gene sequence.

Plants naturally produce thousands of chemicals to enhance health and protect against disease. However, changing plant protein may alter these chemicals, increase plant toxins and/or reduce its phytonutrients. For example, GM soybeans produce less cancer-fighting isoflavones. Overall, studies show genetic modification produces unintended changes in nutrients, toxins, allergens and small molecule metabolism products.

To create a GM soybean with a more complete protein balance, Pioneer Hi-Bred inserted a Brazil nut gene. By doing it, an allergenic protein was introduced affecting people allergic to Brazil nuts. When tests confirmed this, the project was cancelled. GM proteins in other crops like corn and papaya may also be allergenic. The same problem exists for other crops like Bt corn, and evidence shows allergies skyrocketed after GM crops were introduced.

Another study of Monsanto’s high-lysine corn showed it contained toxins and other potentially harmful substances that may retard growth. If consumed in large amounts, it may also adversely affect human health. In addition, when this product is cooked, it may produce toxins associated with Alzheimer’s, diabetes, allergies, kidney disease, cancer and aging symptoms.

Disease-resistant crops like zucchini, squash and Hawaiian papaya may promote human viruses and other diseases, and eating these products may suppress the body’s natural defense against viral infections.

Protein structural aspects in GM crops may be altered in unforeseen ways. They may be misfolded or have added molecules. During insertion, transgenes may become truncated, rearranged or interspersed with other DNA pieces with unknown harmful effects. Transgenes may also be unstable and spontaneously rearrange over time, again with unpredictable consequences. In addition, they may create more than one protein from a process called alternative splicing. Environmental factors, weather, natural and man-made substances and genetic disposition of a plant further complicate things and pose risks. They’re introduced as well because genetic engineering disrupts complex DNA relationships.

Contrary to industry claims, studies show transgenes aren’t destroyed digestively in humans or animals. Foreign DNA can wander, survive in the gastro-intestinal tract, and be transported by blood to internal organs. This raises the risk that transgenes may transfer to gut bacteria, proliferate over time, and get into cells DNA, possibly causing chronic diseases. A single human feeding study confirmed that genes, in fact, transferred from GM soy into the DNA gut bacteria of three of seven test subjects.

Antibiotic Resister Marker (ARM) genes are attached to transgenes prior to insertion and allow cells to survive antibiotic applications. If ARM genes transfer to pathogenic gut or mouth bacteria, they potentially can cause antibiotic-resistant super-diseases. The proliferation of GM crops increases the possibility. The CaMV promoter in nearly all GMOs can also transfer and may switch on random genes or viruses that produce toxins, allergens or carcinogens as well as create genetic instability.

GM crops interact with their environment and are part of a complex ecosystem that includes our food. These crops may increase environmental and other toxins that may accumulate throughout the food chain. Crops genetically engineered to be glufosinate (herbicide)resistant may produce intestinal herbicide with known toxic effects. If transference to gut bacteria occurs, greater problems may result.

Repeated use of seeds like Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans results in vicious new super-weeds that need far greater amounts of stronger herbicides to combat. Their toxic residues remain in crops that humans and animals then eat. Even small amounts of these toxins may be endocrine disruptors that can affect human reproduction adversely. Evidence exists that GM crops accumulate toxins or concentrate them in milk or animals fed GM feed. Disease-resistant crops may also produce new plant viruses that affect humans.

All type GM foods, not just crops, carry these risks. Milk, for example, from cows injected with Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone (rbGH), has much higher levels of the hormone IGF-1 that risks breast, prostate, colon, lung and other cancers. The milk also has lower nutritional value. GM food additives also pose health risks, and their use has proliferated in processed foods.

Potential harm to adults is magnified for children. Another concern is that pregnant mothers eating GM foods may endanger their offspring by harming normal fetal development and altering gene expression that’s then passed to future generations. Children are also more endangered than adults, especially those drinking substantial amounts of rbGH-treated milk.

Conclusion

The above information is largely drawn from Smith’s “Genetic Roulette.” The data is startling and confirms a clear conclusion. The proliferation of untested, unregulated GM foods in the span of a decade is more a leap of faith than reliable science. Microbiologist Richard Lacey captures the risk stating: “it is virtually impossible to even conceive of a testing procedure to assess the health effects of (GM) foods when introduced into the food chain, nor is there any valid nutritional or public interest reason for their introduction.” Other scientists worldwide agree that GM foods entered the market long before science could evaluate their safety and benefits. They want a halt to this dangerous experiment that needs decades of rigorous research and testing before we can know.

Unchecked and unregulated, human health and safety are at risk because once GMOs enter the food chain, the genie is out of the bottle for keeps. Thankfully, resistance is growing worldwide, many millions are opposed, but reversing the tide won’t be easy. Washington and Ag biotech are on a roll with big unstated aims – total control of our food, making it all genetically engineered, and scheming to use it as a weapon to reward friends and punish enemies.

Smith is hopeful that people will prevail over profits. Hopefully he’s right because human health and safety must never be compromised. Resistance already halted the introduction of new crop varieties, and Smith believes that with enough momentum existing ones may end up withdrawn. He cites an example he calls a “Shift away from GM foods in the United States” in 2007. Leading it is an initiative launched last spring to remove GM ingredients from the entire natural food sector. It’s led by a coalition of natural food products producers, distributors and retailers along with the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT). It’s called the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America, and its aims are big – to educate consumers about GM food risks and promote healthy alternatives through shopping guides.

A Pew survey reported that 29% of Americans, representing 87 million people, strongly oppose these foods and believe they’re unsafe. That’s a respectable start if backed up with efforts to avoid them, and more information how is at ResponsibleTechnology.org. Jeffrey Smith founded IRT in 2003 “to promote the responsible use of technology and stop GM foods and crops through both grassroots and national strategies.” It seeks safe alternatives and aims to “ban the genetic engineering of our food supply and all outdoor releases of (GM) organisms, at least until (or unless scientific opinion) believes such products are safe and appropriate based on independent and reliable data.”

IRT urges consumers to become educated about the risks, mobilize to combat them and act in our mutual self-interest. It’s beginning to happen, and Smith believes “there is an excellent chance that food manufacturers will abandon GM foods in the near future” if a public groundswell demands it. He ends his book saying: “Although GMOs present one of the greatest dangers, with informed, motivated people, it is one of the easiest global issues to solve.” Hopefully he’s right.

Global Research Associate Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected].

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com 

The annual special Direct Line with Vladimir Putin was broadcasted live by Channel One, Rossiya 1, Rossiya 24 and Russia Today TV channels, and Mayak, Vesti FM and Radio Rossii radio stations.

Full Transcript:

Tatyana Remezova: Good afternoon, we are live. This is Direct Line with Vladimir Putin, a joint project by Channel One and Rossiya 1 TV channels. You can also watch the broadcast live on Rossiya 24, and listen to a live radio broadcast on Mayak, Vesti FM and Radio Rossii radio stations.

The anchors of Direct Line are Tatyana Remezova and Dmitry Borisov.

Dmitry Borisov: Good afternoon,

First of all, I would like to introduce our colleagues who will be helping us today. Maria Gladkikh and Natalya Yuryeva are in the call centre; and here in the studio we have Vera Krasova, Nailya Asker-zade, Olga Pautova and Olga Ushakova.

They are surrounded by people who were in the spotlight of the last year’s most dramatic news reports, people who arguably have shaped today’s Russia in one way or another.

Now to Tatyana Remezova.

Tatyana Remezova: President of Russia Vladimir Putin is here, in the studio, live.

Maria Gladkikh: Good afternoon,

We are in the call centre, which plays a key role in Direct Line. Our centre has already received 1.1 million calls. You can submit your question to Vladimir Putin right now. The telephone number has not changed: 8 (800) 200 4040. You can also use 04040 for SMS and MMS messages.

Natalya Yuryeva: In addition to SMS messages and telephone calls, our operators also accept video questions that can be submitted either from the moskva-putinu.ru website or by using a special mobile application called Moskva Putinu (Moscow to Putin).

You can also submit questions using the programme’s official accounts on the VKontakte and Odnoklassniki social networks. For the first time, you can talk to the head of state by direct video link via OK Live, as well as the Moskva-Putinu application. This way, not only will the President hear you, but he will also be able to see you.

Go ahead, make a call. We will be taking questions until the end of the broadcast. You still have time. Maybe it will be your question that Vladimir Putin answers.

Maria Gladkikh: Another innovation in this year’s Direct Line is the SN Wall communications platform that enables us to monitor, in real time, how the audience is discussing the programme on social media. More than 300,000 comments have already been posted on Facebook, VKontakte, Instagram and Twitter.

Those who need sign interpretation can watch the broadcast on Public Television of Russia and on our website.

Dmitry Borisov: Good afternoon, Mr President.

.

.

 

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Dmitry Borisov: Our call centre has been receiving phone calls for 12 days, and 2 million messages of various kinds have been received to this point. The top five of the most sensitive issues for Russians includes growing prices, declining living standards, housing and utilities, healthcare and of course, there are many personal requests.

Tatyana Remezova: That said, I would like to highlight a major difference from previous Direct Lines.

Most of the messages we have received are not about the present, but about the future: how will our country live in the years to come, what will its relations with other countries be like? This could be due to the fact that we are in a pre-election year, when people have more questions to their leaders, to you primarily, of course.

Dmitry Borisov: However, before we start talking about the future, let me begin with the present.

We have been hearing many optimistic assessments of the state of the Russian economy lately. Can we say, would it be right to assume that the economic crisis is over?

Vladimir Putin: You have started with a core question, whether the economic crisis is over. I would very much like to give an affirmative answer, thereby sending a positive signal to the people. However, in the back of your mind you cannot stop thinking that something could still go wrong, something could happen.

Nevertheless, when it comes to drawing conclusions of this kind we should be guided by objective data. What are the hard facts telling us? They are telling us that the Russian economy has overcome the recession, and moved into a growth trend. I will get back to this later to explain how this conclusion can be reached and on what data it is based.

But I would like to start by making a different point and highlighting the most pressing issues that have yet to be resolved. You mentioned them in your question, by the way. What are these issues all about? Real incomes have been declining over the last several years, and what is even more alarming is the growing number of people below the poverty line with incomes below the minimum living wage.

In this regard, Russia hit a low in the early and mid-1990s, when almost one third of the country’s population lived below the poverty line, almost 40 percent or 35 to 37 percent, according to various estimates, almost 40 million people. This was the all-time low, while the highest indicators in this respect were reported in 2012.

In 2012, 10.7 percent of the population was below the poverty line. Unfortunately, since then this number has reached 13.5 percent. It may not seem like a lot, just a few percentage points, but we are talking about tens, and hundreds of thousands of people, their lives, so this is a matter of serious concern.

There are economic issues that have still to be addressed, above all regarding real incomes. What are these issues? They have to do with the structure of the economy that we find unsatisfactory. In this connection I have to mention low labour productivity. There will be no new jobs, and incomes will not increase, unless we improve labour productivity. This is a major issue.

We will most definitely come back to these matters and I am 100 percent certain that people will have further questions and we will go into greater detail and look further at all that makes it possible for me to say now that the recession is over and we have seen economic growth for three quarters in a row now. GDP growth is modest, but it has nonetheless held steady from one quarter to the next.

GDP growth was plus 3 percent at the end of the fourth quarter of 2016, plus 5 percent in the first quarter of this year, and up 1.4 percent in April this year. This makes for GDP growth of 0.7 percent overall for the first four months of 2017.

Industrial production is also on the rise. We had growth of 0.7 percent in the first quarter of this year. I have brought along some of the latest figures, so as not to forget anything, and I can share them with you too. These are the latest statistics.

Investment into capital assets is up 2.3 percent. We see an increase in car sales and mortgage loans, which all economies consider a clear sign of growth, and non-resource and non-energy exports are up by 19 percent.

Finally, another important macroeconomic indicator is inflation, and we have brought it down to a record low in modern Russian history. The figure today is 4.2 percent. This is an unprecedented result and it gives us reason to expect that we will reach our target figure of 4 percent by the end of the year.

The Central Bank’s gold and foreign currency reserves, our international reserves, are growing. We started 2016 with $368 billion and ended the year with $378 billion. Today, the figure is $407 billion. One of the most significant indicators that I must mention is investment into capital assets, which is growing at a faster pace than the economy as a whole.

The economy grew by 0.7 percent over the first four months of this year, while investment into capital assets was up by 2.3 percent. What does this mean in simple terms? It means that investment in developing production facilities is up by 2.3 percent, and this is laying the foundations for growth in the short term. This, of course, is a positive development that will have an impact on various aspects of the social sector too.

Which aspects? The main social sector achievement that I want to mention once again is the substantial drop in infant and maternal mortality. Infant mortality has undergone a three-fold decrease since 2000, and maternal mortality has seen a close to four-fold drop. Probably no other country’s social sector has achieved such results. This has contributed to increased life expectancy as well. The figures here are now up from just over 70 years to 72 years. Overall, these results give us reason to say that we have overcome the crisis.

Tatyana Remezova: Mr President, you yourself spoke about people’s declining real incomes, and the official statistics confirm this. When will people feel the benefits of the reviving economy?

Vladimir Putin: You know, the decline was rather steep, and so it will take some time before people will feel an improvement. As I said at the beginning, I consider this to be the most important and serious problem.

Real wages started increasing in July or August 2016 and increased 0.7 percent by the end of the year. This increase is rather difficult to see, although it reached 2.3 or 2.4 percent in April this year.

As you know, we made lump sum payments of 5,000 rubles to pensioners early this year and increased pensions for non-working pensioners by 5.4 percent starting from February 1 and later brought the overall figure to 5.8 percent. We have also indexed social pensions.

We are working with employers to increase the minimum wage. We increased it by over 20 percent last year and have also raised it this year. Overall, we are working at this so that people can feel the improvements.

Tatyana Remezova: Still, many people complain about low wages. Here are many text messages and photos of wage slips. For example, a preschool teacher at Kindergarten No. 111 in Astrakhan is paid 7,935 rubles. The slip is for May 2017. Can you live on this wage?

A medical nurse at the Vostochny Space Launch Centre received 10,246 rubles in May.

“Should a firefighter risk his life for 8,000 rubles a month?” asks Alexander Melnikov, head of a fire team from the Saratov Region.

“When will postal workers’ wages be raised? You cannot live on 3,600 rubles.”

Vladimir Putin: We will have to check the situation with salaries of 3,600 rubles to understand how this is possible. After all, there is a minimum wage in Russia, and it is more than 3,600 rubles. However, all the people you have mentioned are public sector employees who did not benefit from the wage increases under the May 2012 executive orders.

As for public sector employees who did benefit from these increases, their salaries are going up as planned, more or less. In other public sector jobs that were not covered by the May 2012 executive orders, the situation is more challenging. Their salaries were not adjusted for inflation, even though prices have gone up, and the inflation rate was quite high at 12.9 percent in 2015. Still, their wages were not adjusted for inflation. If you are telling me that this is not fair, I agree. I have raised this issue with the Government, and issued instructions to this effect. These salaries will be adjusted for inflation starting January 1, 2018.

Tatyana Remezova: Thank you.

Dmitry Borisov: We have received many calls on this subject. Let us ask the call centre to join our conversation.

Natalya, you have the floor.

Natalya Yuryeva: Mr President, we have just received a call from a medical nurse in Primorye who asked how she could survive on her salary. Socioeconomic issues are always the most sensitive, and they worry Russians the most.

I also see a question on another sensitive issue, the low salaries of teachers in the regions.

Here with us, via video conference, we now have Alyona Ostaltsova from Irkutsk.

Alyona, good afternoon, you are on, you can ask your question.

Alyona Ostaltsova: Hello, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Hello.

Alyona Ostaltsova: My name is Alyona Ostaltsova, and I am calling from the city of Shelekhov, Irkutsk Region. The question I have is quite common. Why are teachers paid so little? I am an elementary school teacher. I have been working for one year, but my salary has never exceeded 16,500 rubles per month. I have not received the allowance young teachers are entitled to. I love my job, and I love working with children, but with a salary like this, I have no choice. How can I live on it? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Alyona, you are from Irkutsk Region, is that right?

Alyona Ostaltsova: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: Shelekhov is probably a small town. I do not know whether your school is fully staffed. You and I know, and so do all other teachers across the country, that there is an objective to bring teachers’ salaries up to the regional average. If I am not mistaken, since I may not recall the exact figures, the average salary in Irkutsk Region is slightly above 30,000 rubles. The average salary in Irkutsk Region is above 30,000 rubles. And teachers’ salaries are even slightly higher in Irkutsk Region.

What happens in reality? The teachers’ money and the level of wages are managed by the school itself, and it determines the payroll and extra payments in addition to the salary. The school itself does this. Again, the payroll and additional payments. It is clear that young specialists, and you are a young specialist, usually make somewhat less than experienced teachers with longer service and all. It is unclear though why it is so much less, 50 or 70 percent – I do not understand this either. I hope that the region’s administration, the authorities that supervise education, will pay attention to this.

This is what I’m thinking: as I said, such a difference in income is unacceptable. Therefore, if this is happening, it would probably be reasonable to establish a minimum wage or a minimum ratio between the income level of young specialists and those who have a long record of service. We probably need to think about this.

Alyona Ostaltsova: Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: About 11,000 rubles, it is certainly strange. I repeat: wages should not differ so dramatically. We will deal with your specific case.

Tatyana Remezova: Before this broadcast, we talked to people who sent in their complaints, including complaints on this issue. Indeed, the situation is very different in various regions and largely depends on who is in charge of the region.

Over the past year, many changes have taken place in the leadership of Russian regions, something that never happened before: Buryatia, Kaliningrad, Karelia, Kirov, Mari El, Novgorod, Perm, Ryazan, Sevastopol, Tver, Tula, Udmurtia, and Yaroslavl. Why? Are all the newly appointed governors coping with their duties?

Vladimir Putin: You know, in many places the governors’ tenure in office simply ended, as many of them had worked for 10 and even more years. Frankly, it was their own idea to try working in other areas.

In other regions, we just felt that people want change, and therefore initiated the process. As to whether they are competent or not, this is primarily a question for the local people. Some of the elected regional leaders had already served for six months or a year before running for the position, so when they did, people voted for them because they knew they could trust them with managing the region, so we can say that people – the voters – believe these candidates were doing a good job. But, of course, any election, the results of any election are an upfront trust given to candidates for leadership at any level at the beginning of their work at this new high office.

Whether they succeed or not – I will return to this subject now. They have to succeed, they have everything to make it despite the fact they are relatively young. They have extensive state work and life experience; of course, you can blame it all on them – but the financial situation is not easy in the regions.

In this regard, the Federation helps for them, supports them. To solve these social issues and level wages, 40 billion rubles have been allocated in this year’s federal budget. What is more, I asked the Government to provide additional finances, and they have allocated another 10 billion rubles. Therefore, they have the support; they also have their own social programmes. They have to work and achieve results.

Tatyana Remezova: We received the following question online: ”Two weeks ago, Europe extended the anti-Russia sanctions for another year. Do you think we are ready to live under these sanctions for decades?”

Vladimir Putin: In fact, the history of Russia shows that we have usually lived under sanctions whenever Russia started to become independent and feel strong. Whenever our partners in the world saw Russia as a serious rival, they imposed various restrictions under various excuses; this has been the case throughout our history, not just in Soviet times; this was the case even before the 1917 revolution. So no surprises here.

We now know that the US Senate has drawn up another draft law on toughening these sanctions. What are the reasons for this? Nothing extraordinary is taking place. Why have they started talking about sanctions again, for no particular reason? This, of course, testifies to the ongoing domestic political struggle in the United States. In any case, this is happening and I can see no real reason for it. If it had not been Crimea or some other issue, they would still have come up with some other way to restrain Russia. The policy of containing Russia has always been presented like this.

So, what is the situation with these sanctions and what impact, if any, have they had on us? They have had an impact. Has this been fundamental in nature? I do not think so. We have been affected more by the global situation and the drop in prices for our main traditional goods – oil, gas, metals, chemicals, and so on. What view do our partners take?

The US State Department believes that these sanctions have lowered our GDP by 1 percent, the Europeans give a slightly higher figure, and the UN has calculated that we lost around $50–52 billion, and that the countries that imposed the sanctions have lost $100 billion. In other words, sanctions have proven to be a double-edged sword and harm everyone, including those who impose them.

Strange though it might sound, however, there have been advantages too. What are they? For a start, we were forced to concentrate our intelligence, talent and resources on key areas and not simply rely on oil and gas revenue. What result has this brought? We have seen real production growth in important and complex economic sectors.

We have rebuilt substantially our skills in the radio-electronics sector, and we made good progress in aircraft engineering, rocket building, pharmaceuticals, and in heavy engineering. That is not to mention agriculture. We all know that agriculture has posted growth of around 3 percent and Russia is now a leader in exports of grain and wheat. That is the result we have to show.

We have reduced substantially imports and developed our own production of pork and poultry and cover practically our entire consumption needs. What’s more, we are now looking for sales markets abroad.

We are in talks with our Chinese friends on opening the Chinese market to our pork and poultry producers. So, there are positive aspects in this situation.

But this is not a normal situation, of course. All of these restrictions do not produce anything good, and we should work towards a global economy that functions without these restrictions.

Dmitry Borisov: If possible, I would like to return to the issue of public opinion on the performance of regional authorities. We have been collecting questions for the past 12 days and have noticed that journalists have used some of these questions as themes for their reports, citing people’s complaints and requests. Miraculously, asphalt was laid, walls painted and building facades repaired the next day after the stories appeared on Channel One or Rossiya. This seems to have solved the problem, or has it?

And there is also a different trend. Tatyana Remezova can correct me if I am wrong, because this story was aired on her show. It is about people complaining over long queues in outpatient clinics while doctors say that this is not true. Then, there is the issue of pseudo-assistance, when people pretend that there is no problem, and simultaneously, the issue of the pseudo-problem, when people try to make a mountain out of a molehill.

I would like to say that we record all these cases. Mr President, we will forward the list of issues that have been allegedly resolved and also pseudo-problems to you and the Presidential Executive Office.

Vladimir Putin: It looks as though holding this event once a year is useful after all. Those who were sitting on their hands will do something good, like build a road or settle matters with healthcare or social facilities. But these are only separate elements. What matters for me is the ability to gauge the public mood, to see what worries people most, the whole range of issues. Of course, it is impossible to answer every question. It would be unrealistic to even try. But we can answer some of them today – I can do this with your help. And this will help us – me, the Government and the Presidential Executive Office – to see the main, and I would even say the most glaring issues, which we must deal with as a priority. I would like to thank our television audience, and those who sent their requests online, for taking part in this work.

Tatyana Remezova: I know that the subject of sanctions has found a response among the guests in this studio.

Olga Pautova has the floor.

Olga Pautova: Mr President, there are many agribusiness representatives in this room. They are more concerned with our response to the sanctions and the related import replacement.

Standing next to me is Sergei Korolev, head of the National Vegetable Union. He says the past three years have taught our farmers to grow delicious and, most importantly, wholesome tomatoes and cucumbers.

Mr Korolev, do we have productive harvests?

Sergei Korolev: We are growing by about 20–30 percent a year.

Mr President, you mentioned the sanctions earlier. We see the measures introduced against Russia as a gift and an additional tool to support our agro-industrial sector. The retaliatory measures that were introduced have produced an effect.

Vegetable production is growing at a rate unprecedented both in the Soviet Union and in recent history. I can tell you that we grew by 50 percent over the year when the retaliatory measures were introduced. We have invested 150 billion rubles in vegetable farming. You mentioned these figures today – 150 billion over a short period – [as an example] of growing investment. This is without a precedent. More than 10,000 new jobs have been created. And we are certainly ready to continue this work.

But all of us are concerned with the following issue. The US Senate adopted a decision yesterday, and Europe declared that their sanctions would be extended and even expanded. Will we extend our counter-sanctions in response to the West’s decisions?

And a second question: When, God forbid, their sanctions are called off, can we hope for your support in protecting the domestic market, as was the case with Turkish tomatoes, for which Russian vegetable growers owe you a special thanks?

Vladimir Putin: This is not a peripheral question, since it is relevant to the whole country. Why? Two years ago, as you and I know all too well, vegetable and fruit production was the most challenging issue. Prices jumped which could not help but affect household incomes. In fact, we blocked or substantially reduced imports, but were unable to meet the needs of Russian consumers on our own. We did everything we could, and I will not go through the whole list of initiatives we undertook. You know them better than I do, and I hope that you have benefited from them. These initiatives were aimed at helping our producers expand vegetable and fruit production, primarily vegetables. Two years ago, the inflation rate reached 12.9 percent, and vegetable and fruit prices were one of the main reasons behind this surge, although there were other reasons that also pushed the inflation rate up.

What we believed was that Russian agricultural producers, meat producers and those growing fruit and vegetables, needed to expand their operations to such an extent as to be able to satisfy domestic demand. You have been successful at this, and I would like to thank you. Not only you, but all those who live in rural areas.

The inflation rate is now at just 4.1 percent. This is a tangible result that benefits the entire industry. After all, almost one third of the country’s population lives on agriculture, if we include the rural population working in social services. This is a very positive development. You were right to say that your products have superior quality.

The Government has extended the sanctions until the end of 2017, to December 31. We will see how our relations evolve with the countries that imposed these restrictions on the Russian economy.

As for the question of keeping the restrictions in place indefinitely, if our partners lift the sanctions they imposed on us, we will have to do the same. Otherwise, Russia will face issues in the WTO. What I want to say is, first, we need to promote competition on the domestic market so that it benefits consumers, including those who live in major cities. Secondly, we very much hope that you will succeed in expanding your operations and enhancing your competitiveness, and we are doing everything we can to help you succeed. If you reach the same level of quality and labour productivity as your competitors, you will always have an advantage on the domestic market due to lower logistics costs. For this reason, we are providing indirect support, which is not prohibited under WTO rules. As a matter of fact, there are many loopholes that can be used, and we will continue to do so. However, you should not expect any massive, direct, or, should I say, aggressive support measures from us. Now is the time when you have to do everything it takes in order to become competitive in the near term.

Tatyana Remezova: Let’s cross to the call centre and hear a telephone call. Maria, you have the floor.

Maria Gladkikh: Yes, thank you.

Mr President, many people call about issues that they have been attempting to resolve at the local level for a long time. Finally, when they get desperate, they turn to you in a bid to get something done quicker. We have a call now from Trans-Baikal Territory.

Hello, you are on air. Please introduce yourself.

Natalya Kalinina: Hello,

Mr President, I am Natalya Kalinina, a resident of Olovyanninsky District, Trans-Baikal Territory. My village, Shiviya, was burned down entirely on April 29, 2015. I remain homeless to this date.

We were offered housing, but it was unfit for habitation. I have a small child and am a single mother. I have turned to all possible levels of authority, but have received no response anywhere. Our district officials have taken no action at all.

My daughter is set to begin school this year, but we have no place of residence registration. We are living in an old abandoned house. Mr President, please help us to obtain a decent place to live.

Thank you very much. God bless you.

Vladimir Putin: Ms Kalinina, please stay on the line. Which region are you in?

Natalya Kalinina: Olovyanninsky District, Trans-Baikal Territory.

Vladimir Putin: Trans-Baikal Territory? This is strange.

Yes, Trans-Baikal Territory was indeed hit by fires in the summer of 2015, and we disbursed in full federal money for providing the fire victims with new housing.

I do not remember the exact figure now, but I think it was a bit over half a billion rubles that we allocated, including over 300 million for resolving these housing problems, and this money was to have been spent on either buying housing or on building new homes for families such Ms Kalinina’s.

The region has a new governor, true, she arrived only in 2016. I will ask her to look into this situation and will also ask the prosecutor’s office to investigate where the money went and how it was spent. Whatever the case, we will resolve your problem. This is the state authorities’ duty. We promised to provide everyone affected by the fires with housing, and we will do this.

Dmitry Borisov: Maria, what are the updates? How many calls per minute is the call centre receiving? How busy is the line?

Maria Gladkikh: Of course, Dmitry, I can give you the updates. But first, I would like to show you how questions for the Direct Line are taken. Our operators fill in forms for every caller with their name, gender, age, occupation and, of course, their question.

For example, here we have a form for Ella Pavskina from Moscow Region who asked a question about kindergarten waiting lists. Every minute we receive 106 SMS and MMS messages. Our operators take around 127 calls per minute. The line’s maximum capacity is up to 456 calls.

Right now, we have a call from Ivan Tarkin in Vladivostok. Good evening to you, since it is already evening in your city. You are on. Please ask your question.

Ivan Tarkin: Mr President, this is Ivan Tarkin from the free city of Vladivostok.

Mr President, can you explain what is going on with the One Hectare programme? Mockery is the only word that describes it. You have to spend months on the website to register your plot and nothing happens, the website crashes all the time.

By the skin of my teeth, I managed to get a cadastral number, print the contract, sign it and submit it to the Vladivostok Land Committee, last February.

Since then, I have not been able to get it back for ever new reasons. A hundred years ago, Stolypin with his primitive tools never made such mistakes. Why is that?

Vladimir Putin: The Stolypin reference is appropriate here, of course. Do not forget that there were also so-called Stolypin trains that people were forced onto, and so-called Stolypin ties, which were nothing but gallows. But it is true; we must remember all the positive things that Stolypin did for our country. This is why there is a monument to him outside the Government House in Moscow. We do not have a death penalty now as you know, although sometimes, you know what I mean.

As concerns the hectare programme: first of all, the programme is going fairly well overall. I will speak about this in a minute. Primorye Territory is struggling with it the most, I will explain why.

Last February, we made a decision that any Russian citizen who wants to move to the Far East will be given one hectare.

The number of applications rose immediately. There are 92,000 applications now. Even the system that was designed to process them has glitches. About 27,000 of the 92,000 applications have been granted, which is more than a third. This is the first thing.

The second. In the European part of Russia, it takes up to three years to obtain a land plot, as disappointing as this sounds, while in the Far East it takes a little over two months to get this one hectare.

Your case is, of course, discouraging. What could be the matter is beyond my knowledge, but we will certainly try to help you. I am sure that the relevant ministers in the region are listening, as is Deputy Prime Minister Yury Trutnev. They will certainly respond.

What is the problem? The problem is that they do not have a proper cadastral register. This is their first problem.

The second problem is that too much land belongs to official agencies, like the Defence Ministry, the Academy of Sciences and all the departments involved in environmental protection. And so we have one figure on paper and a different one in reality. You have been issued a cadastral number, but when you started checking the data you found a disparity, and now you need to settle it with various departments.

I will try helping you in this. I will try helping my colleagues, the governors, coordinate these issues so that nobody else has these problems. I am sure that you will receive your hectare of land. Good luck.

Tatyana Remezova: We do receive many complaints from the Far East about the allocation of land under the One Hectare programme. At the same time, people from other regions demand to know when this programme will be spread around Russia. Vasily Denisov from the town of Blagoi in the Tver Region wonders if the One Hectare programme will also be applied in other regions, which must surely have unused land too.

Vladimir Putin: There is enough unused land in Russia. For example, over 43 million hectares of farmland is not being used for its intended purpose. This is a huge amount.

But first we need to complete the experiment in the Far East. As you can see, there are some problems, such as the one we heard about on the phone, although the situation is mostly favourable. In other words, we first need to test this process in the Far East. And we also need to settle the problem of cadastral registers.

Overall, I believe that the person who asked this question is right, and we do need to make use of this land. However, we should do it carefully so as not to create a secondary market for the land we allocate under the One Hectare programme because our people are very creative, you know: they can take several hectares first, then there will emerge a secondary market, and we end up with those hectares being resold many times without any tillage. Although the corresponding law says it all. This land is not being allocated as property. The land holders must show good result during the first five years, after which they will be able to receive either a long-term lease for this land or appropriate it. But they may not sell it to foreigners. In short, we need to test every detail of this programme in the Far East. But overall, it is the right idea.

Tatyana Remezova: Thank you.

Dmitry Borisov: This year, the call centre editors, and all of us working on the Direct Line, selected a number of questions not only to let a person ask it live over the phone, or to record a video message, but to immediately send a film crew to the scene to see with our own eyes, through the eyes of our colleagues, what is happening there, on site. The first such place is Balashikha, outside Moscow. Our colleague Dmitry Kaistro is there now.

Dmitry Kaistro: Hello!

It is raining today and visibility is not great, but giant rubbish heaps are clearly visible in the heart of this neighbourhood of Balashikha. This dump has been here for more than 50 years, poisoning everything around it, and rubbish trucks bring more all the time, day and night. This dump is even visible from outer space – it takes up about 50 hectares and is closing in on the surrounding houses.

We have worked here for several days, but when we arrived at the landfill, strong young people emerged wearing “environmentalist” T-shirts with ‘Environmental Control’ written on them. They showed us some kind of facility for processing rubbish, even decorated with balloons in the colours of the Russian flag – it looked like some proactive move. This was a perfect illustration of the place and the disaster that has rallied tens of thousands of people here. We did not even have to ask – people came to us to talk about the burning matter and ask their questions.

Yelena Mikhailenko: Hello!

We live here in the neighborhood of Kuchino, in Balashikha, and some of us are from Olgino and Pavlino. The situation here is terrible, simply unbearable in fact. There is a huge landfill, the biggest in Moscow Region, within our town, just 200 metres from residential areas, kindergartens and clinics, and only 20 kilometres from the Kremlin. This is a violation of Federal Law No. 89.

Fires occur on the landfill daily; it is impossible to breathe, and there is a constant release of gases, methanethiol and sulphur dioxide. They become converted to hydrogen sulphide, and we breathe it. Many suffer from nausea and vomiting, all the time. It is unbearable.

We have appealed to many government agencies at various levels, receiving only formal and noncommittal replies; we have it all documented. We do not know what to do. This is not only our problem; it is a problem for the whole country. We do not know what to do in this situation. Turning to you is our last hope.

Vladimir Putin: This is a very sensitive and complicated issue. I know full well what you are talking about. I have seen this waste disposal site. As the reporter said, it has been there for 50 years. By the way, I see that you are standing by a building that was clearly built less than 50 years ago. Someone did decide to build housing near a waste disposal site that has been there for 50 years. So let’s not forget the people who took the decision to build residential buildings in this area. The dump has been there for 50 years. Nevertheless, we have what we have, and it is our duty to respond. Of course, we are aware of the problem. There is special urgency to deal with it in the Moscow Region, Tatarstan, Tula and a number of other regions.

What measures will be taken? First, a decision was made to build recycling plants. Four of them will be erected in the project’s initial phase, and three of them will be located in the Moscow Region. By the way, advanced Japanese technology will be used, provided by Hitachi, if I am not mistaken, and the Rostec Corporation will be in charge of building these units. This should be done as quickly as possible. This is the first point.

The second point is that 5 billion rubles were allocated from the federal budget, which is a substantial amount, to resolve the most pressing issues we are currently facing in this area. This is clearly your case. I will ask the Governor of the Moscow Region and the federal Government to use these allocations to resolve the most pressing issues like the one you are facing. I hope that this will be done.

The law on waste management was adopted quite a while ago, but its enactment has been delayed time and again. I think now it is expected to come into force on January 1, 2019. Why was it rolled back? Because manufacturers have to pay recycling fees under the law, so during the crisis, manufacturers asked us to postpone these fees in order to lessen the burden on the economy. This is the first thing I wanted to say about this law.

Secondly, with regard to individuals, this law stipulates that certain environmental fees must be paid by individuals as well. However, the effect of paying these fees will not be visible right away, because it is first necessary to build something using these funds, after which the effect will become visible. All this time we had doubts: will the people understand this, and should it be done at all? I want to ask everyone who will engage in this work or is already engaged: the people will certainly understand if they see where the money is going, and to make sure they do, we need public oversight in place.

By the way, I would like to thank Russian Popular Front, which created the corresponding map. Hundreds of people are already working on this as they identify the most critical issues. With regard to Balashikha, we will look into this issue separately and try to fix it. I can understand perfectly the critical importance of this problem. It has been building up over decades. We will try to fix it as soon as possible.

Dmitry Borisov: By the way, Balashikha is one of the places I was talking about. We were choosing locations in the regions for these reports and these questions arrived on every one of the 12 days that we were taking messages from different regions. We chose Balashikha, and went there. You can see everything and get a good sense of what is going on.

Vladimir Putin: Well, of course. People are standing there, and it stinks to high heaven.

Dmitry Borisov: Unfortunately, the screen cannot convey the smell. You just saw what Dmitry Kaistro showed us. It looks like they have spruced things up a little, and built some kind of a line there in one day. However, we have a photo taken the day before. I just want to show it to you, if I may.

This is modern-day Balashikha, the picture was taken yesterday. In a matter of one day, the balloons suddenly appeared. It looks like the matter is being addressed. They are saying there is no problem whatsoever.

Tatyana Remezova: We now have Irkutsk Region online. Lake Baikal and its biggest island, Olkhon Island. Our colleague Pavel Zarubin joins us from there.

Pavel Zarubin: Hello, Moscow! Olkhon Island sits in the middle of Lake Baikal. Look how beautiful it is here. Shamanka Rock is one of the main attractions of the lake.

Later, we will see that almost all trees here are covered with beautiful ribbons, as, according to local legends, Shamanka Rock and Cape Burkhan are believed to be a special sacred place, a place of worship.

Of course, many tourists come to the Olkhon Island on Lake Baikal. Just imagine that 10 years ago there was no electricity in Khuzhir, from which we are broadcasting now, while now this town with a population of 1,500 has two or three thousand tourists every day in the summer – every single day!

The Yordynsky Games have begun in the Olkhon District. The games are a beautiful ethnic and cultural festival. Let’s take a few seconds to watch and listen.

Foreign tourists flock here to see the festival by the thousands; there are so many of them around! But the locals have complained that they live as if in a reservation.

The Russian nature conservation legislation was seriously tightened several years ago. The water conservation zone of Lake Baikal has been expanded inland by dozens of kilometres, and locals say that they will be unable to do anything here if they comply with the law.

They say that it is a major problem. Nearly all the residents of this town have said so, but Viktor was especially expressive.

Viktor, over to you.

Viktor Vlasov: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Let us begin with the road. The road from the ferry to Khuzhir is so bad that it is almost non-existent. Many people come here by car, and these are expensive cars, and so people drive off from the road, trampling vegetation so that it will take a decade for grass to grow here again.

Nobody takes care of this road. The last time the road was filled was 10 or 15 years ago. Local and regional officials always fly in by helicopter, and so they do not see the road and do not know what it means to drive on a road on which vehicles easily turn upside down.

Pavel Zarubin: Indeed, the regional bosses arrived here by helicopter an hour ago. There it is, the helicopter, you can see it.

Viktor Vlasov: A few words about the water. We live on water. Look how much water there is all around us, but we get our drinking water from wells. It is incredibly bad! You fill a three-litre kettle and think that it is full of water, but it turns out there is a layer of hard water build-up two fingers thick in the kettle. Our drinking water is not filtered, and they cannot even build a good water tower.

Pavel Zarubin: As I understand it, you cannot build a road there, or can you?

Viktor Vlasov: No, we cannot build a road because the law prohibits quarrying on the island. Quarrying is allowed only on the mainland. But it would be impossible to transport all the materials by ferry, which runs strictly on schedule.

Pavel Zarubin: So, is it also because of this law that you cannot build a road?

Viktor Vlasov: When the Baikal National Park was established, a reserve was set up on our island. When we met at the club with the representatives, they promised us the moon and said that no one was going to infringe on our rights and nothing bad would happen.

In reality, everything happened: we are not allowed into the forest, not allowed into the fields, and things have reached a point where even our cattle are arrested and we are told that if we let this happen again, our cattle will be shot.

Vladimir Putin: We were in Balashikha only recently and we saw there the conditions in which people are living. This is the result of the fact that environmental norms were ignored at one point and people built housing in places where this should not have been done.

We certainly must resolve this situation now. I would like to get back, because what I have seen made an impression and we must do everything possible to help Balashikha and help the people living there.

Your situation is the other side of the coin, but these are two sides of the same matter. You said that environmental norms and legal provisions were toughened, but these territories are no doubt protected by our international obligations as well.

What can I say here? Of course, everything should be within reasonable limits. The protected water reservoir zone that you speak of should conform to Baikal’s status and significance and meet the needs and demands of the people living in the area.

Of course, we cannot force people to carry buckets and cans of water for several kilometres. Water quality should be guaranteed and roads should be built. We must amend the current regulations and laws in such a way as to allow for economic activity, coordinated with the environmental organisations, in order to ensure normal and civilised conditions for the people living in these areas.

We need to make amendments to these laws. I have taken note of the matter. We will work together with you. I will say again that together with the environmental organisations we should do everything to ensure that things stay within reasonable limits. This is definitely necessary work.

I do not think this will have any negative impact on our commitments to international organisations. These organisations make people the primary focus of their work, so why should we not do the same? I see no reason not to. We will address this problem.

Tatyana Remezova: Thank you, Olkhon.

We received many questions from young mothers. This is why we went to a perinatal centre that has recently opened in the Republic of Bashkortostan, where our colleague Ivan Prozorov is working.

Ivan Prozorov: Colleagues, good afternoon,

We are in the Mother and Child clinic, a state-of-the-art multi-purpose centre, where high-technology surgery is performed, including under government quotas.

Of course, the main purpose of this centre is obvious from its name, Mother and Child. We are now in a ward for newborns, where mothers take care of their babies. By the way, we know that this mother and her child are about to leave the clinic. They will be home in a matter of hours.

This child was born less than two days ago. Both the mother and the child feel great, which should be credited among others to Ruslan Garifullin, who is an obstetrician-gynaecologist. He has been working at this centre since its first day.

More than 2,000 babies were born here in almost three years. Doctor Garifullin submitted a written question to Direct Line, and now he can ask it himself.

Doctor Garifullin, go ahead.

Ruslan Garifullin: Good afternoon, Mr President.

I am an obstetrician-gynaecologist, and have been working in maternity centres for 15 years. During my career, I had a chance…

Ivan Prozorov: Excuse me, my colleague is telling me that behind us you can see a ward where a young father has just entered with a newborn. Is that right?

Ruslan Garifullin: Yes, his child was born only a few moments ago.

Ivan Prozorov: Sorry for improvising. We knew that the operation was underway, but did not expect it to happen when we would be live.

Hello, you may not believe it, but this is Direct Line with Vladimir Putin. Millions of people can now see you. Congratulations on behalf of all of them. This is an incredible moment. What is your name, and how do you feel?

Artyom Sukharev: Hello, my name is Artyom Sukharev. This is actually my second child. He was born only 20 minutes ago, and I got to hold him right away. My wife is still in the intensive-care ward, while I get to know my child.

Ivan Prozorov: Were you nervous just as with your first child? Or was it less dramatic?

Artyom Sukharev: You know, I was less nervous, although there were still a lot of emotions.

Ivan Prozorov: Is it a boy or a girl?

Artyom Sukharev: It’s a boy. This is the second boy in the family.

Ivan Prozorov: Great, congratulations! What is his weight and height?

Artyom Sukharev: He is 3.8 kilograms and 54 centimetres long.

Ivan Prozorov: Have you chosen a name?

Artyom Sukharev: Yes, his name will be Mikhail.

Ivan Prozorov: Amazing. Can you show us the baby? Is he sound asleep right now?

Artyom Sukharev: No, he is trying to open his eyes. Everything is interesting for him.

Ivan Prozorov: Thank you, and once again congratulations. Please send our well-wishes to your spouse. We will not disturb you any longer. Thank you, and congratulations.

(Applause)

We are returning to the question. Ruslan, I am sorry we were interrupted. Can you repeat your question?

Ruslan Garifullin: This was a good reason for interrupting, great news. I will continue.

Mr President, here it goes. Over the 15 years of my career, I have seen the birth rate both in decline and on the rise, the latter in the past seven or eight years. However, right now we are actually afraid that the birth rate will begin to drop again as a backwash of the birth rate drop in the 90s. There are literally fewer women these days who are ready to have children.

In this regard, my question is, will the maternity capital programme, which expires in 2018, be extended? And will it cover the birth of a third child and further children?

Also, our new mothers are certainly concerned with the child allowance they receive once the child turns 18 months. At the moment they get paid a pathetic 50 rubles. It think it is a measly amount. Will anything change?

Vladimir Putin: First, I would like to congratulate Mikhail and his parents on his birth and the boy himself on coming into this world. It is a wonderful event for his family. We wish the parents and the child the best of luck and happiness.

Now to the demographics. Indeed, we have done a lot to turn the demographic trends towards stable growth. We have achieved a very positive result.

The birth rate in Russia is growing faster than across Europe. When I say that, many of my counterparts are surprised and honestly happy for us. Now, what I want to say about the trends is the following.

Russia suffered the biggest loss in terms of population and demographic development during the Great Patriotic War in 1943 and 1944. In 1943, the birth rate fell by 60 percent compared to the pre-war years.

During that time, fewer than one million children were born in Russia, in the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. In the 1990s, also due to difficult events, we had 1.2 million children borne, which is similar to the demographic loss during the war. The drop was around 50 percent.

Surely, we must take into account that the second case was also a repercussion of the Great Patriotic War to an extent, added to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the social welfare system, the drop in the quality of life, and massive unemployment. All these factors together resulted in a catastrophic birth rate decline, and it comes back every 25 years.

First the war, then every 25 years, and in the mid-90s the collapse of the Soviet Union and everything it entailed affected the picture. Eventually, we almost fell back to the level of the Great Patriotic War.

And what do we have as a result? The number of young people, primarily women of childbearing age, as professionals say, has plummeted. The generation that was born in the 1990s has entered this age.

The number of young women aged between 20 and 29 has decreased by 34 percent and the number of women aged up to 38 or 39 has dropped by 25 percent. Women aged between 30 and 40 continue to have children, and these are healthy kids. We should be grateful to medical advances for this. But still, the decline is tremendous. The number of people who can become parents has decreased.

We must do something to prevent the demographic gap from becoming wider still. What can we do? First, we have a number of tried and tested systems. You have mentioned one of them – maternity capital. By the way, over 7 million families, over 7 million mothers have received maternity capital, and nearly half of them have used it. This is our first achievement.

Second, allocations for a third child have been introduced in the regions with an unfavourable demographic situation. As a result, the birth rate has increased by 37 percent there. Yes, we have achieved the desired result. Our measures are effective, although they are also expensive. But we are talking about our people, our citizens, and our future. We must analyse all aspects of the problem very carefully. Of course, we must not squander funds, but neither should we be stingy with them. Therefore, we need a set of various measures, such as the extension of the maternity capital programme as it exists or in a new form.

We must think about encouraging young women to have their first babies, probably by allocating funds to them. Why so much attention to young mothers? Because they are still young, and so we should help them by giving them a start in life. We must also think about encouraging older mothers, that is, mothers aged 30 or more, to have their second and third children.

We have resolved the problem of kindergartens for children aged between three to seven. It is a major achievement of our social policy in the past year. As far as I know, there are places for 89 percent of children in this age group in kindergartens. But we do not have enough day nurseries.

We must have nurseries for young mothers who do not wish to interrupt their careers or would like to have one. We need a programme and a package of measures. I can tell you that we have plans for a government meeting to discuss this issue. I will not speak here about the measures we will discuss, but they are on the agenda.

Tatyana Remezova: Thank you, Ufa, and congratulations on the birth of a new citizen of Russia. It is a wonderful event. While we were answering your question, we received a question from Tatyana Prokopenko in Kabardino-Balkaria. She is asking about your grandchildren. How old are they, and what are their names?

Vladimir Putin: You know, my children, my daughters, despite all the rumours, live here in Russia, in Moscow. I have grandchildren and they live a normal life too. My daughters are involved in science and education and they stay out of the public eye, out of politics and live normal, everyday lives. As for my grandchildren, one of them is already in kindergarten.

The thing is, you see, I do not want them to grow up like some royal princes. I want them to live like ordinary people, and for this, they need to have a normal environment and ordinary interaction with other children. The minute I give their names and ages, they would be identified immediately and would never be left in peace, and this would be quite simply detrimental to their development. Therefore, everything is fine, and I ask you to understand me correctly and show understanding for this position of mine.

Tatyana Remezova: We understand you and we congratulate you on being a grandfather.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you. My second grandchild was born recently.

Tatyana Remezova: Congratulations!

Dmitry Borisov: You said that the maternity capital programme should be expanded. We have received many messages from mothers in the regions asking for the new law to allow them to spend the maternity capital on purchasing a car, which is often an essential thing for large families.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, there have been frequent discussions on the possibilities of spending the maternity capital, which today comes to slightly more than 450,000 roubles. The maternity capital was not indexed over the last couple of years, the last three years even. This is something we must do and we will come back to this.

As for whether this money could be put towards other purposes, this is something we can reflect on. The only thing that has always worried me is that the money will be simply wasted and the mother, family and children will not receive the benefits of this state effort. This money is destined above all for improving housing conditions. Yes, this money is probably not enough to buy housing, but it can help towards buying it. Young families can also join one of the regional programmes for supporting young families and spend the money through these programmes. Alternatively, it can be spent on health or education. These are the main priorities.

Given the main issue people face today – the drop in incomes – we could perhaps take the simple approach of making it possible for part of the maternity capital to be given directly to the family, only part of it, to support families with two or more children. Perhaps this would be more effective than allowing people to spend it on something that is not a priority and then see it wasted, possibly the item being sold, and even at a loss. Perhaps it would be better to let people have part of the money in today’s circumstances. We will reflect on this.

Dmitry Borisov: Still, maternity capital is a lot of money – 450,000. But child benefits, as they report from various regions, are paltry: 183 rubles or 200 rubles.

Vladimir Putin: I am sorry. One of our colleagues, a doctor, has already asked a question about benefits. Yes, they are small. Indeed, they are, but we had a choice: either to increase the benefits or keep maternity capital. We opted for keeping maternal capital. It is a major financial commitment for the government, but it is a more effective tool. Still, we need to think about benefits, too.

Dmitry Borisov: I would like our guests in the studio to join in the conversation. Nailya Asker-zade. Please go ahead.

Nailya Asker-zade: There are representatives of small and medium-sized businesses among our guests, and they complain about problems with financing. One of the business leaders here, Alexander Kychakov from Novosibirsk, develops residential neighbourhoods.

Mr Kychakov, your question please.

Alexander Kychakov: Hello, Mr President!

The business community is often confronted with one and the same problem: although banks declare interest rates of 11–12 percent, the actual rate in our particular case reaches almost 19 percent – 18.75 – through additional mark-ups and charges required to open credit lines, to maintain limits, or to meet restrictions. With such rates, as I mentioned, we will not be able to build a new economy, and unfortunately, business is unlikely to be as profitable as we would have liked. I would like to ask a question. My colleagues will confirm: we just sat here and talked with Maxim, who owns an equipment-making business. I would like to know: do your ministers report to you on the real state of affairs with the financing of small and medium-sized businesses, and whether the Government plans to do anything with the level of interest rates and take steps towards solving the problem of ensuring growth and access to financing.

Vladimir Putin: Excuse me, what is your name?

Alexander Kychakov: Alexander Kychakov.

Vladimir Putin: Alexander, this, of course, is one of the key problems – the interest rates and the availability of loans. We have the head of the Higher School of Economics here, who would probably explain this to you, even more professionally than I would, especially since he is close to the Governor of the Central Bank.

Why does this happen? Of course, the interest rate always corresponds to the level of economic development. This is one of the key things that affects the country’s macroeconomic stability. We had to act based on inflation, which surged to 12.9 percent. The Central Bank was forced to raise this rate, otherwise it would have sent the economy tumbling, but it is reducing the rate gradually, as you know, it is now 12.5, and the rates of commercial banks are also falling. True, the Central Bank promised us that this year the volume of financing from commercial banks will be increased to around 6 percent.

What is happening today? Today, the average weighted rate for corporate borrowers is 11.5 percent. Small businesses probably have to pay a higher interest rate, 11.5 percent is the average figure. Incidentally, regarding this and other subjects we will be discussing, I would like to apologise right away to people who say, “What does the average weighted indicator mean for us? This is like calculating the mean temperature of hospital patients. Some people have bigger loans or lower incomes, and few are what you call average.” We need some kind of reference point. What does an average weighted interest rate mean to us? Clients whom the banks view as reliable, stable, transparent and with a good credit history can borrow at even lower rates, while at-risk borrowers can take out loans only at a higher interest rate. As I have already said, we are talking about an average interest rate of 11.5 percent for corporate borrowers and 15.5 percent for individuals. Nevertheless, mortgage lending is on the rise, through all the initiatives to facilitate lending.

I very much hope that the Central Bank continues to move cautiously towards reducing the key interest rate.

Why has the Central Bank adopted such a cautious approach? Unfortunately, the Russian economy still depends on oil and gas. The price of natural gas depends on the price of oil, and a special formula is used to calculate it. The price of oil has recently exceeded $50, and today it is only $48, I think. The Central Bank believes that if it declines, the key interest rate would have to be adjusted. What matters most for us right now is not the key interest rate itself, but avoiding any sharp fluctuations in the key interest rate. We need to ensure a stable exchange rate for our national currency, the ruble. This is what underpins the Central Bank’s cautious approach. Some may like it, others may not. I am simply trying to explain the Central Bank’s logic. It deserves respect.

There is no doubt that small businesses should be supported. I will not go through all the mechanisms we have in place for supporting SMEs, you probably know them, and these mechanisms should be further improved.

We also have to create incentives for the banking sector to act more aggressively. One thing to keep in mind is that profits of private banks are on the rise and have exceeded 650 billion, which is a substantial figure. At the same time, this kind of growth does not translate into more lending. In fact, corporate lending has increased by only 0.7 percent. The rise in consumer lending was somewhat more pronounced, but this is not enough. We have to work together and be cautious so as not to shake up the macroeconomic landscape. This is the foundation of Russia’s financial system and its entire economy.

Tatyana Remezova: Let us hear from the call centre. Maria Gladkikh.

Maria Gladkikh: Thank you.

Mr President, the geography of calls is all over the map. We get many calls from the CIS and beyond. Our editors are telling me we have a call from Kiev.

Dmitry, please ask your question.

Question: Good afternoon. My name is Dmitry, and I live in Ukraine.

Why did you abandon us? Not everybody in Ukraine supports Bandera and Shukhevych. We honour the memory of our ancestors. We march with the Immortal Regiment. Why does Russian television smear us all with one colour?

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much for your views and for valuing our shared history. You just mentioned the Immortal Regiment. We do see and appreciate that, believe me. And I cannot agree with you that Russian television smears everybody with the same colour, black.

Overall, we make sure not to paint anyone black. But we are cautious about giving you excessive public support, which could actually harm you. We try not to interfere in Ukraine’s domestic affairs.

Once again, trust me, we can and do highly appreciate your stance. Thank you for your call.

Tatyana Remezova: Mr President, what do your friends say on this topic? For example, Viktor Medvedchuk, who was actively involved in the exchange of POWs in Donbass?

Vladimir Putin: You know that we have many allies in Ukraine. You just mentioned Viktor Medvedchuk. I met him when he was Chief of Staff of President Kuchma’s Administration. He mainly cooperated with Dmitry Medvedev, who was Chief of Staff of the Russian Presidential Executive Office. They are still on very good terms.

Medvedvchuk has his own beliefs. My opinion is that he is a Ukrainian nationalist but he does not like this description. He considers himself to be an enlightened Ukrainian patriot. It is not a secret that his father was an active member of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists and was convicted by the Soviet court, went to prison and then was exiled to the Krasnoyarsk Territory, where Medvedvchuk himself was later born.

He has his own views on Ukraine’s independence. He is, of course, an ardent supporter of Ukraine’s independence but his belief system is based on fundamental treatises of those whom we can hypothetically describe as Ukrainian nationalists and who wrote their treatises in the 19^th century and later on. These are Grushevsky, Franko, Dragomanov and the like. Then comes the man of our time, Chernovol.

All of them – I would like to emphasise that all of them proceeded from the premise that Ukraine should be independent but as a federal state. Moreover, one of them wrote that excessive, “mechanical” centralisation, as he put it, would lead to internal conflicts in Ukraine and this is, actually, what we are witnessing today.

But Viktor Medvedchuk is upholding their view; he is doing this on-the-record in his public speeches and papers. He is involved in scholarly studies. He writes articles and he does all this publicly. Probably, some people in Ukraine do not like this but such is his position.

Incidentally, these fundamentalists of Ukraine’s independence and Ukrainian nationalism – some of them did not see Crimea as part of Ukraine at all, but this is apropos. At any rate, all of them favoured federalisation, greater freedom of the individual and democratic development of the Ukrainian state.

Mr Medvedchuk shares this viewpoint but that said, he stands for very good relations with Russia, for economic integration, if not for some form of union. He says it is absurd to destroy the advantages we inherited from the past, referring to the common infrastructure, common energy grid and common financial and technological potentials and cooperation. It is absurd to destroy all this.

He believes economic cooperation is not only possible but also rational. He is acting or rather formulating his ideas proceeding from the interests of his people, the way he sees them. So he is not alone.

We have just heard from Kiev or from Ukraine anyway, from a man who told us that he is taking part in campaigns linked with our common memory. Such people as Medvedchuk are also doing this. He also thinks we should cherish our common past and all the positive events of the past.

Yes, he is involved in the exchange of detainees, prisoners of war, if we could call them that, and he is doing this on instructions from Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

Dmitry Borisov: We have a follow-up to the Ukraine theme.

Here is a question that came through VKontakte social network. “Ukraine widely celebrated the beginning of visa-free travel with Europe. President Poroshenko referred to this as bidding the final farewell to the Russian Empire. After that, he quoted Mikhail Lermontov’s poem, “Forever you, the unwashed Russia! The land of slaves, the land of lords …”

Would you like to answer him?

Vladimir Putin: No, I did not see his remarks on this account. However, I was told about them yesterday, I will not hide this fact. Indeed, Mr Poroshenko thought it fit to read this excerpt from Lermontov’s poem, “Forever you, the unwashed Russia! The land of slaves the land of lords, and you, the blue-uniformed ushers, and people who worship them as gods.” First, this tells us that he is familiar with the Russian classical literature, and takes an interest in it. I commend him for that. However, this is not the end of this poem. There is the second part, which runs as follows: “I hope, from your tyrannic hounds to save me with Caucasian wall, from their eye that sees through ground, from their ears that hear all.”

Mikhail Lermontov was a forward-looking man, and he wanted the political situation in Russia to improve. He was smothered by the atmosphere that prevailed in Russia at that time. And he talked about it openly.

First, if it was Mikhail Lermontov who wrote this poem, he wrote it approximately in 1841–1842, if memory serves, when he was headed for the Caucasus to join the active army. He was an officer and defended the interests of his homeland. He was a brave officer.

Further, at that point, the regions that are considered Ukraine today were Russia’s regions, and if the President of today’s Ukraine quotes Lermontov as saying that he is leaving for some other place, Lermontov referred to entire Russia, including the areas that today are known as Ukraine. So, there is nothing special to brag about here.

Also, Lermontov was going to the Caucasus, which was part of the Russian Empire at that time. He moved from one part of the empire, St Petersburg, his native land, to another part of the Russian Empire. He was not going anywhere outside of Russia as a matter of fact.

Perhaps, Mr Poroshenko is thus sending us a message that he is not going anywhere, either. However, he does it so finely, looking over his shoulder at the jingoists and the real nationalists, numbskulls running around waving swastikas. However, he is telling us: guys, I have my interests in Russia, and I am really not going anywhere. This may be the case as well.

Of course, this is nothing but conjecture. In fact, most likely, Mr Poroshenko wanted to show his voters that he is delivering on his promise by making a civilisational choice, as the Ukrainian leadership puts it, by leading the country towards Europe.

By the way, remember the line, “the blue-uniformed ushers, and people who worship them as gods?” The place he is taking Ukraine to has more blue uniforms than our country. So, he should stay alert to keep out of harm’s way and look around carefully.

To be sure, we have nothing against these guys. I want to say: we have nothing against you, live in peace and harmony, and good luck to you, especially with new recruits.

As for the core of the matter, you know that incomes fell here a few years back, and this is something we speak about frankly. Our average wage, if we put it in dollars rather than convert between rubles and hryvnia, was around $540 a month. Wages in Ukraine were similar, with an average of somewhere in the range of $450, $457, or $460. Wages here have not grown much, but they have grown, and the average was $624 a month in April this year, while in Ukraine, they have dropped to $251 a month.

At the same time, gas prices have at least tripled, and households are paying even higher prices. Cold and hot water costs have also risen, by 200 percent each, and pensions have decreased by 45 percent. If this situation continues, many people in Ukraine will face sanitation and hygiene issues.

Who gets to wash, where, and how often will become a big issue. Of course, Russian and Ukrainian literature both offer memorable and blunt examples that I could use to respond to Mr Poroshenko, but I will not do this out of respect for the Ukrainian people and for our common history and common faith.

If someone wants to become a European, they should first close their offshore accounts and then talk about the good of their people. In this respect, one quote comes to mind. I cannot quote it exactly, word for word, but I can convey the message.

Close to 170 years ago, Taras Shevchenko said, “Ukraine has fought to the point where it suffers more at the hands of its own children than it ever did at the hands of the Poles”. I hope that this period in the life of Ukraine and its people will end.

Tatyana Remezova: We have a question from the Stavropol Territory. One of our crews went to the author of this question in Krasnokumskoye, a village that was badly damaged by the May floods this year. We have our colleague Mikhail Akinchenko there.

Mikhail Akinchenko: Good afternoon.

The weather has created many problems for people in the Stavropol Territory. Even today we have been bothered by rain. Of course, it is much lighter than the showers that hit the region in late May and resulted in the worst floods in 50 years. Krasnokumskoye was one village that was badly affected. The overflowing Kuma River flooded some 400 buildings and household plots.

Locals recorded the flood on their smart phones. You can see what happened at the site where we are now. It was flooded for about three days, and the water was about a meter deep or even more. Three weeks later, many people still cannot return to their houses. They are damp and the walls are cracked, so it is unsafe to live in them or even go inside, like this house. The owner, Valentina Sokovskaya, called Direct Line to ask a question. Valentina, what are you doing now?

Valentina Sokovskaya: I am putting away the children’s stuff because it will get more damp and smelly if I leave it here. I will move it to save at least some of it.

Mikhail Akinchenko: Valentina, I know that you have been promised financial assistance for repairing this house or for buying a new one. I see that you are not doing anything yet. Why? You can share your problem with the President, who can see and hear you. Tell him.

Valentina Sokovskaya: Hello, Mr President. There is not much to tell. I have not received any money from the government. The walls are cracking, the ceiling is shifting, and the plaster is crumbling. The house has cracked on all sides.

We are waiting for the inspection commission; we cannot do anything until it comes. But the commission will not come until we pay an architectural fee of 6,000 rubles. Also, we must pay 1,800 rubles for certificates to prove that we have nowhere to live. But there are four owners in this house, which we bought with maternity capital, and the total we have to pay is high, about 15,000 rubles. We don’t know what to do. We are living with friends, and we have sent our children elsewhere. I have three children, but I only have the youngest with me. My daughter is in a health camp and my son is with my relatives. But I don’t know how long this can last. It’s good that it’s summer and we have friends, but what will we do in the autumn and winter? Frankly, we are at a loss.

Vladimir Putin: I see.

Valentina Sokovskaya: We hope that maybe you will be able to help us in one way or another.

Vladimir Putin: Excuse me, what was your first name?

Valentina Sokovskaya: Valentina.

Vladimir Putin: Valentina, what you have just said is very strange. I simply cannot get my head around it. Can I ask you whether you received the 10,000-ruble allocation and 50,000 rubles for partial loss of property?

Valentina Sokovskaya: No, we have not received anything so far.

Vladimir Putin: Nothing at all?

Valentina Sokovskaya: I am not the only one in this situation. There was no aid.

Vladimir Putin: This is very strange, since the funds for helping the affected families were transferred from the federal budget to Stavropol Territory. I would like to ask the Governor of Stavropol Territory, where did the money go? This is the first thing.

Secondly, I would like to ask the Prosecutor General’s Office to check how the work is proceeding.

Thirdly, the fact that you are asked to pay fees to architectural agencies or for receiving certificates of some kind is total nonsense.

You are entitled to 10,000 rubles for your immediate needs, another 50,000 rubles for partially lost property, and 100,000 rubles for unrecoverable property. The municipal, city and regional authorities must deliver all the relevant certificates free of charge, without shifting the burden on to you. We have decided on these allocations of 10,000, 50,000 and 100,000 rubles in order to help people, and did not intend to get the money back by charging people for certificates. This is complete nonsense. Be assured that we will look into this.

Valentina Sokovskaya: Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: I hope that the Governor visits you as soon as today.

Valentina Sokovskaya: We hope so too.

Vladimir Putin: He should look into this situation.

Tatyana Remezova: Thank you very much. We will wait for a response.

We are now travelling from the Stavropol Territory to Rostov-on-Don. Our colleague Anton Vernitsky is reporting from outside the new Platov Airport.

Anton Vernitsky: Platov Airport, which is currently under construction 30 kilometres from Rostov-on-Don, was named after Matvei Platov, a prominent chieftain of the Don Cossack Army and hero of the 1812 war. The airport is 90 percent completed and will receive its first flight in December.

Why is this project unique for Russia? While other Russian airports were upgraded or restructured, this airport was built from scratch. Only three years ago, there was nothing here. Now there is a facility that can receive up to 5 million passengers a year. It is equipped with state-of-the-art equipment. Nine jet bridges. Those who saw the old Rostov-on-Don airport where our crew arrived will notice the difference immediately. The old airport does not even compare to this.

Why are we here? Almost 3,000 construction workers and engineers are working here on a daily basis. Alexander Serov is a future member of the staff. He will be receiving passengers. For now, he works at the old airport. He sent his question to Direct Line, and we called him away from his work and invited him here to ask his question to the President in person.

Please, go ahead.

Alexander Serov: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Before I ask my question, I would like to invite you to the opening of Platov Airport next December. We really hope that the completion of such an ambitious and perhaps unique project will not go unnoticed by you.

Now, let me ask you a question. My colleagues, my friends, a large number of passengers and I cannot fly directly between Russian cities. The itineraries require transit via Moscow airports. Passengers have to make a stopover in Moscow and lose precious time or instead travel by train or by car. Are there plans to expand the domestic flight network to connect our regions directly?

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Alexander, you have raised one of the most urgent issues both as regards transport accessibility and preserving the unity of our territory. Our people must have the opportunity to move within regions not via capital cities. You are absolutely right.

However, regrettably, this network collapsed completely here in the 1990s and early 2000s. As you know, for several years we have been working to restore it and put it on an entirely different footing. However, distances in the Far East and Eastern Siberia, where this issue is particularly urgent, are great while the population is not big enough to fill up large airliners. So the economics of interregional flights is difficult. Everything has to be subsidised. But we have set up, I think, seven public enterprises to organise interregional domestic flights. This is the first point. They are operating and I am hoping we will expand their activities and number to other regions of the Russian Federation. This is the first part.

The second is the expansion of the airport system, the number of airports. I think we have 230 or 232 airports in all, and a whole programme to develop the airport network. We will continue working on it and funding it.

The third matter is the availability of adequate equipment because, let me repeat, even if you build an airport… By the way, we will have an absolutely new airport that will be built from the ground up in the open country for the first time in Russia’s recent history. Importantly, it is being built using the latest methods and technology. This is vital for transport infrastructure both at the national and regional levels.

However, for a flight from Rostov to Sochi, for example, neither a Boeing nor Il-96 could be filled up. We need small planes and they must be of different haul – those that cover 400–500 km, 1,000–1,500 km or from 2,000 to 4,500 km. We are now localising the production of small modern aircraft that have earned a good reputation with a view to producing them in Russia.

We also want to bring back a slightly bigger aircraft – the Il-114, I think. Regrettably, the Government did not find the money and I will reprimand them for this. They did not find the funds to develop this aircraft that is critical for us, considering our vast territory.

Nevertheless, we found an opportunity and earmarked several dozen billion from Rosneftegaz for the relevant programme designed for several years. This aircraft will be manufactured at a modern facility in the Moscow suburbs and I hope very much that everything will be done on time. In any event, I am almost certain that we will make it. At any rate, we know about this and will continue working to fulfil this extremely important task.

Tatyana Remezova: Thank you, Rostov.

Now let us give the floor to our guests again. Olga Ushakova’s section, please.

Olga Ushakova: Thank you.

Mr President, we have representatives of the creative intelligentsia here today, our favourite actors, directors, who certainly have questions for you, things they want to ask.

I would like to give the floor to Sergei Bezrukov, National Artist of the Russian Federation and artistic director of the Moscow Gubernsky (Provincial) Theatre. Please go ahead.

Sergei Bezrukov: Good afternoon, Mr President!

First, I would like to thank you for your work on children’s issues. On May 29, you signed the Executive Order On the Decade of Childhood. We are grateful for this, and for the support of children’s theatres. We have discussed this at the forum in Omsk. Thank you so much. I hope that it will be annual, because they do need support.

So, the question that really worries us, my colleagues and me, I cannot help but ask it. Something monstrous is happening, as I see it, with regard to Alexei Uchitel’s film – I am sitting next to him, but I will take it upon myself to explain – the film Matilda.

At first, we thought it was a joke. But then, when checks and inspections began, when people who have not even seen it tried to ban it…

Also there was the Gogol Centre and the incident with Kirill Serebrennikov. Kirill’s place was searched, then the theatre, and in no time rumours started about attacks on freedom of speech, freedom of artistic expression, freedom of creativity.

Who needs this? Certainly not you. But it looks like someone is trying to create negative feelings toward the authorities among cultural figures. I would like to hear your opinion on this matter.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We have a big and complicated country, with many people with various views, various points of view, various assessments. There used to be many films featuring the imperial family in former times, I mean they concerned, in one way or another, the imperial family, Rasputin and so on.

There was a lot of that. Those films were much more hard-edged, I would say, than what your neighbour did, Mr Uchitel. I know him personally, and respect him as a person who is very patriotic, for all I know about his views, and who does very talented things. But I would not like to interfere in his dispute with State Duma deputy Poklonskaya. She also has the right to her point of view.

You said that they are trying to ban the film. No one is trying to ban it. She has a stance, she is trying to defend that stance by appealing to various authorities, but no prohibitive decisions have been made on this matter, as you know.

I am really counting on continued open dialogue in our society, but I urge everyone to maintain dialogue within the bounds of decency and, most importantly, within the framework of the law.

Mr Uchitel wants to say something. Yes, please.

Alexei Uchitel: I will not criticise or praise anyone.

Mr President, the absurdity is that – well, one certainly can express their point of view, when they see something. But when I saw Ms Poklonskaya on June 12, I invited her to see the film. She refused. This is what I see as absurd.

I would think that the Duma has, for example, a Committee on Culture headed by the amazing director, Stanislav Govorukhin, where they could deal with this issue. But sending … Why waste government money on sending the Prosecutor’s Office, the Treasury, the Accounts Chamber to inspect us first? They all do the same thing. We show the document that everything has already been checked and everything is in order, and they are doing the same thing.

I would say incitement to this is unacceptable.

Vladimir Putin: Yes.

Dmitry Borisov: Natalia Yuryeva is ready to join us.

Natalia Yuryeva: Thank you colleagues.

This year, for the first time in real time we can see how social network users are reacting to our programme.

NTV launched the hashtag #watching the line a few days before the programme, and we now have 120,000 messages. Another 365 messages have come in as I was speaking.

People say that the internet audience does not watch TV, but we see here that this is just an opinion and nothing more. The most active users live in Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod Region, and Krasnoyarsk Territory.

Let us see now on the screen the post that drew the biggest number of likes. Here it is: Krasnoyarsk residents are waiting to be resettled from khrushchyovki [Khrushchev-era 5-storey apartment blocks]. If Muscovites oppose the plan, try the experiment on us. Hashtag #watching the line.

I suggest we now take a video question that has come to the call centre.

This is a video call via the OK Live service. Hello, you are on. Please put your question to the President.

Question: Hello, Mr President.

I have a category-one disability. My name is Klavdiya and I live in Orel. Could you tell me please why those entitled to federal benefits in this area are not receiving their medicines in full? Why are we forced to fight for our medical provisions in courts? For six months now, I have not been receiving the medicines I need: Cinacalcet, paracalcitol, and mircera.

Vladimir Putin: I heard your question. This is odd to me too, because the federal authorities have ensured full funding for the acquisition of these medicines. There could be some problems related to delayed purchases and delays in…

Remark: I have appealed repeatedly to Vadim Potomsky and Alexander Lyalyukhin, but I am always told that under Federal Law 422, federal beneficiaries will again receive 707 rubles and 22 kopecks and they cannot provide us with the full range of medicines for this money.

Vladimir Putin: We will look into what they can and cannot provide. There are some medicines and some illnesses, the so-called orphan diseases, which I know for certain receive federal funding and are covered in full. Let me say again that there can be glitches due to delays in holding tenders and purchasing these medicines. But there should be enough money for all of these medicines. I promise – the main thing is to remember where you are, I understand that you are in Orel –we will definitely look into this situation.

Remark: Thank you very much.

Can I ask another question?

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.

Question: Mr President, could you please enact a law so that patients can be transported for haemodialysis from their homes and back?

Vladimir Putin: I remember that this issue was raised last year, including the possibility for providing this treatment at home.

As for transporting patients, I have to be honest that this is the first time that this issue has been put to me this way. I promise you that we will definitely look into it. We will also think about the transport issue. Of course, this will require additional spending, but this is a very sensitive topic and a very important thing for people who are suffering from diseases of this kind. Be assured that we will look into this and do our best to find solutions.

Remark: Thank you very much. It was a great pleasure and honour for me to be able to talk to you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you, Klavdiya, for this call.

Dmitry Borisov: I would like to thank the call centre.

And now we are live at the Baltic Shipyard in St Petersburg with our reporter Dmitry Vitov.

Dmitry Vitov: We are at the Baltic Shipyard’s outfitting quay, where the construction of a unique vessel, the Arktika nuclear icebreaker, is about to be completed. It will be a successor to the legendary Soviet icebreaker which was the first surface ship to reach the North Pole in 1970s. This new icebreaker was floated out last year, and the nuclear reactor has already been installed.

Mr Ryzhov, as you were telling me, what is its overall propulsion power?

Yury Ryzhov: The icebreaker’s overall propulsion power is 60 MW.

Dmitry Vitov: So the foreign newspapers are right when they call it the biggest and the most powerful icebreaker in the world?

Yury Ryzhov: This is the largest and the most powerful icebreaker in the world with the highest icebreaking capability.

Dmitry Vitov: Mr Ryzhov works in the shipbuilding department. I hope that you will not take it as an offence if I call you an elder of this plant. How many years have you been working here?

Yury Ryzhov: I am one of the oldest employees here. I have been working at this plant for about 50 years.

Dmitry Vitov: The history of the Baltic Shipyard goes back 160 years. Your career lasted one third of its history.

Mr Ryzhov has told me that the Baltic Shipyard has always been regarded as a unique experimental facility. It built the first metal ships and the first Russian submarine a hundred years ago. It also built gunboats and battleships. It did not stop working during the Great Patriotic War, when it built barges for the Road of Life. In the 1990s, which was yet another difficult period in Russian history, the shipyard built heavy nuclear-powered missile cruisers such as the Pyotr Veliky, which are serving in the navy.

The people I have talked with told me that the most difficult time in the shipyard’s history was the early 2000s, when private owners almost bankrupted the shipyard, because they only wanted the land on which it stands on Vasilyevsky Island in the centre of St Petersburg. They probably wanted to build luxury housing or malls here. But the government has saved the shipyard. Right?

Yury Ryzhov: Yes, you are right. The early 2000s was probably the most difficult time for the plant and its personnel. The number of people working at the plant dropped from 12,000 at the best of times to 3,000. The shipyard stopped building high-tech nuclear-powered battleships and only turned out unpowered bulk oil barges. The situation is improving now, thanks to the state and the President. We have a thick portfolio of state contracts until 2021.

Dmitry Vitov: Mr Ryzhov, you can ask the President your question.

Yury Ryzhov: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Yury Ryzhov: I have a question from the Baltic Shipyard staff and myself. What will happen to the plant? What could we do in light of the Government’s Arctic development plans and Arctic projects? Will you use the shipyard’s rich, unique experience of building nuclear-powered vessels? Do you have modernisation, construction or further development plans for the plant? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: The Baltic Shipyard is a flagship of our shipbuilding industry. You just spoke about the history of the shipyard. I know about the difficulties the plant faced in the 1990s and the early 2000s. When I worked in St Petersburg, we tried to support it and make sure it got orders. By the way, we managed to keep the plant going, and it was also helpful for the Navy. Those rough attempts to privatise the Baltic Shipyard are, thank God, in the past. I am talking about rough and fraudulent schemes.

Nowadays, the United Shipbuilding Corporation is growing, and the shipyard is developing. And it will keep developing. We saw you near the new Arktika nuclear icebreaker. Our plan is to build four icebreakers of this class. I think you know about this. The first one is the Arktika; then there will be the Sibir and the Ural. They all have a high power of 60 MW. By 2025, another icebreaker class will be developed, even more powerful, twice as powerful as those that I just mentioned, one of which you are finishing. The new class will have a power of 120 MW. If the first class breaks ice up to three metres thick, the Lider will be able to deal with unlimited amounts, any thickness. All this is due to the latest technology which the Baltic Shipyard is mastering very fast thanks to its prior experience and the opportunities of modern developments.

Therefore, what can I say? We have included the necessary funds in the budgets. The prospects for the Lider are more distant and the funding options are not yet clear, but I am certain we can accomplish this.

I want to point out that nuclear icebreakers of this class are not built anywhere else in the world. Russia has them because we need to operate in the Arctic. As you said, we need to establish ourselves there, and we will do it. There will be plenty of work for the shipyard. I am certain the plant will not only retain its team but also expand it. I wish you all the best.

Tatyana Remezova: Mr President, I have a question coming from the website of our programme: why are we so focused on the Arctic? For the past 20 years, no one spoke about it, and today we see Arctic troops even at the Victory Day parade. A lot of money is spent on the Arctic. Why is this being done?

Vladimir Putin: While we are on this subject, what else can I say? I have already started talking about this. The Arctic is an extremely important region, which will ensure the future of our country. Mikhail Lomonosov once famously said that Russia would expand through Siberia. I can say with confidence that Russia’s power and capabilities will expand as we develop the Arctic region.

As I mentioned at a meeting held in the Arctic, by 2050 about 30 percent of all hydrocarbons will be produced in the Arctic area. Some of our major projects are already being implemented there with NOVATEK building a plant, a company town, an airfield, and a port in the Arctic zone. Production has already begun in the Arctic.

Therefore, from an economic point of view, this is critically important. Especially so if the climate is going to change. Despite a cold spell in Moscow, the global warming trend will continue, meaning that the navigation period in the Arctic zone will get longer. In turn, this means that the Northern Sea Route will be used much more actively than now. The navigation period will go from the current one or two months to four and even five months.

The so-called non-regional powers are showing an active interest in this region. That is a good thing, and we are willing to cooperate with them, but we must ensure our priority interests.

I went to Franz Josef Land recently. The people who work there told me that many tourists go there, including those from other countries, and some tour guides have already told tourists that these islands used to be part of the Soviet Union.

This should put us on alert, as it is our territory. So, we need to ensure the use of these routes, develop our economic activity in these areas, and ensure our sovereignty over these territories. Let us not forget about the purely military aspect of the matter: it is an extremely important region from the point of view of ensuring our country’s defence capability.

I do not want to stoke any fears here, but experts are aware that US nuclear submarines remain on duty in northern Norway, the time it takes a missile to reach Moscow is 15 minutes, and we need to have a clear idea of what is happening there. We must protect this shore accordingly, and ensure proper border guarding.

On top of everything, from the point of view of strategic weapons, the flight route of the ground-based missiles located in the United States passes precisely above the North Pole. I hope it will never come to that, but since we are aware of it, we just need to make sure that the missile warning system and the missile launch control system are in place.

This is what the Arctic means to us. We had not engaged in this work before not because it is unimportant, but because we were unable to afford it. We just let it go, as, unfortunately, we did many other things that are critically important for our country. Now we are back to it, I hope, for good.

Dmitry Borisov: We can now go back to St Petersburg so that you can ask a second question.

Dmitry Vitov: We have been able to get a glimpse of people working at the plant. These are incredible people. Not everyone would be able to work in these conditions.

For example, welder Alexei Bogdanov has been telling me that while you can learn the welding profession elsewhere, it is only here that shipyard welders work, on the building berths and the outfitting quay.

Apart from professional matters, local workers, just like St Petersburg residents in general, have questions on broader issues. Ivan Brattsev is a worker who builds icebreakers. Ivan, you have a question. Go ahead.

Ivan Brattsev: Good afternoon, Mr President.

We work in the Baltic Shipyard, where we build the most powerful and the largest icebreakers in the world. However, my question is not related to industrial matters. Many residents of this wonderful city, myself included, are eager to hear your personal perspective on the future of St Isaac’s Cathedral.

As someone who was born and grew up in St Petersburg, do you think that it would be right for the city to keep the cathedral and preserve it as a museum and an architectural landmark or transfer it to the Russian Orthodox Church?

Vladimir Putin: I did not expect this question, especially from the Baltic Shipyard.

What I can say is that Russia is a secular state. This is the way it was created, and it will stay this way. This is my first point.

Second, after the October Revolution, the state went to great lengths to destroy our spiritual and religious roots, and was unwavering and cruel in pursuing this objective. Many churches were razed to the ground.

Back then the state attempted to come up with a quasi-religion and replace the Bible with the Moral Code of the Builder of Communism. It did not work. Many cathedrals were demolished; many priests perished, were killed, sent to camps or executed by firing squads.

And the traces of what happened back then are all around us. Here in Moscow, not far from where we now are, the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour was razed to the ground. It was not uncommon for churches to be used as stables or workshops. Thank God St Isaac’s Cathedral was spared.

You know, of course I looked into this issue. It is true that this cathedral never belonged to the Church. Throughout its history it was operated by the state. However, the Tsar used to be the head of the Church, so if we see it this way, the Church did own the building. It was built as a cathedral, as a church, not a museum. It was intended for worship, for people to pray there.

And what did they do there in the Soviet days? They set up Foucault’s pendulum to demonstrate the rotation of the earth. In fact, it was a museum of atheism, a quasi museum of atheism. In a sense, it was a subtle mockery of people’s religious feelings. However, hundreds of thousands, millions of people, including foreigners, visit it. There is no getting away from this fact.

So yes, we have a law passed, I believe, in 2010 on the transfer of religious buildings to religious organisations, and we are supposed to enforce it. At the same time, we have international obligations and other laws that ban the transfer of architectural landmarks under UNESCO protection. There are some disagreements, but I believe we can easily overcome them if we ensure both museum activity and the exercise of religious beliefs. I do not want to jump ahead of myself, but such solutions have been found in other countries. Say, St Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican – people go there and there are guided tours.

Therefore, it is important to depoliticise this problem, to stop thinking about it as such, to respect people’s religious feelings and never forget that this building and structure was built as a church, not as a museum. Nevertheless, it should retain its function as a museum, of course.

How can these interrelations be fostered? As a matter of fact, it is not so difficult. Simply, there should be no agitation, no exploitation of this issue. People should not be provoked and used as a tool in some petty internal political squabbling.

Dmitry Borisov: The call centre again, Maria Gladkikh.

Maria Gladkikh: Yes, colleagues, our statistics show that women are more active: 62 percent of those who have called are representatives of the fair sex. And now an urgent question from Svetlana Romanova in Chelyabinsk.

Good afternoon, you are on. We can hear you.

Svetlana Romanova: Good afternoon, Mr President,

I have a vegetable plot. I have been using it since 1981. A cottage was built there. No construction regulations were violated. A natural gas pipeline is more than 100 metres away from the plot.

In 2014, a bylaw was passed extending the exclusion zone from 100 metres to 150. As a result, many vegetable gardeners received a court summons and were ordered to tear down their houses without compensation. Is that legal? Will there be a law to protect us?

Vladimir Putin: Well, I am returning to the subject of Balashikha once again. Housing was built near the rubbish dump that had been there for decades. Now residential units were built near pipelines. Then they decided to expand the restricted area and are trying to evict residents. Is this fair or not? This is unfair.

I think this law must be changed. In any event, those people that already live in these buildings must be left alone. Of course, it is necessary to do everything for their safety, but they must be left alone.

It is possible to prohibit the construction of new buildings in the 150-metre area, but those who already live in the 100-metre area must be left alone. I will do everything to encourage the adoption of this decision.

Dmitry Borisov: We have been on the air for a third hour running. Natalya Yuryeva is collecting video messages, among other things, in the call centre.

Natalya Yuryeva: Our next question comes from Jeremy Bowling from America, who not only sent it to our editorial office but also posted it on YouTube. There were heated debates in the comments on this video call – will we put it on the air or not. Even bets were placed. I betted on the positive answer. Just kidding. By the way, Jeremy Bowling said himself that we were unlikely to put it on the air. But let us still listen to it.

Jeremy Bowling: Greetings, Mr Putin. My name is Jeremy Bowling. I live in Mesa, Arizona in America. I am a big supporter of you. I am very pro-Russian and I wish you much health and success in your life. My question to you is this. As an American who sits here in America and sees the racist Russian phobia running crazy in my country, what advice would you give me to help set the record straight, to help my fellow Americans understand that Russia is not the enemy?

Vladimir Putin: To begin with, I am very grateful to you for this call. And I can tell you as the current head of the Russian state that I know the attitudes of our people. We do not consider America our enemy. Moreover, twice in history when we were going through very hard times, we pooled our efforts; we were allies in two world wars. In the past, the Russian Empire played a substantial role in helping America gain independence and supported the United States. We see that Russophobia is running high in America and think this is primarily a result of the escalating political infighting.

I do not think I have the right to give you any advice. I simply want to thank you for this stance. We know that we have very many friends in the United States. My American colleagues told me so, and public opinion polls show the same results. At any rate, those polls taken a month ago show that we have many friends there. True, regrettably such hysteria is bound to affect the frame of mind, but let me assure you that there are also very many people in Russia who have deep respect for the achievements of the American people and are hoping that eventually our relations will get back on track, in which both we and the United States are extremely interested.

Tatyana Remezova: People in this studio also have questions about our relations with the United States.

Olga Pautova has the floor.

Olga Pautova: I suggest talking on this subject some more, considering that when we were preparing for this programme and speaking to our guests, it became clear that this is an issue of concern to practically everyone. Even today, shortly before we were to begin, international issues were being discussed up until the last moment.

I am giving the floor to a person whose question is of concern not only to Russians, but to everyone in the world, without a doubt. Konstantin Remchukov, Nezavisimaya Gazeta Editor-in-Chief.

Konstantin Remchukov: Good afternoon, Mr President. I would like to talk about Russian-American relations. One of the current trends, as you and an American guest have said, is that bilateral relations are deteriorating and there is Russo phobia along with daily reports about new anti-Russia initiatives, including sanctions. At the same time, there is a growing demand not only for stabilising but also for improving Russian-American relations.

At a Senate hearing the day before yesterday, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said something to the effect that every time he met with his foreign colleagues since his appointment, they asked him to stabilise relations with the Russians. He indicated that his colleagues from the Middle East and Southeast Asia had the same request. This is how he explained the need to act during a hearing on the 2018 State Department budget.

In three weeks’ time, the G20 will convene in Hamburg, where you are to meet with US President Trump. Is it possible that these talks will help prod this negative trend towards a more positive one and possibly even towards a radical improvement in our relationships with the United States? In what areas and on what issues can Russian-US cooperation be productive and mutually beneficial? I believe that these questions are of concern not only to people in Russia and the United States but many other countries as well.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: As someone with experience and well-acquainted with the subject, you know as well as I do the areas in which we can work together with the United States. This includes, above all, control over non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We are the biggest nuclear powers and so our cooperation in this area is absolutely natural. This is an area of crucial importance and concerns not just the North Korean issue but other regions too.

Then there is the fight against poverty, fighting environmental damage and so on. We know the position the current US administration has taken on the Paris Agreement, but President Trump is not rejecting discussion on the issue. Cursing and trading barbs and insults with the US administration would be the worst road to take because we would reach no agreement at all in this case, but it makes no sense to seek agreements without the US, which is one of the biggest emitter countries. We must work together to fight poverty in the world. The number of people earning a minimum income has increased in Russia, but there is a disastrous situation in many parts of the world, and this is one of the sources of radicalism and terrorism, this poverty around the world, and we must decide together how to address this problem. Here, we must work with our other partners too, work with China, India and Europe.

By the way, we worked together with the United States to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue, and we did reach an agreement, we did find a solution. There are positive examples of cooperation then. The previous US administration directly recognised the substantial role that we played in resolving this issue. We can reach agreements and work together then. Of course we can.

On the Syrian problem and the Middle East in general, it is clear to all that no progress will be made without joint constructive work. We hope greatly too for the United States’ constructive role in settling the crisis in southeast Ukraine. A constructive role, as I said. We see then that there are many areas in which we must work together, but this depends not only on us. We see what is happening in the United States today. I have said before and say again now that this is clearly a sign of an increasingly intense domestic political struggle, and there is nothing that we can do here. We cannot influence this process. But we are ready for constructive dialogue.

Dmitry Borisov: I see someone has a question in Vera Krasova’s sector. Let us go there.

Vera Krasova: Thank you, Dmitry. Russia-US relations are of interest to representatives of the machine-building industry. We have Alexei Bakulin from Volgograd Region in our studio.

Good afternoon, you have the floor.

Alexei Bakulin: Good afternoon, Mr President.

You mentioned the aggravation of the internal political conflict in the United States. Indeed, the world is following the conflict between President Donald Trump and former FBI Head James Comey like a television drama. As is customary, “Russian influence” has been detected. What is your take on this situation, and what are its possible implications?

Vladimir Putin: I am not familiar with the details of Mr Comey’s testimony, but I am aware of certain things, of course. What are my thoughts on it?

The first thing that caught my attention was that former FBI director said that he believes that Russia interfered in the US election process. He did not provide any evidence, as usual, but he said there were attempts “to shape the way we think, vote, and act.” Is that not the way it is all over the world? What about the unending US propaganda and funding of US-oriented NGOs? The funds are allocated directly to this end. Is this not an attempt to influence our minds and our actions during election campaigns? It goes on year after year.

Take a globe, give it a spin, and point your finger randomly. You will point to a place where the United States has interests and has most likely intervened. I know this from my conversations with almost all leaders and heads of state. They just do not want to fall out with the Americans. No one talks about it openly, but everyone is saying the same thing.

Therefore, there is nothing unusual here. What do they want? Do they want everyone to bow down? We have our own opinion, and we openly express it. This is not some kind of subversive activity. We simply express our point of view. This is my first point.

Secondly, he said that he has no evidence of us interfering in the vote count. Thank God for that.

Next, he said quite unexpectedly that he had written down a conversation with the President, and then passed along this conversation to the media through a friend. It sounds and looks very strange when the head of an intelligence agency writes down a conversation with the commander-in-chief, and then passes it to the media through a friend. How then is the FBI director different from Mr Snowden? In that case, he is not the head of an intelligence agency, but a human rights activist who takes a certain position.

By the way, if he is persecuted in any way for this, we will be willing to grant him political asylum in Russia as well. He should know that.

Dmitry Borisov: The call centre is receiving so many questions that I simply have to pass the floor to Natalya Yuryeva.

Natalya Yuryeva: Thank you.

Our call centre is about to reach its peak capacity. We have received more than 2 million calls. Every minute, our operators receive 1,700 video calls.

Social media is on fire, especially the OK Live service. About one thousand people are watching the live broadcast and waiting for the opportunity to ask the President a question. Here is a question from one of them.

Hello, you are on the air. Please, go ahead with your question, and do not forget to introduce yourself.

Andrei Bol: Hello.

My name is Andrei Bol, and I am from Nakhodka in the Primorye Territory. I am worried about coal dust, since coal is shipped through here in the open. How are we supposed to live?

Vladimir Putin: Of course, this is not good. We have to look at how the work in port facilities is organised. It is probably a tradition to have coal transported through the city from or to the port. We have to look at who owns the port, and how it operates.

Could you please tell me where you are? Where is this place?

Andrei Bol: Near the Primorye Territory.

Vladimir Putin: But what port are you talking about?

Andrei Bol: The one in Nakhodka.

Vladimir Putin: Nakhodka? Very well. We will look into it, and how it all works. We will try to respond in such a way as to minimise impacts on the people and the environment.

What is your name?

Andrei Bol: Andrei.

Vladimir Putin: Ok, Andrei, we will look into it with your help, and get in touch later. Leave your contact details, and you will tell me later what measures were taken and whether people living in the area noticed any difference.

Andrei Bol: Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you for your call.

Natalya Yuryeva: And now let us see what people are writing on the internet with the #СмотрюЛинию [#WatchingLine] hashtag. For example, we already have 171,773 comments on social networks. I will ask you to show one of the most recent posts. Let us take this one, “Reading the #СмотрюЛинию [#WatchingLine], I see how many concerned young people we have, who understand that the social lift is first and foremost an opportunity to be heard and to influence the situation in the country.” User Natalya Pochinok, thank you very much for this comment.

Colleagues, could we now put through a call from Odnoklassniki? Our editors have contacted OK Live users. Let us continue looking at what people are writing on social media.

They will show us another #СмотрюЛинию [#WatchingLine] comment: “I am watching the Direct Line. The President started talking about the main things, but I think there is no topic in today’s Russia more important than fighting corruption; this disease has metastasised and hinders development in many areas.” Colleagues, you have the floor.

Dmitry Borisov: Another important issue that worries our TV viewers is the situation with the so-called optimisation of healthcare, Mr President. We have sent a film crew to one of the people who complained. We will now connect to Murmansk Region.

Oleg Shishkin: We are in the Arctic, in the centre of Kola Peninsula, the town of Apatity in Murmansk Region. The town appeared in the 1960s near a major deposit of apatite ore.

With a population of more than 50,000, the town, according to local residents, is currently struggling with problems of healthcare accessibility, which actually means the inaccessibility of healthcare. A clear example of this is now behind me – the unfinished building of a new hospital.

Physicians were to move here from the old building. This is an abandoned nine-storey building practically in the centre of town, with the walls deteriorating and the floors falling apart, and there is no way the construction could be resumed, but the local residents complain of a shortage of doctors.

I have here Darya Starikova. She is a very courageous young woman. Darya has a serious disease and practically lives off painkillers. Several days ago, Darya wrote to Direct Line, and it was a real cry for help. Naturally, we could not ignore her. So we are here for Darya to directly address the head of state.

Darya, please go ahead.

Darya Starikova: Good afternoon, Mr President.

I am Darya Starikova, and I am 24. I was diagnosed with stage four cancer. Because the original diagnosis was intervertebral osteochondrosis, the time for effective therapy was lost.

As I received treatment for my back, with injections and massage, I ended up in hospital with a haemorrhage. The diagnosis was made at the hospital. Mr President, we have a lack of specialists who can make diagnoses in time.

Our maternity hospital was closed, our surgical department was closed, our cardiology department was closed, and everything was moved to the neighbouring city of Kirovsk. We have to go there to get medical care. On top of that, they send us for complicated operations and tests to the city of Murmansk, which is a five-hour drive from us. Not everyone can afford it, and not everyone can go there.

I am asking not for myself, I am asking for the city, for our residents, for all the people who live here. I am asking you to help restore the hospital, restore everything. You know, sometimes our “emergency medical service” arrives too late. We have only the admission department left. They bring people [to the hospital] too late.

My friend’s mother did not make it to the hospital. She died of a heart attack on the way in an ambulance. She was not even 50. People are worried. This has happened repeatedly. We have often raised the hospital issue.

We are asking you, please help. We want to live, not survive. We are pleading for help. We need everything in our city to get back to normal.

Vladimir Putin: Dashenka, look, I do not usually speak about my personal affairs and my private life, but now, looking at you, I feel that I must tell you that the same thing happened to my father.

He was being treated for back pain. They gave him massages, heat treatment and so on. My mother told me that my dad was crying out in pain at night. It was only then that I had him moved to another hospital. There, he went through everything that you are going through.

But even at that stage, treatment was found. This was many years ago now, but quite effective treatment was found, and he departed this life not because of the illness with which he was diagnosed. So, I urge you not to lose hope. For my part, I will give this my attention and look into what I can do to help you personally.

On the subject of medicine, I can say to you, to all present here, and to all of our citizens, that we are very well aware that there are problems with medicine everywhere, and patients everywhere are critical about what is happening in this area. This is the case practically all around the world.

It was for this reason that the previous US president began carrying out reforms in this sector and passed a law that drew a lot of criticism, and now the new president has essentially repealed this reform. Similar things are taking place in Europe.

Our problems are no fewer, and are perhaps even greater. Nonetheless, over these past three years we have built and opened ten times more new medical facilities, mostly medical centres, than over the previous period. We built 2000 medical facilities over the past three years. There are problems related to a lack of specialists in some areas, and this is why the waiting lists remain.

The queues look different now though, because it is not a case of people queueing up in the waiting room to see the doctor. Rather, they queue for numbers now. This is no better, though, and we need to move over to electronic queues, and make sure that they work in practice.

Finally, most importantly, we must ensure access. This is the top priority for medicine today – to guarantee access to medical aid. In your case, of course, we will take a very close look at the situation. I do not know what the healthcare managers were thinking in this region, including in Apatity.

Apatity is a mining town and it is clear that people work there in difficult conditions and require particular attention from medical personnel. They probably took the purely formalistic view that it was not far to travel from Apatity to Kirovsk.

Nevertheless, people are encountering problems that you have raised. We will definitely look into this. Either we need to build this hospital, or we need to upgrade and reopen the old hospital. I promise you that we will work on this.

Dasha, we will look into the situation with your problem too.

Tatyana Remezova: Thank you, Apatity. Let us wish Dasha a swift recovery.

Vladimir Putin: Best wishes to you and get well soon.

Tatyana Remezova: Messages and requests the call centre has received include those from people asking for assistance with joining the army. We have never seen such a surge in the number of people wishing to serve.

Volgograd is on the line but we will come back to it later. We are getting back to the studio and my colleague Nailya Asker-zade.

Nailya Asker-zade: Thank you, Tatyana.

We have young professionals from the WorldSkills movement in the studio. It is an international association that improves professional training standards.

For example, Arkady Bodryagin from Chelyabinsk is 19 years old. He has already received a medal for professionalism in hospitality at a European WorldSkills championship.

Arkady, what is your concern?

Arkady Bodryagin: Mr President, good afternoon. First of all, thank you for supporting our movement. We are cooperating closely with large corporations but we are also interested in working with small and medium-sized businesses.

Can you give us advice on how to establish a reliable channel with them?

And one more question. WorldSkills members are pragmatic people and we care about our future. In light of this, do you plan to increase the retirement age? If yes, when?

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Answering the first question about building relationships with small and medium-sized businesses, you know our SMEs are developing despite all the issues that were mentioned before – the gentleman behind you pointed out business loans as one of them. However, they are developing, maybe not as fast as we would hope. It is particularly good that hi-tech SMEs are among them.

We have a new export item, IT technology worth $7 billion, which is unprecedented. Our IT exports used to be zero. This industry is developing at a rapid pace.

Here, first of all we need to pay attention to these successfully developing companies. We have some. This is my first point. They exist by themselves.

Secondly, there is something I would like to draw your attention to, something I could advise. I will say this, and they will now hear it too. Our large companies need to develop whole networks of small and medium-sized enterprises around them. They should not simply buy what they need abroad when they can rely on our small high-tech companies. Therefore, you need to reach out to small and medium-sized businesses through the companies where you work today.

As for the second question, you know that we are actively discussing the possibility of raising the retirement age. Some experts believe that increasing the retirement age is unavoidable, citing other countries’ experience, including neighbouring countries such as Ukraine, and nearly all the others, Belarus for instance, let alone Europe. With Europe, the comparison would be weak, bearing in mind the life expectancy there, so we had better take the neighbouring countries. But they have already made this decision, and we have not. I think the issue should be treated with great care.

In case there are any rumours that the decision has already been taken: no, it has not. However, it is indeed being discussed; it is being discussed at an expert level and at the government level. Experts believe that if we do not do this, the level of pension coverage will go down, meaning pensions will shrink. At the same time, the workforce – workers having to collectively raise money to provide for the pensioners, so to speak – will decline due to demographic problems and structural changes. The number of unemployed will increase, and the number of people with jobs will fall.

These are the realities that we are facing. We must bear this in mind. Yet, such decisions should be made in a balanced manner, without any fuss or haste.

Dmitry Borisov: I must note another issue too. We have had many messages from pensioners who continue to work. They say that if the pension age is suddenly raised, whenever this may be, we should be aware that people are already facing problems now.

One person, aged 52, cannot find work anywhere. This is an appeal from Moscow, a message from a carpenter. Then there is a woman from the Kaluga Region who says that she is 42, but already at this age she is not getting any job offers and she is worried about her future employment prospects.

Vladimir Putin: In this area, we need to find solutions to a different issue, namely, the question of ensuring timely and high quality retraining programmes for people, human resource retraining programmes.

We need to ensure human resource mobility, in other words, give people the opportunity to move from one region to another. But they cannot just arrive and live at the railway station. We must think about where they will live and prepare the relevant infrastructure. This is a big, multi-faceted and multi-dimensional undertaking.

We are aware of this problem and are working on it. It is particularly important in the so-called single industry towns. Plans have already been drafted and are being implemented. Of course, it is clear that we must intensify our efforts in this direction.

Tatyana Remezova: Let’s move from the pension age issue to the question of the military conscription age. When we looked at the messages, we saw cases where people complain that they have been turned down for the military on the grounds of age, but they want to join the army. They ask you, what can they do in this case? There are many people who want to do military service.

We have Volgograd on the line now. Right at this moment, new recruits are taking their military oath, and our colleague Dmitry Petrov is there.

Dmitry Petrov: Hello. We are here at the Mamayev Kurgan, at the foot of the Motherland monument. The remains of 35,000 soldiers and officers killed during the Battle of Stalingrad are buried here. This is sacred soil and a sacred place.

Today, the new recruits of the 20^th Guards Independent Carpathian-Berlin Red Banner Order of Suvorov II degree Motor-Rifle Brigade are taking their oath of loyalty. This is a decorated unit with rich military traditions, and, of course, it is a great honour for the young soldiers to take their oath at this site.

We see how the young men come forward and before the ranks pronounce the words of the oath before the Russian Federation flag and the unit’s banner. Gathered here are those who care most about these young men: their parents, relatives, loved ones and friends. They have come from various parts of the country, from wherever the young men have come from. This occasion is tinged with sadness for them, of course, but it is a celebration too.

Let’s meet them. Hello, please introduce yourself, which soldier is yours?

Question: Good afternoon, my name is Vladimir. Today is a notable day. Today, my son is taking the oath of allegiance at this great place. I have come from Sergiyev Posad in Moscow Region. My son made his own decision to serve in the Armed Forces after studying at a medical college – the Third Medical College – for two years, and he declared his wish to serve his Motherland. As a reserve officer, I welcomed his decision.

Dmitry Petrov: Vladimir, this is Direct Line with the President. Moscow can see and hear us, and you can ask the head of state any question.

Question: This is very unexpected, of course. Mr President, as a reserve officer, I am interested to know how our Armed Forces are doing in Syria and would like to ask what lessons our Armed Forces have learned and what the prospects are for our troops there.

Vladimir Putin: First, Vladimir, I would like to congratulate you and your son on taking the oath of allegiance today. This is a great event in the life of any man, any Russian citizen, especially those of us who voluntarily choose this path in life – serving in the Russian Armed Forces and serving our nation.

Now regarding your question. What lessons have been learned, and what have our Armed Forces gained from the operation in Syria? There are several aspects here.

Firstly, this is of great value for our defence industrial sector. The use of the newest weapon systems has made it possible for us to understand how they work on the battlefield and improve the quality of these advanced weapon systems.

We knew that our weapons are good anyway, but when we saw how they perform on the battlefield – this is an entirely different story.

Furthermore, representatives of the enterprises go to places where these weapons are used, see how they work, make adjustments, and this is not just some fine-tuning but serious, thorough work. This is as far as the defence industry is concerned.

Regarding the Armed Forces as such, I can say that this experience in using our Armed Forces in combat conditions and with the newest weapons is precious. I am saying this without any exaggeration.

You know, even our Armed Forces have acquired a new quality. Some subunits were created only recently and were employed for the first time, and they are very effective.

As for what we plan to do there, we are going to foster a peaceful political settlement between all the parties to the conflict. Our task in the near future is to upgrade the level and combat capability of the Syrian Armed Forces and proceed to the facilities that we have created in Syria, including in Hmeimim (Hmeimim airport) and the Tartus naval base, leaving the Syrian forces to operate effectively and achieve required results on their own. However, if necessary, we would be able to provide them with operational support in fighting terrorist groups, including by employing our combat aviation. These are our plans.

Tatyana Remezova: Ok, let us continue. It is time now to go back to the call centre. Maria, how many calls have you received so far?

Maria Gladkikh: As of now, we have received 1,345,000 calls and 474,000 SMS messages for Vladimir Putin. Twenty-five percent of the callers are aged 35 to 55 and 63 percent are over 56.

I do not know the age of the next caller but the editors are telling me he is from Crimea. Alexander Bochkarev has a question that bothers not only Crimean residents but also tourists.

Alexander Bochkarev: Good afternoon, Mr President. This is Alexander Bochkarev. My question is: will the Kerch Strait Bridge be built within the timeframe you promised? It is very important that by the time it is complete there are convenient access roads.

Vladimir Putin: Construction of the Kerch Strait Bridge is going according to schedule and even a little ahead of schedule. I will not go into how far ahead now, but at the moment there is no doubt that the project will be completed on time and with the proper quality, which is most important.

The cost of the bridge is known, it is a bit over 200 billion. But access roads are a separate and pressing issue. We need to make sure that roads are built on the Crimea side, the Kerch side and the Taman side.

The work has begun in general. We will keep a very close eye on it. I hope this project will also be finished successfully. Without access roads it would be ridiculous. The lack of access roads would create a bottleneck on either side. We cannot allow this to happen.

Dmitry Borisov: I see we got a question on Odnoklassniki. Irina Shpakovich from the Khabarovsk Territory is asking: “The bridge over the Kerch Strait is almost finished. Will the bridge to Sakhalin ever be built?”

Vladimir Putin: True, the speculation started long time ago, there were plans back in the 1930s and the 1950s. Under Stalin they were thinking about this and even drew up plans, but they were never acted on.

Now we are reviving these plans and thinking about this issue. Of course, connecting Sakhalin with the continent would be very helpful for restoring the territorial integrity of the country.

It would be possible in this case to organise the movement of goods from Asia to Europe via Russia and thus to enhance the importance of the Trans-Siberian Railway. However, building a bridge is not enough. In this case, it would be necessary to expand the Trans-Siberian Railway although it needs expansion anyway.

Naturally, it is necessary to involve the interested states – and they exist – in funding the project. In general, in tentative estimates the cost should be lower than that of the Crimean Bridge – about 286 billion. These are preliminary estimates. However, this is not enough because apart from a bridge crossing, it is necessary to build access routes and the entire road interchange.

By the way, there were proposals, which are being studied now, to build a tunnel rather than a bridge, and this is also possible. A decision has not yet been made but we are thinking about this.

Dmitry Borisov: Irina got her answer.

Let us continue talking about the issues raised by our television audience

We will now hook up to the remote city of Nyagan in Khanty-Mansi Area. Our TV crew went there in response to a message from Enzhi Barsukova.

Anton Lyadov, please.

Anton Lyadov: Good afternoon, Moscow!

We work in a shift camp in Nyagan. It is hard to believe, but these trailers built for workers in Soviet times as temporary accommodation are not being used as sheds or shacks. They have become permanent homes for whole families. For instance, this one has been here since 1979, that is, for almost 40 years. There is no indoor plumbing. There is an outhouse and the residents had to build each one themselves. They used washtubs or went to their friends’ place for a shower. Today some of them have baths in their trailers but not all. However, there is no sewerage and when they take a shower the water goes right into the ground through wooden boards and their trailers are gradually sinking into the ground.

We are entering this 40-year-old trailer. It has no hot water in summer – only cold water and if you have no filters, it is brownish with rust. Conversely, there is no cold water in winter. The problem is that the two pipes – the heating main and the water pipe – run alongside each other and one warms the other, so sometimes we get boiling water from the tap. Anastasia has lived here since she was two. Recently she gave birth to her baby Arseny. Vladimir and Irina have lived here for 35 years. Enzhi Barsukova who sent the message to you has lived here for 30 years.

Ms Barsukova, in winter temperatures fall to minus 50 C. What do you do not to freeze to death?

Enzhi Barsukova: Come on, I will show you. Residents of our shift camp put blankets on doors, insulate doorways with blankets and old clothes. They use everything they can to keep it warm.

Tatyana Remezova: Unfortunately, we got disconnected.

Vladimir Putin: The equipment fails under the impact of this report.

Tatyana Remezova: Yes, the equipment could not cope with this shocking story but we can see what is happening there. Vladimir Putin: Wait, maybe we can get connected again. No?

Tatyana Remezova: We will try to fix it.

For now, let us switch to another city, where our film crew is also working – they travelled there in response to a complaint sent to you, Mr President.

So, here is Izhevsk and our colleague Pavel Krasnov.

Pavel Krasnov: Good afternoon!

This is the city of Izhevsk. One of the many questions concerning housing and utilities services in general or dilapidated housing in particular arrived from here. How old this housing is, you can see for yourself.

This is a wooden barrack, of which Russia, unfortunately, still has thousands. But this particular barrack in Izhevsk’s Proyezd Chapayeva is really in a terrible state. I think that the camera, the video does not even fully convey how it all looks in reality. This barrack has already been listed as dilapidated, but people still had to complain to Direct Line, to the head of state.

Anastasia, hello!

You asked your question. Please tell us what happened. The President is listening.

Question: Hello, Mr President!

My name is Anastasia.

You can see the conditions we live in. These apartments are damp in the summer and cold in the winter. We have to keep the heating stove going around the clock, but warm air still seeps out through the cracks in the walls. Children are constantly ill, and in each apartment there are two or three children. But the worst thing is, we are afraid that the ceiling will collapse, God forbid, on the children, and on adults. Our house was already classified as dilapidated and put on a waiting list for demolition and relocation in 2029. Mr President, how can we live in such conditions for another 12 years?

Vladimir Putin: What can I say? Ridiculous, of course.

Appropriate resources have been allocated from the federal budget for relocation; we have extended this programme for relocating people from dilapidated housing, and yours is clearly dilapidated, so what could I say. I can imagine what is happening in your region, and I know the amount of money allocated for relocating people from dilapidated houses. On the whole, the programme is progressing well around the country, and at a good pace, but it is completely ridiculous and unacceptable to postpone relocation for decades.

I will visit your place. I plan to be in Izhevsk, and I will drop by and see what is happening. We will talk in person there, ok? Agreed. I have a business trip to the region planned, so I will drop by. I was in such houses, as you know. This is a big problem, but for me there is nothing unusual there. This is why we developed the programme for relocating people from dilapidated housing. By the way, we have many such houses, unfortunately. They make up approximately two percent of the country’s total housing stock, about 80 million square metres, as much as the area of new housing built in the whole country every year. This problem is huge and painful, but it needs to be dealt with. And we will continue dealing with it.

I will drop by, and we will talk.

Dmitry Borisov: Such reports are coming not only from Izhevsk, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: I am aware of it.

Dmitry Borisov: We have many from different regions. People live in hazardous wooden houses in Kirov Region, and many others.

We are now back to Nyagan in Khanty-Mansi Area. Let us try again. Are you back, Anton?

Anton Lyadov: Hello, colleagues.

Yes, we can hear you. Indeed, the connection is unstable here.

Ms Barsukova was just telling us how the people manage to survive in 40-year-old trailers in -50C during the winters.

Please continue.

Enzhi Barsukova: We use sawdust as insulating material for our houses. This is our way of keeping the cold out.

Anton Lyadov: You have been trying to resolve this issue for many years now. Now, the President can hear and see you. You can talk to him directly.

Enzhi Barsukova: Thank you.

Mr President,

We have a programme in the area to demolish the trailers and resettle their residents, but it is a fairly drawn-out process. I came here when I was young. I am now retired but still do some work for a living. I raised two children in these harsh conditions. How much longer will the people in the North live in such conditions? We ask you to speed up the demolition and resettlement programme in Nyagan.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I am aware of this problem. You may have noticed that the issue of relocating people from these trailers in the Baikal-Amur Mainline (BAM) area was raised for the first time in 2010, when I was Prime Minister, and then we even had a direct conference call with Tynda. The resettlement programme was adopted, and we resettled, I believe, 9,000 families. Suddenly, we found out that there were 10,000 more. That is the way we crunch the numbers, I guess. Nonetheless, we will continue with this programme.

With regard to trailer parks, the snag is, and you are aware of it, that they are not counted as housing in the books, and that is why they did not make it into the run-down housing relocation programme. Nonetheless, such a programme was put together, and local authorities came up with about 1,500 families. According to my information, more than 500 families have been relocated, and 1,000 plus families await their turn.

Firstly, the Housing programme is properly funded for this, including for 2017. We will keep allocating these funds until we achieve our goal. We will absolutely achieve it, and, of course, we will try to speed it up. What do we need to do, and what will I ask my colleagues in the regions to do? We need to have an accurate assessment of the scope of this plight, and how many people need to be relocated. One and a half thousand is an understatement, I think. We should avoid the situation we had in the BAM area where we originally had 9,000 families and then 10,000 more appeared as if out of nowhere. The funds must be set aside in advance. So, please make sure we have accurate estimates of the number of people who need help and support.

We will continue this programme and try to speed it up. To reiterate, the funds have been allocated.

Dmitry Borisov: Thank you, Nyagan. This city is far away but Channel One viewers, for example, know one of our best KVN (Club of the Happy and Inventive) teams. It competes despite the conditions people live in, and it is one of the jolliest and funniest teams. It has made it to the finals. Evidently our people make very good jokes when life is not so easy. Also, by the way, Maria Sharapova was born there, in Nyagan.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, but I understand she lived mainly in Sochi.

Dmitry Borisov: But she was born there. Nyagan is proud of Maria.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, we are all proud.

Dmitry Borisov: As a matter of fact, this year, our channel has received a lot of complaints about dilapidated housing and generally the condition of residential buildings from various regions, and you know what, some people say it in so many words, comparing their problems with what is going on in Moscow.

Some of them write directly, frankly: “We are envious of Moscow’s programme of tearing down five-story walk-ups from the Krushchev era.” As we know, yesterday, the State Duma approved the housing relocation draft law on its third reading. In keeping with your directives, Muscovites’ proposals were taken into account. What do you think about this programme as it stands now?

Vladimir Putin: It is important for me what Muscovites think about it. This is what matters. It is important what people who live in these buildings think about it. And how can that be found out? Through a poll. That is my first point.

Second, it is important for me that citizens’ rights are not violated during the programme’s implementation – above all their property rights.

Third, it is very important how it will be done. The Moscow city authorities tell me they have planned out everything and new buildings will be built within walking distance, practically in the same spots, literally next to them.

However, we know what often happens in practice: the floor is wrong, the windows are on the wrong side, and so on. Of course, you cannot foresee everything. A flexible approach is called for here.

This is what I think and what I urge my Moscow colleagues to do. I get a sense that this is the line the Moscow Mayor intends to take. It is important that he gets his subordinates to follow precisely the same approach.

What about the renovation in general? By the way, I perfectly understand people’s sentiments in other regions. I know this. While preparing for today’s Direct Line I saw many questions from residents of other regions, I have not heard them yet, but maybe I will. I can say even now that I know the sentiment, “Please do it here, Muscovites do not want it, but we do.” This is what it is like. I want it to be clear.

This is about the housing stock in Moscow; 10–15 years from now, it will definitely turn into hazardous housing, and Moscow will be in the same amount of trouble as many other regions.

If we do not start doing this on time, we will face a problem that will be very difficult to resolve, maybe even impossible, and then people will really start to suffer.

We will get a problem right in the centre of Moscow, and it is a huge one. We need to do this in a timely manner. Once again, I want to emphasise, I hope that the programme will be implemented within the framework of the adopted law, and with consideration for people’s specific interests.

However, in some buildings, the majority of residents refuse to participate in this programme. They do not want to, and it is impossible to force people – they cannot be dragged into this programme by force. Where the overwhelming majority agrees, those who disagree should respect the opinion of the majority, I repeat once again, with due respect for their rights and legitimate interests.

Tatyana Remezova: The guests of our studio are ready to join the discussion on renovation. I give the floor to Olga Ushakova.

Olga Ushakova: Thank you. We will gladly join the conversation, because we have among our guests State Duma deputy Galina Khovanskaya who heads the committee on housing policy and housing and utilities services, and sits on a working group that directly monitors the situation around relocation.

In addition, as far as I know, you are a fourth generation Muscovite; you were born here and lived all your life in Moscow. Yet, the Russian capital is not the only place your heart bleeds for.

Galina Khovanskaya: Of course not. Good afternoon, Mr President.

Still, if renovation in Moscow is a success, do you think we need to draft a similar law for the whole country? It could be helpful for those regions that completed the move-out from hazardous housing ahead of schedule, and there are such requests already. What do you think?

Vladimir Putin: Of course, I would like to do this. But as I said, and you also know what the volume of our hazardous housing is – two percent of the total housing stock, a huge, colossal problem. This is my first point.

Second. Moscow is funding this programme out of its own budget and will spend 100 billion roubles a year. We could tell the other regions: we agree, you go do it. But they would not be able to afford it, since they do not have that kind of money. Therefore, simply saying yes, we agree, just do it, would mean giving people hope and never backing it up with real resources. It would not be fair to people. But it still needs to be done. We need to think about how to approach this. After dealing with the move-out from hazardous housing – and for that we most allocate federal money – we certainly need to think about what you said.

Galina Khovanskaya: I would like to thank you for keeping the renovation issue under control. This would be good for the regions that complete it fast, and yes, we have such top regions. So I will think about this bill.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, you are right, and I am asking you to do this. Only we must bear in mind that your “top regions” have solved the problem with federal money, and we immediately transfer this money to those regions where this problem has not yet been resolved. That is, the money is not released, but transferred to other regions. We just need to keep it in mind. Otherwise, you are right; we do need to think about this.

Dmitry Borisov: Another pressing issue in this field is the work of managing companies in the housing and utilities sector. We have received many complaints. “For the last seven years, our managing company was bankrupt and changed its name three times,” Yelena Ivanova from Irkutsk wrote. “There has been no hot water in 20 buildings for a year already,” Svetlana Kudryavtseva from Murmansk wrote. “We addressed the managing company in 2016, but they did not take any measures and just said that repairs are scheduled for October 2017.” How can we restore order and improve oversight of managing companies?

Vladimir Putin: The problem does exist, and the Government is trying to resolve these issues and improve the entire system. A few years ago, we, including me personally, decided that these companies must undergo certification to get a license.

But the problem is that they should have been licensed by a set deadline, but only 13 percent managed to get a license in the end. It turned out that these managing companies were not ready to properly organise this work.

The first thing to be done is to ensure that the quality of their work meets the requirements. This is the first thing to be done, and it should be done persistently. This applies to the regional, local and federal levels of government. This should be closely monitored. That is my first point.

Second, we even introduced criminal liability for falsifying the minutes of general meetings. So, we introduced criminal liability and imposed big fines for substandard work. And this needs to be followed through on.

But the agenda also includes a number of other issues that should be resolved through governmental instructions and adjusted at the legislative level. I think that we will resolve these issues in the near future. We will not leave this problem without attention and will definitely see it through.

Dmitry Borisov: It is time for us to speak to the westernmost location of our Direct Line – Kaliningrad, where Nikolai Dolgachev is working now.

Nikolai Dolgachev: We are inside the largest and most modern facility of Kaliningrad Region – the centre of the stadium that is being built for the FIFA World Cup. Football matches will take place here in exactly a year.

We see stands seating 35,000 people. Equipment is working on a football field that is covered with a multi-layer fabric. There is a layer of chippings at the bottom, it will be like a layer-cake on the outside, and pipes will be laid inside.

Good afternoon. What are you doing now? Why will pipes be inside?

Remark: We are making a drain system to keep the field dry during matches.

Nikolai Dolgachev: What stage are you at now? When will you finish this work?

Remark: We have done over 80 percent of the total work. I think we will finish it for sure by the end of the year, considering that all that you see now has been done in 18 months.

Nikolai Dolgachev: Thank you. We would also like to talk to the workers.

Good afternoon. Your bosses say that the stadium will be completed soon. What will you do next?

Remark: It would be good to continue working here, to maintain such a great stadium.

Nikolai Dolgachev: Are you from Kaliningrad?

Remark: Yes, I am from Kaliningrad.

Nikolai Dolgachev: Do you have many workers from other regions?

Remark: No, we are all from Kaliningrad.

Nikolai Dolgachev: Thank you.

Indeed, this stadium will create jobs and become one more link for the region that is geographically far from Russia’s mainland.

Today we have invited a volunteer of the future FIFA World Cup who sent several questions to Direct Line.

Good afternoon. Tell us about yourself, please. What are you doing besides being a volunteer?

Andrei Voronin: My name is Andrei Voronin. I am a futsal coach for children with disabilities and orphans. We have been champions at a special futsal tournament for two years running. We won second place at the European futsal championship, representing Kaliningrad Region. As of today, four members of my team are on Russia’s national futsal team at LIN sport [sports for people with intellectual disabilities].

Nikolai Dolgachev: Do you have training facilities? Is the infrastructure ready?

Andrei Voronin: In spring and summer, we have places to train but getting into gyms is not easy.

Nikolai Dolgachev: You can ask the President your question directly. He can see and hear you now, just as the whole nation can. Go ahead.

Andrei Voronin: Mr President, good afternoon. I have a question which concerns not only myself but probably every other resident in the Kaliningrad Region. We are going to host the FIFA World Cup, and we have a wonderful stadium here. Please, tell me what will happen after the World Cup? Will my students also be able to come to the stadium to practice?

Nikolai Dolgachev: To train or to play?

A. Voronin: To train, to play or at least to see the three matches that will be played at the stadium. To come and see them, at least.

Vladimir Putin: You see, first of all, I am confident that you will build the facility and you will do it on schedule. By the way, regarding Kaliningrad, we initially thought that the price tag was too high. It is understandable that the leaders of Kaliningrad and the Kaliningrad Region wanted not just to build up the stadium but also develop all the adjoining infrastructure: to erect a new township, a whole residential area, but ultimately, we agreed on the cost of the stadium as well. Everything is going according to schedule, as far as I know. But to be honest, your question is odd. The answer is yes, because the stadium is being built for people to play sports, for fans to come there. I hope we will never allow stadiums to be turned into shopping markets. On the contrary, even in Moscow everything is going back to its normal course. Thank God, sports facilities are being used the way they were intended.

Concerning the facilities and buildings for the Olympics in Sochi, practically everything is being used effectively. We have probably better results than anywhere else, when it comes to the use of sports facilities after large-scale international competitions. The same is true of Kazan after the competition were held there, I mean the Universiade. As for stadiums, they must and can be used as athletic facilities only. This is why I am sure that children will able to practice there. I am sure that fans can rejoice. And the key thing is we will finally be developing football. I hope our players will also perform at a high level, which everyone expects from them.

And I would just wish you success. Thank you very much.

Dmitry Borisov: Nikolai, let us take another question from Kaliningrad.

Andrei Voronin: The Russian national team has not been at its best lately, and no one knows how it will perform during the upcoming world championship. I have a proposal. Perhaps, you could use your influence on them? Perhaps, you could tell them to start really playing ball?

Vladimir Putin: I prompted this question, I think. I am not going to rant and rave or criticise anyone, although, of course, the Russian football fans are expecting a better performance from our national team.

When I speak to specialists at the international level, I ask whether our athletes will play or not. They say no, they will not. I ask them why. They say because … followed by complaints that there are too many foreign players and too little attention paid to training young players.

In other words, very little attention is paid to promoting children’s and youth football. True, there are positive developments. I was in Krasnodar recently, and Mr Galitsky is doing a great job there. It is a private project. He has built a stadium and put together a football school with remarkable students who play not only football, but chess as well. All major clubs have created such systems for training young football players. If this continues, and I believe it will, we will definitely have an efficient national team that will make its fans proud.

Dmitry Borisov: Thank you, Kaliningrad.

Mr President, I would be remiss not to ask you a question today. There is a crisis underway, difficult times for everyone, clearly. The number of disgruntled people is on the rise. Some are protesting in social media, others are taking to the streets. Is that an opposition? Are you prepared to talk to anyone among them?

Vladimir Putin: I am prepared to talk to everyone who really aims to improve people’s lives, to resolve the issues facing the country, but not the ones who use existing difficulties – and there are always enough difficulties anywhere you go – to promote their own political agenda. Using difficulties as a tool for self-promotion and in order to cash in politically, only aggravates them.

We spoke about managing companies. What is one of their key problems today? They are intermediaries in the movement of funds from the state to those who provide additional services. They should be denied the right to mediate cash flows. The same applies to the opposition. Some of them in this sense are no better; they are using difficulties to their own advantage. Instead, they should offer solutions. Those who offer solutions deserve our closest attention. They are entitled to maintain a dialogue with the authorities. This is what we are going to do.

Tatyana Remezova: Mr President, schoolteachers and former students in the village of Krasnopolka in Ulyanovsk Region addressed Direct Line, and our film crew, led by Maria Bondareva, went there.

Maria Bondareva: Good afternoon, Mr President.

How can we possibly do without the topic of education? We are now in Krasnopolka, a village with a population of just a little over 500. Naturally, like in any village, there is just one school here. Such schools are called undersized. There are only 46 students there – up to grade nine. On my right, you can see all those who finished it in 2017 – just four young men. On my left is School Principal Alexei Malin, and he sent in a question, Mr President, to your call centre, because he is concerned not only about his school but also about his students’ future or to be more accurate, about where they will study and according to what curriculum. So we decided to give him an opportunity to ask his question directly.

Alexei Malin: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, Mr Malin.

Alexei Malin: The fact is that Russia lacks a single educational space. Because there are so many textbooks and so many teaching and methodological systems, sometimes students in different regions or even in different districts of the same region study certain school disciplines according to absolutely different programmes. And when they move, they experience considerable difficulties.

So, here is the second part of my question. Textbooks have an established lifespan of five years and have to be discarded while they could still be used, which increases budgetary spending on the procurement of new textbooks even though an old textbook is still good enough. Therefore, I wonder if it could be possible to extend the life of school textbooks and reduce the number of teaching and methodological systems, thus unifying Russia’s educational space.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First of all, I would like to say that we are probably one of the few countries where – strange as this may seem to you, even though I largely agree with you, but nevertheless, our single educational space is stronger than elsewhere, than in many other countries. For example, in the United States, almost every state and every university has its own curriculum, and the same goes for Europe. We are probably one of the few countries where we try to preserve this single space even though the problem that you have raised does exist.

An enormous number of new textbooks appeared in our country, especially in the 1990s and 2000s. It almost became a business based on budget funds. Colleagues told me a child switches to another school, and even in Moscow has no idea what materials to study to prepare for exams as there are different textbooks and requirements. Of course, requirements can always differ, yet a single textbook allows a teacher to take a certain creative approach to the learning process. In the Soviet Union, there was a standard textbook, then there were experimental ones and one other, three categories in total. Overall, as experts say, this experience could be used to create a standard textbook. We have to consider this. These decisions cannot be voluntary, but we definitely can consider this. Once again, experts believe that this is quite possible and will not cause any damage to the learning process; it will not worsen its quality.

Should we – and can we – prolong the textbook use period to exceed five years? First, as you know, textbooks must be provided for free. I ask heads of municipalities and regions to carefully monitor this.

Can the five-year period be extended? You know, for some textbooks it can be done, and for some it cannot. I mean, for instance, currently we have in fact an established textbook on physics by a single author. The period of its use could probably be prolonged. I had a look at other textbooks – say, on history and geography. The latter was created in the late 1990s, and it cites data on agricultural development. Today, this is an advanced sector of Russia’s economy, with a three-percent annual growth rate, and it satisfies our needs – as I have mentioned, in poultry, for instance. We have become leaders in producing and exporting wheat, which is unprecedented in Russia’s history, maybe only prior to 1913. Yet, this textbook says our agricultural industry is in decline. What nonsense! What kind of textbook is that and what are they teaching our children there?

By the way, the same applies to housing construction. In 2015, a record 83–85 million square metres of housing was completed, yet the textbook claims the construction industry is in a difficult position. What is written in the textbook in no way reflects reality. So, can the period of using such textbooks be extended beyond five years? Actually, it has been reissued this year the way it was, word for word. One name has been eliminated from the list of its authors, maybe to show that this is a new edition, and the rest remained as it was. So this all has to be closely monitored. I think the use of some textbooks can be prolonged, while other textbooks should be updated.

I want to wish success to you and your graduates.

Tatyana Remezova: Maria, you can ask one more question.

Maria Bondareva: Mr President, having heard that they will be with you today, the guys standing next to me decided to use this opportunity and also ask you a question or rather make a request, if I understand correctly.

Remark: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Remark: We are graduates of the ninth form. We are taking part in the 2017 Graduates contest. We are eager to win it. Could you wish us good luck and give us some good advice?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I wish you good luck and victory in this contest, and here is what I would like to say.

I do talk with people of your age and students, though not as often as I would like to. I know that our young people have enormous potential, really huge. Very many young people understand all the advantages of our country that are embodied in its immense size, incredibly rich cultural code, long history, the unity of our people that we see whenever the nation is facing serious difficulties. This is what our people relied on for centuries if not millennia, and I can see that young people cherish all this. They cherish the diversity of our culture and nature.

I hope you make full use of these advantages upon graduation, to work in order to enjoy life and contribute to Russia’s progress.

Dmitry Borisov: Thank you, Krasnopolka.

Before we move on, here is one more question from children, from among those that were collected before Direct Line. It comes from 12 year-old Veronika Titova from Solnechnogorsk. This is her question: “If you had a time machine, where would you like to go?

Vladimir Putin: Actually, this is not a child’s question although it seems to be from the realm of fantasy. We know of many works that involve a time machine. It is essential to decide for oneself: does this time machine go backward or forward? Can you interfere in events and change the future, that is, our present, or is this not allowed?

Dmitry Borisov: And what would you prefer?

Vladimir Putin: I think it is better not to touch anything because whatever will be will be but with unknown consequences. This is the first thing. Most likely, this applies to the past. Although, it would be very interesting to see how our country developed, how St Petersburg was built and how our fathers and grandfathers won the Great Patriotic War…

You know, sometimes tears fill my eyes when I watch documentaries. Do you understand me? Of course, I would like to see this with my own eyes.

I would like very much to feel, hear and see how fateful decisions determining Russia’s path were made.

As for the future, we have a time machine. We do. It is called “history.” We should thoroughly and objectively study history so that we can understand how to act in order to build our future. The future is being created right now. Therefore, if we want to have a prosperous future we must work efficiently today, sparing no effort.

Tatyana Remezova: Now back to our studio. Vera Krasova has the floor.

Vera Krasova: Thank you, Tatyana.

We have representatives of the younger generation in our studio – finalists of the National Engineering Olympiad from Nefteyugansk. I had a chance to talk to them yesterday; it was very interesting. Danila Prilepa has a very serious question. Danila, you have the floor.

Danila Prilepa: Hello, Mr President. The fact that corrupt officials and ministers are in the Government is not news, has not been for a long time; putting them under house arrest for show does not produce results, and you undermine people’s trust by doing so. How are you dealing with this problem now?

The consequences of negligence affect the majority of our country’s population, including my family. Federal Law No. 247 states that every police officer is entitled to a subsidy for the purchase of their own housing.

In Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area, only 90 families have received the money over the past five years. The waiting list includes thousands, and there is practically no progress.

Vladimir Putin: Danila, did you read your question? Did you prepare it in advance or did someone recommend it to you?

Danila Prelepa: Life has prepared me for this question.

Vladimir Putin: Well said!

Let us begin with the provision of housing for the Interior Ministry employees, as I understand, this is what you are asking. I would need to look up how much money is specifically allocated for that purpose, including in Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area. I cannot tell you now, but I promise that I will look it up.

The housing issues of Interior Ministry personnel are probably not being solved as quickly as one would like. I am not ready to tell you right now how much housing was actually acquired, but this is one of the most urgent issues. We will see what happens in Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area, what else can be done, and increase the funding accordingly.

Now, about corrupt officials. We are aware of this issue, and I believe it is a pressing one. However, the list of questions – I mean the analysis of the list of questions raised during today’s cooperative work, including with you – shows that compared to past Direct Lines – and we are on the 15th event – this issue is not among the top.

Nevertheless, I believe that this issue is important, acute, and it is not a matter of house arrest, not even jailing people, the point is– I sense your family is involved in law enforcement – the point is that no offence should remain without the authorities’ attention and without punishment. That is the most important thing. We need to arrange this mode of operation.

As for house arrest or actual prison terms, this is a question that must be determined by court depending on each specific situation and the guilt of the person who committed the offence. The most recent example is a conviction brought against a former head of the Federal Penitentiary Service, that is, a person who headed the entire correctional system, that is, the system that manages people serving sentences for crimes committed.

However, he broke the law himself, and as far as I know, the court yesterday rendered its verdict. A real term of 8 years in prison is a serious punishment. So, let us rely on the work of the judicial system, which, of course, needs to be improved, but nonetheless, there is no other institution under the Constitution that determines the punishment for those who have committed an offence.

Dmitry Borisov: I see the neighbouring section of our studio with Nailya is ready to join us.

Nailya Asker-zade: Thank you, Dmitry.

Mr President, you have been asked a number of times today about protests in social media but the internet is also used by entrepreneurs. In this connection, Ildar Neverov, chairman of the environmental committee of Delovaya Rossiya has a question to ask.

Ildar Neverov: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Last year I was able to ask you a question about waste, and it is meaningful that we are speaking about it in-depth and constructively during the Year of the Environment. However, today my question is not about solid waste but about a different sort of rubbish – information rubbish.

Information war in the business world is a tool of unfair competition. It is hard to treat it with impartiality. At the same time, recently we have seen and heard increasing information attacks on people in power. What do you think about this? Do you look at such materials?

Vladimir Putin: You know, as a rule, I do look at those materials, especially if they concern my colleagues; of course, I have no choice. As well as other information coming not only from the internet but also from TV, newspapers, radio, I always look at it carefully and – I would like to say and assure you – respectfully.

However, a person in my position necessarily has to double-check everything and draw final conclusions relying on objective data only. You and I know only too well that, unfortunately, the media as a whole and the internet are used for fakes, information attacks or just for political combat.

But what can we do about it? This is life; there is nothing unusual about it. However, I always have to crosscheck it with the resources at my disposal, and I have many of them. There is the Prosecutor’s Office, the Interior Ministry, the FSB, monitoring agencies, the Presidential Control Directorate, which are all agencies, engaged in overseeing the use of budget funds.

So I have plenty of such resources, and before making any conclusion, I always, let me emphasise this, always try to treat people with care, and I first always double check any information.

Tatyana Remezova: Here is an SMS question: “Have you as president ever been cheated? What action did you take against the cheaters?” The question comes from Vladimir Novikov (Krasnoyarsk Territory, the city of Uzhur).

Vladimir Putin: I am looking around at what is coming via SMS and MMS. One question was, should we not reinstate the death penalty and hold a referendum on the issue? I can imagine what the result of that referendum would be. However, the question was, should the death penalty not be applied to murderers?

As for those who cheat or try to cheat. You know, I think everyone among those sitting here has some experience in being a target of cheating. This applies to you, Tanya, and you, Dima, and generally to all – practically all of our country’s citizens. No cheating – it simply does not work that way.

I am also human and sometimes also become a target of such attempts. However, even when I see it I try not to make a fuss. Even if I am certain that there was an attempt to cheat me, before I respond, I will always look to see what that person’s motives are, what they are after, why they wanted to do so and what they were trying to achieve. But I will not forget it.

Tatyana Remezova: Well, it has been a long time since we last heard from our call centre. Natalya Yuryeva please.

Natalya Yuryeva: Thank you, Tatyana. We have been on the air for 3 hours and 40 minutes. We have received 2.6 million calls. Even though during your previous Direct Line, Mr President, you issued orders that something be done about the deplorable condition of roads in many regions, the number of questions regarding this woe has not declined.

We have received hundreds of MMS graphically demonstrating the sordid condition of roads. There is endless mud and enormous potholes in Samara Region while in the Dagestani village of Madzhalis, despite the fact that there is an asphalt-making plant there, locals say there are practically no paved roads.

Vodyanaya [Water in Russian] Street in Kostroma really lives up to its name: it is full of puddles. I suggest we watch the video question that came from Valery Lebedev in Krasnodar.

Valery Lebedev: Good afternoon, Mr President. This is Valery Lebedev. I am 20. I am a third-year student. I have two and a half years of driving experience. I would like to ask you a question.

I am an ordinary Russian citizen. I always pay my taxes and would like to know why the roads in Krasnodar (Novorossiiskaya Street) are in such a state? Please look at this.

Here is my car and here is the road surface. Is this surface acceptable? Is it up to standard or not? I urge you to take measures. Thank you very much. And all the very best.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you, Mr Lebedev, for your question and for your account.

You asked whether this could really be so. We can see that it can because we have seen it with our own eyes, but this must not be so, and here is what I would like to say in this context.

What is going on with our road construction? Federal roads are being developed and built. About 77 percent of federal roads have already been brought up to standard, and this is appreciable growth. As for local roads, regional roads, unfortunately, growth there is almost negligible: from 36 percent to 42 percent.

Unfortunately, recently, the situation with road construction at the regional and municipal level has deteriorated. This has to do, among other things, with a shortage of resources. I will not go into detail now. We once discussed and did it – we raised excise taxes to improve road construction financing. Some of these resources go to the federal level and some go to the regional level. Just recently, not so long ago – although I assure you, we regularly revisit this issue – I spoke to the Finance Minister. As usual, the Finance Ministry is very careful about the federal part but we will have to take some decisions to boost financing of road construction at the regional and municipal level.

Nevertheless, I would certainly not let regional and municipal authorities off the hook. It is up to them to get their priorities right in allocating financial resources to address particular issues. Still, I promise that we will pay special attention to this at the federal level.

Dmitry Borisov: Mr President, during preparations for Direct Line and even during this show, questions kept coming in. We selected several questions that we would like to ask you in a quick round of questions.

Vladimir Putin: Surely, we will not keep going until morning?

Dmitry Borisov: Not until morning, that is why it is a quick round, so it will be short.

For example, “You often say you grew up in an ordinary family. Do you know how ordinary people live in Russia today?”

Vladimir Putin: I certainly do.

Firstly, we still communicate. Secondly, I recently told my colleagues about my family’s life. I told them how my father would go and read the electric meter, how he counted every kopeck so as to pay for electricity in full and on time. I still have that habit: I cannot leave the lights on. When I leave the room, I always turn the lights off. This is why I know it so well.

Can I ask one lightening round question? I see Mr Gazzaev sitting in front of me. Football is a concern for me too. Will we play football or not? Let him have a microphone, please.

Dmitry Borisov: Valery Gazzaev answering.

Valery Gazzaev: Thank you, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: In advance of the World Cup.

Valery Gazzaev: First of all, thank you for the wonderful infrastructure that will be built, for paying a huge amount of attention to healthy lifestyle and the health of the nation.

As to football, I am myself very much concerned about it. Let us hope the new young national team will play well at the coming Confederations Cup, and we will all enjoy it.

Thank you very much. I know, I recall 2010 when it was you and your authority and attention alone that got us the right to host the World Cup. And now I would like to share something with you, now that I was given a chance to speak.

I have the following question. I wanted to say that ahead of the World Cup the Russian Football Union declared that the success of the national team is impossible to guarantee in football, so it seems reasonable to set the next target – the popularisation of football regardless of the national team’s results.

I think if we set such tasks, then we will definitely achieve nothing. Moreover, this a home World Cup, and I believe we must achieve the best possible result. As it was said here, of course, I would like you to have an impact on the result, especially on the national team.

What do you think, Mr President, what kind of results should our team have and how should it perform at the coming home World Cup?

Vladimir Putin: Mr Gazzaev, I wanted to hear it from you. You are smart to pass the ball to me.

Valery Gazzaev: I can say in earnest that I have the same opinion as you do, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you. Let us hope that the boys will give it their all like real fighters and athletes, so as to make our fans happy at least by striving for victory. By the way, the recent matches show that the national team still has potential.

Tatyana Remezova: We continue our quick round of questions: “They say you literally lost your head over digital economy. Is that true?”

Vladimir Putin: My head is okay.

Tatyana Remezova: Thank God.

Vladimir Putin: But the digital economy – without it, we will not be able to move on to the next technological level. And without the transition to a new technological model, the Russian economy, which basically means Russia, has no future. Therefore, this is the number one goal in the economy that we must achieve. The main thing is that we do have all the prerequisites in place for this. Thank God, we have preserved a very good school of mathematics; our computer programming is developing very intensively, we just need to provide a market for our software engineers. We have many good technological projects. We can do this.

Dmitry Borisov: We have received texts like this: “Do you really think that people believe these fabricated questions?”

Vladimir Putin: Believe what?

Dmitry Borisov: “Believe fabricated questions.”

Vladimir Putin: “Let us free the world from this evil!” It is not clear what evil. Is this a fabricated question?

“What do you do in your spare time?” I work.

“Why do wages for the same work often differ across the regions, even in public institutions?” Because the subsistence level varies across the regions and local production facilities have been developing at a different pace for decades. In one place, the cost of living is higher than in another, I am talking about the subsistence level. These are interrelated things that have evolved over decades. However, we have to even out the incomes and certainly federal employees have to make roughly the same money across the country. All these questions are always at the focus of our attention. And we will continue working on them.

Therefore, these questions are clearly not prepared in advance. Nor are all the others that were asked here today.

Tatyana Remezova: “Which world leader has the strongest handshake?”

Vladimir Putin: You know, the strength of a leader is not measured by their handshake; it is measured by their attitude towards the work they do, towards the fate of their country and their people, and by their personal commitment and dedication while exercising their powers.

Dmitry Borisov: Another urgent question: “Do your words about ‘never ratting on friends’ apply to bribe takers and corrupt officials?”

Vladimir Putin: I do not consider them my friends.

Tatyana Remezova: “It is rumoured that there will be no indexation of pensions until 2030. Is that true?”

Vladimir Putin: No, it is not true, it is rubbish. We have a law, and in accordance with this law, we will index pensions at least according to the previous year’s inflation rate.

Dmitry Borisov: “How many languages do you speak?”

Vladimir Putin: Russian, thank God, I am also fluent in German, and I can speak a little English.

Tatyana Remezova: “How do you feel about jokes about you?”

Vladimir Putin: It depends on the joke.

Tatyana Remezova: Is there a favourite?

Vladimir Putin: No, I never remember them. Do you think I keep them in mind or something? I have not read a single book about myself, and I certainly never remember jokes.

Dmitry Borisov: Another question: What is the biggest fish you have ever caught?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I know this is a matter of interest for professional and amateur fishermen, I read about it and see it on the internet. Honestly, the fish was weighed in my presence, it was 20 kilograms, although many believe it did not look big enough to weigh 20 kilograms. But this is what I saw. Maybe somebody was standing near with a finger on the scale, but I did not notice anything.

Tatyana Remezova: At Direct Line, we have a tradition we will not break. Usually you yourself pick out some questions you liked or you want to answer, so we are giving you this opportunity.

Vladimir Putin: You know, I do have such questions, I selected them, but I did not take them with me. They are not even questions per se but requests, and sensitive ones. I will not say what they were, but I will do my best to respond to them, all the more so as such requests come from people with special needs.

These requests are not huge, but they are very specific. I will try to do this. However, while I was talking here with you, I looked around, and some questions appeared universal to me. I mean, not universal but important, and some were regional but serious as well.

Here is one of the questions, not a serious one, but nevertheless: When will the Russian President drive a Russian-made car? I hope this will happen soon. This not an idle question.

I once asked the head of a western car manufacturer what car he drove. He said: ”Why, …, of course“ and named the company he worked for. This is natural.

And of course, a country like Russia must produce a line of cars that the country’s top officials will use. We are working on this. I hope that by the end of 2018 this will materialise, and this will be a line of cars not only for top officials, like limos, but it will also include SUVs, minibuses, hatchbacks, and others – that is, it will be a brand new line of domestically produced cars.

”Will the Armed Forces service period be extended?“ The question is not quite clear. If the person asking means conscription service, then of course not; but if the period of service for officers was meant, then this has to be considered.

I know that many officers would like the service period to be extended. This issue has to be examined and taken seriously, with all the pros and cons analysed. Overall, this is possible.

Another question: ”Who do you plan to choose as your successor?“ Firstly, I am still in office. Secondly, I want to say that this is a choice for the voters – the Russian people. Of course, I made my choice a while ago, and I see nothing dishonourable in saying that my preferences are such and such; but ultimately, we should not forget that Russian citizens are the ones to vote, and it is only up to them to determine who will lead a region, a district, a city, an area or the country.

You know, this is a strange question: Governor Merkushkin deprives federal veterans of some allowances. I do not even understand what this is all about. How can any governor, not only Nikolai Merkushkin but also others, stop making payments to federal beneficiaries? I do not get this. I will check on this, by all means. I want you to know that I paid attention to this question.

Finally, this is not a question but a statement. I read it. It says, “Everything will be fine.” This is true. I can confirm it.

Dmitry Borisov: You said that the voters would decide who would be the head of state. Could you predict what challenges the head of state whom they will elect for the next six years will be facing? What priority tasks will the president have to focus on?

Vladimir Putin: We have many tasks. The first and the most important one is to ensure that people’s incomes go up. It is necessary to eliminate poverty, shacks and hazardous housing, but we can achieve this only if we grow our economy at the necessary rates.

In this context, it is necessary to pay attention to labour productivity and increase it, but this is impossible without transitioning to the next technological level, and at this point, we need the digital economy and properly organised work.

We must make substantial adjustments of administrative forms at the level of municipal entities, regions and the entire country.

It is perfectly obvious that we need a serious transformation of management at this point. This is not a big but a very important list of tasks that will be raised in the near future.

Tatyana Remezova: And the final question: Will there be one more Direct Line with Vladimir Putin or is this the last one?

Vladimir Putin: If there is any line, it will be only direct, just as today.

Dmitry Borisov: Thank you. We received answers to a majority of questions. We hope that today’s session will also help resolve many problems raised by our audience.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you, thanks to the anchors and thanks to all citizens of our country who took part in our joint work today.

I would like to apologise if I did not answer all of your questions. Please do not be cross with me. That is impossible to do, and that includes questions from our audience.

However, it is very important for me to hear your opinions, to see what you think about events in the country. It is important for all of us – for the Government, the Presidential Executive Office and for me – to analyse the incoming questions, proposals, requests or critical remarks.

We will take all of them into consideration in our practical work. In any event, we will do so to the best of our abilities.

Thank you very much!

All images in this article are from President of Russia.

This article examines the forces behind former Jakarta governor Basuki Tjahaja Purna’s recent imprisonment and the subsequent political upheaval in Indonesia. It delves into the murky ties between President Donald Trump’s most important Indonesian business partner, multi-billionaire Hary Tanoesodibjo and the latter’s relationship with pro-Islamist politicians and the military to evaluate the consequences of political turmoil on the future of Indonesia.

The recent defeat in Jakarta of progressive reformer Basuki Tjahaja Purna (“Ahok”), a Chinese Christian, followed by his imprisonment for blasphemy, has alarmed western observers. Some in the west have attributed it to the increasing influence of Islamic extremism fueled by Saudi wealth. Others have pointed to nativist resentment of Ahok’s Chinese background. Recently Allen Nairn attributed it to a deep-rooted campaign by the once powerful Indonesian military to oust Ahok’s progressive mentor, Indonesia President Joko Widodo (“Jokowi”).

There is merit to all three analyses, which as we shall see are not mutually exclusive. But there is also another force in Indonesia at odds with the progressive reform tendencies represented by both Ahok and Jokowi. Importantly, Jokowi’s taxation and environmental policies have set him on a collision course with Indonesia’s largest foreign investor, the Phoenix-based Freeport-McMoRan mining company, whose third-largest stockholder, Carl Icahn, is the richest billionaire in the new billionaire Trump White House. We should remember also that Trump’s principal friend and business partner in Indonesia, multibillionaire Hary Tanoesoedibjo, announced a month before Ahok’s defeat that he had decided to back Anies Baswedan, the eventual winner.¹

All of these forces against reform in Indonesian are interconnected, and all are enhanced by increasing disparity of wealth in this new Gilded Age. However the fundamental Indonesian reform achieved in 2000, restoring police independence from the military, has not yet been seriously challenged.

Militant Muslim groups have indeed been proliferating in Indonesia. A major reason for this has been the millions of dollars spent by Saudi Arabia, starting about 1980, to promote a more rigorous Salafist Islam among Indonesia’s traditionally tolerant Sunnis. Many scholars feared that traditional Indonesian Islam, represented by the Nahdatlul Ulama (NU) was now losing out to well-funded Salafi extremism. Margaret Scott, for example, warned in the New York Review of Books that it was “far-fetched” to think that Indonesia’s Islamic moderates “can stop Salafi recruitment, much less ISIS recruitment.”²

Some observers have blamed this funding for the riots in 2016-17 protesting the re-election campaign of the Christian Chinese governor of Jakarta, Basuki Tjahaja Purna (“Ahok”).³ Only one person died in these protests, compared to the thousand killed in the riots preceding Suharto’s ouster in 1998. But it was alarming to see hundreds of thousands of Muslims shouting anti-Christian and anti-Chinese slogans, and to see him not only defeated, but convicted on a trumped-up blasphemy charge. (The judges ignored the much more lenient recommendation of Ahok’s prosecutors and capitulated to inflamed public opinion.)

Muslims protest against Jakarta Governor Basuki “Ahok” Tjaha Purnama, who is Chinese Christian in December 2016 

Others saw the Muslim anti-Ahok protests as not so much anti-Christian as anti-Chinese, fueled by resentment that so much of the Indonesian economy was in the hands of the small ethnic Chinese minority. (Ethnic Chinese make up less than five percent of the population, but a 1995 study found Chinese Indonesians in control of 68 percent of the top 300 conglomerates in the country.)

According to Reuters, the National Movement to Safeguard the Fatwas of the Indonesian Ulemas Council (GNPF-MUI) “led the push to jail Jakarta’s Christian [and Chinese] governor.”⁴ Reuters noted further that

The ethnic wealth gap has long fed resentment among poorer “pribumi”, Indonesia’s mostly ethnic-Malay indigenous people. During riots that led to the fall of Suharto in 1998, ethnic-Chinese and Chinese-owned businesses were targeted, and about 1,000 people were killed in the violence.⁵

There has been no blood-letting on that scale since then, but tensions have remained. President Joko Widodo was the subject of a smear campaign on the campaign trail in 2014 that falsely claimed he was a Chinese descendant and a Christian.

The MUI leader, Bachtiar Nasir, told Reuters that

“the wealth of Indonesia’s ethnic Chinese minority was a problem and advocated an affirmative action programme for native Indonesians…. ‘It seems they do not become more generous, more fair,’ the cleric said, referring to Chinese Indonesians,… ‘That’s the biggest problem.’”

Still others claimed that the protests were to be explained, not by those in the street, but by their backers in Jakarta’s power elite who, nostalgic for the Suharto era, were uncomfortable with Ahok’s modernizing campaign against corruption:

“Ahok is a unique case in recent Indonesian politics,” said Jemma Purdey, a research fellow at the Australia Indonesia Center. “He did not rise through the ranks of any party but was an independent, administrator-style politician who was backed by rival major parties to get into the position he is in today.”…. The truth is, Ahok always had a target on his back. His style and policies were a threat to Indonesia’s establishment, and the small circle of political leaders under whom most power still remains….

“The rise of such a virulent campaign against Ahok was surprising when it came, but the intent to find a way to get rid of Ahok had been building for some time,” said Purdey. “Clearly there were significant resources ready and willing to back this campaign when the opportunity arose.”⁶

According to veteran analyst Allen Nairn, the campaign against Ahok was part of a larger campaign to defeat Jokowi, Ahok’s mentor in the fight against corruption. He claimed that the key figures in this larger campaign were “associates of Donald Trump in Indonesia,…army officers and a vigilante street movement linked to ISIS”: the FPI (Front Pembela Islam, or Islamic Defenders Front).”⁷

Whereas the MUI was a mass movement, the FPI by contrast was a much smaller disciplined group notorious for hate crimes and religious-related violence in the name of Islam.⁸ It was founded in August 1998 with military and police backing, and at first served as their proxy to beat up left-wing protesters at a time of transition in Indonesian politics. (According to Ian Douglas Wilson, the FPI was in fact formed in 1997 and first made itself known in the May 1998 riots, when it formed part of the Pam Swakarsa militias “mobilised by Armed Forces Chief General Wiranto and Police Chief Noegroho Djajoesman as a ‘third force’ against the student-led reform movement.”)⁹ Much like their secular predecessors under Suharto, the Pancasila Youth depicted in Josh Oppenheimer’s film “The Act of Killing,” their raids on nightclubs and brothels “were said to allow the group – and its backers in the security forces – to extort protection payments from the [often Chinese] owners.”¹⁰

In essence Nairn laid out a scenario that replicated one that TNI generals, above all Suharto’s one-time son-in-law Prabowo Subianto, were accused of plotting earlier in May 1998 (the riots leading to Suharto’s abdication), when Prabowo’s troops in Kopassus (Special Forces) brought thugs into the capital.¹¹ (Earlier, in response to the 1998 Asian monetary crisis, Prabowo had also “accused Chinese-Indonesian businessmen of economic sabotage as a means of bringing down Soeharto.”)¹²

A joint fact-finding team (Tim Gabungan Pencari Fakta), which included military and civilian officials, as well as volunteers from human rights and women’s organizations, determined that Prabowo Subianto was a key figure in military involvement with the rioters, after which Prabowo was demoted. He retired, went into business, and became a millionaire, In 2014, backed by parties of the “old forces,” Prabowo ran for the presidency and was narrowly defeated by Jokowi. The FPI backed Prabowo and his party Gerindra in the 2014 election; and in October 2014 it staged a violent rock-throwing protest against Jokowi’s ally and deputy Ahok, who was about to replace Jokowi as governor.¹³ (Ahok’s opponent in the 2017 campaign, Anies, was an ally of Prabowo, and “ran under the banner of Prabowo’s Gerindra Party…. Many expect Prabowo to take another shot at the presidency in 2019, and already Anies is rumored as a likely running mate.”)¹⁴

In 2017, according to Nairn, Prabowo’s forces were again using the FPI to promote unrest in a “coup movement,” in order to weaken and hopefully overthrow Jokowi. Prabowo’s allies told Nairn that they and the army had helped plan and support the massive Muslim protests in Jakarta against Ahok.¹⁵ But this time Prabowo was in the background, acting through his 2014 campaign manager Fadli Zon, who “is known for publicly praising Donald Trump and appeared with the candidate at a press conference at Trump Tower during the opening days of the [Trump] presidential campaign.”

All of the preceding analyses of the Ahok protests are essentially compatible, but with differing emphases on the ultimate purpose. Of these analyses, however, Nairn’s is the only one to link the campaign against a progressive leader in Jakarta, Jokowi, to the backers of an anti-progressive leader, Trump, in Washington. Nairn heard, for example, that funds for the coup movement came from Donald Trump’s business partner Hary Tanoe (Hary Tanoesoedibjo, in Chinese, 陳明立), who was repeatedly described to him “by key movement figures as being among their most important supporters.”

Hary Tanoe is a billionaire who is the local partner on two deluxe Trump Organization resorts in Indonesia, one in Bali and one outside Jakarta; and he was the vice-presidential candidate in Prabowo’s failed 2014 campaign.¹⁶ Members of the “coup movement” expressed excitement to Nairn

about their closeness to Hary and his personal and financial relationship with President Trump, who along with his son Eric welcomed Hary to Trump Tower and the inauguration. They said they hoped Hary, who is building two Trump resorts in Indonesia, would serve as a bridge between Trump and Gen. Prabowo.¹⁷

Nairn also pointed to the presence at an FPI rally of Munarman, a former Commander of the FPI’s paramilitary group Laskar Islam, whom the Freeport-McMoRan mining company in Indonesia engaged as its attorney. Freeport operates the multi-billion Grasberg gold and copper mine in West Papua, Indonesia, which has responsibility for a wretched history of corruption and environmental devastation. Since 2015 its third-largest shareholder has been Carl Icahn, the wealthiest of the billionaires in the new Trump administration, and the subject of a series of complaints about Icahn’s conflict of interest in actions he has taken as Trump’s economic adviser.¹⁸

For years Freeport “assiduously courted Indonesia’s longtime dictator, President Suharto, and his cronies, having Freeport pay for their vacations and some of their children’s college education, and cutting them in on deals that made them rich.”¹⁹ In return, Suharto granted Freeport a decade-long tax holiday, as well as a reprieve from paying royalties.²⁰ Meanwhile the company’s security became increasingly dependent on payoffs to the local Indonesian military and police, who were estimated by observers to have killed 160 people between 1975 and 1997.²¹

Meanwhile the Indonesian government has slowly begun to deal with the human rights and environmental problems created by the mine. In 1991, the company signed a Contract of Work (CoW) which among other things required it to sell 51 percent of its stake to Indonesian entities by 2011,²² but at least through 2016 the company has postponed compliance.²³

In general Jokowi is considered friendly to business; but he has been under immense pressure, particularly from Indonesia’s largest Muslim civic organizations, to establish 51 percent Indonesian control over Freeport. In March 2017 the New York Times reported that “The dispute has put the brakes on production at the mine,” and that Icahn, “has brought [the problem] to the attention of the United States government.²⁴

Then in April, as part of the first Trump White House trip abroad, Vice President Mike Pence visited Jakarta. Shortly afterwards Reuters reported that

Freeport McMoRan Inc collected a permit to resume copper exports from Indonesia on Friday after a hiatus of more than three months, hours after a state visit by U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, who discussed the copper miner’s dispute with Jakarta…. The dispute has cost the company and Indonesia hundreds of millions of dollars. Jakarta has said it would halt exports again if negotiations over sticking points were not resolved within six months.

Freeport has also warned Jakarta, saying it had the right to commence arbitration by June 17 if no agreement was reached.

Pence thanked Indonesian President Joko Widodo for the interim solution to the Freeport dispute on Friday but said more steps were still needed, a White House foreign policy adviser said.

“We told them that there were more steps that needed to be taken,” the adviser said, noting this was the only business issue Pence raised in his meeting with Widodo on Thursday.²⁵

Clearly the new Gilded Age of great wealth disparity is global, playing out in Indonesia as well as in America, Russia, and China. In this new era the superwealthy, including those like Trump who are frequently at odds with the laws and media of their own countries, can reach out and reinforce each other, as well as secure their mutual investments. Both Hary Tanoesoedibjo and Carl Icahn are said to have invested in Trump’s campaign, while through Hary Trump has now “gained access to some of Indonesia’s top political figures, including Setya Novanto, the speaker of the House of Representatives, who was temporarily forced to surrender his leadership post because of corruption allegations in 2015.”²⁶

In this global partnership, the new superwealthy, exemplified by Trump’s many dubious business partners abroad, are united by their search for tax relief and freedom from governmental interference.²⁷ Their combined wealth and influence may do at least as much to account for the ousting of progressive-minded Indonesian political leaders like Ahok, as the Salafist extremist movements that are being funded from the Arabian peninsula.

One should not despair at this development. Indonesia took a major step towards a more open society when, in 2000, reformers separated the police from the military. This has made it possible for those guilty of corruption or official violence to be convicted and punished; and violence in general has abated considerably since the thousand deaths in the 1998 riots.

The future of Indonesia may depend on whether this huge structural reform can remain in place. To appreciate its importance, consider events in Poland in 1981, when the deployment of army units to assist the Interior Ministry in keeping domestic law and order was a necessary prelude to the imposition of martial law and the destruction of the Solidarity Movement.²⁸ Americans in particular should worry more about their own country, where since 9/11 the army, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, now plays a significant role in homeland security. This includes the surveillance of U.S. citizens, and the permanent domestic deployment since 2008 of a U.S. Army Brigade Combat Team, which can be “called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control.”²⁹ So far Americans seem to be less concerned about the risk of martial law than Indonesians, who still retain such bitter memories of it.

Notes

¹On the night of March 8, 2017, after Ahok failed to win an outright victory in the first round of his campaign for the governorship, Anies Baswedan, the ultimate victor, visited the home of Hary Tahoesoedibjo and secured his public support (Saeun Muarif, “Hary Tanoe Resmi dukung Anies, Kenapa FPI Diam?” Seword, March 10, 2017).

²Margaret Scott, “Indonesia: The Saudis Are Coming,” New York Review of Books,” October 27, 2016. Douglas Ramage agreed: “The Indonesia we used to talk about – Nahdlatul Ulama, Muhammadiyah – their influence has waned a bit” (Douglas Ramage, quoted in Nithin Coca, “The Fall of Ahok and Indonesia’s Future.” The Diplomat, April 21, 2017.

³E.g. Mohshin Habib, “Saudi Arabia’s ‘Lavish’ Gift to Indonesia: Radical Islam,” Gatestone Institute, International Policy Council, April 29, 2017: “Prior to Saudi Arabia’s attempts to spread Salafism across the Muslim world, Indonesia did not have terrorist organizations such as Hamas Indonesia, Laskar Jihad, Hizbut Tahrir, Islamic Defenders Front and Jemmah Islamiyah, to name just a few. Today, it is rife with these groups, which adhere strictly to Islamic sharia law, Saudi Arabia’s binding legal system, and which promote it in educational institutions. Like al-Qaeda and ISIS, they deny women equal rights, believe in death by stoning for adulterers and hand amputation for thieves, and in executing homosexuals and “apostate” Muslims. The most recent example of the way in which this extremism has swept Indonesia took place a mere three weeks after the Saudi king wrapped up his trip. On March 31, at least 15,000 Islamist protesters took to the streets of Jakarta after Friday prayers, calling for the imprisonment of the capital city’s Christian governor, who [was] on trial for ‘blaspheming the Quran.’”

⁴Tom Allard and Agustinus Beo Da Costa, “Exclusive – Indonesian Islamist leader says ethnic Chinese wealth is next target,” Reuters, May 12, 2017.

⁵It should be noted that of those 1000, the majority were urban poor non-Chinese, most of whom were trapped in shopping malls that were set on fire.

⁶Nithin Coca, “The Fall of Ahok and Indonesia’s Future.” The Diplomat, April 21, 2017.

⁷Allan Nairn, “Trump’s Indonesian Allies in Bed With ISIS-Backed FPI Militia Seeking to Oust Elected President Jokowi,” The Intercept, April 18, 2017; reprinted with Introduction by me, Asia-Pacific Journal, April 27, 2017, here.

⁸Arya Dipa, 18 January 2017). “Petition calls for disbandment of FPI,” The Jakarta Post, January 18, 2017.

⁹Ian Douglas Wilson, The Politics of Protection Rackets in Post-New Order Indonesia: Coercive Capital, Authority and Street Politics (New York: Routledge, 2015), 151.

¹⁰John T. Sidel, Riots, Pogroms, Jihad: Religious Violence in Indonesia (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006), 139: “In August 2008, activists had founded the FPI with the evident blessing – and rumored active support – of Major General Djadja Suparman, new commander of the Greater Jakarta Regional Army Command…. Clad in body-length white tunics… FPI members would reappear on subsequent occasions in 1999 and 2000, wielding sabers and machetes and claiming to speak in the name of Islam.”

¹¹Susan Berfield and Dewi Loveard, “Ten days that shook Indonesia,” in Edward Aspinall, Herb Feith, and Gerry van Klinken, eds. The Last Days of President Suharto, (Clayton, Victoria: Monash Asia Institute, 1999), 57–58. Cf. Joseph Davies, “Did Prabowo Mastermind the May 1998 Riots?” The Indonesian Army. July 7, 2014: “Starting in the mid-1990s, Prabowo and his henchmen encouraged anti-Chinese and anti-Christian violence to divert attention from internal problems, suppress the ‘openness’ (keterbukaan) movement and, after the monetary crisis, strengthen the regime’s negotiating position with the IMF. Working through his Center for Policy and Development Studies (CPDS) (which he founded with General Hartono) and its progeny, the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), Prabowo and his shady partners incited anti-Chinese and anti-Christian riots across Java during the late-1990s before the regional economic crisis. They used incendiary rhetoric, anti-minority conspiracy theories and Prabowo’s criminal underlings as paid provocateurs, all as part of a strategy to stunt the budding democracy movement and deflect public dissatisfaction with New Order excesses.”

¹²Tonny, “Prabowo and his anti-Chinese past?” New Mandala, June 2014.

¹³Sita W. Dewi, “Jakarta Politics Heating Up,” Jakarta Post, October 4, 2014. More than ten police officers were injured in the riot, and at least 20 FPI members were arrested. Nevertheless, “Gerindra Party Jakarta chairman and council deputy speaker M. Taufik, who once spent several years in prison for graft, thanked the group for holding the rally and promised that he would do whatever was necessary to end Ahok’s career.”

¹⁴Nithin Coca, “The Fall of Ahok and Indonesia’s Future.”

¹⁵Nairn, “Trump’s Indonesian Allies in Bed With ISIS-Backed FPI Militia Seeking to Oust Elected President Jokowi,” The Intercept, April 18, 2017. Admiral Ponto also told Nairn that for the movement’s military sponsors, the Ahok issue is a mere entry point, a religious hook to draw in the masses, but “Jokowi is their final destination.”

¹⁶Katie Reilly, “Donald Trump’s Indonesian Business Partner Says He Might Run for President,” Fortune, January 3, 2017.

¹⁷Nairn, “Trump’s Indonesian Allies.” Hary’s attendance raised an ethical issue when he told media that “he attended the inauguration on invitation and as a business partner of the Trump organization…. If other people have difficulty getting to [Trump], I can do it easily. I communicate with his children over our businesses. I can meet with his kids anytime. I just need to pick up the phone. My WhatsApp messages are also responded” (Andrew Kaczynski and Nathan McDermot, “Trump’s Indonesian business partner says he attended inauguration as a ‘partner of the Trump Organization’,” CNNMoney, February 10, 2017).

¹⁸See e.g. Matt Egan, “Trump adviser Icahn may have broken trading laws: Senators,” CNNMoney, May 9, 2917; Michelle Celarier, “Trump Adviser Carl Icahn Is a Blinding Supernova of Conflicts of Interest,” New York, January 2017.

¹⁹Jane Perlez and Raymond Bonner, “Below a Mountain of Wealth, a River of Waste,” New York Times, December 27, 2005.

²⁰Jon Emont, “Foreigners Have Long Mined Indonesia, but Now There’s an Outcry,” New York Times, March 31, 2017.

²¹Perlez and Bonner, “Below a Mountain:” The tensions erupted in a major riot in 1996, resolved by a high-level meeting which Prabowo reportedly chaired. Subsequently, “from 1998 through 2004, Freeport gave military and police generals, colonels, majors and captains, and military units, nearly $20 million. Individual commanders received tens of thousands of dollars, in one case up to $150,000.”

²²Anton Hermansyah, Viriya P. Singgih and Farida Susanty, “Jokowi warns Freeport,” The Jakarta Post, February 24, 2017.

²³Richard C. Paddock and Eric Lipton, “Trump’s Indonesia Projects, Still Moving Ahead, Create Potential Conflicts,” New York Times, December 31, 2016.

²⁴Jon Emont, “Foreigners Have Long Mined Indonesia, but Now There’s an Outcry,” New York Times, March 31, 2017. A month later TheMotleyFool reported that Freeport might be “be “on the verge of losing what is arguably its most important asset, as Indonesia prepares to strip ownership from it of the massive Grasberg copper and gold mine” (Rich Duprey, “Indonesia Still Looking to Strip Freeport-McMoRan of World’s Largest Gold Mine,” The Motley Fool, April 20. 2017.

²⁵Fergus Jensen and Bernadette Christina Munthe, “Freeport collects export permit after Pence visit,” Reuters, April 21, 2017.

²⁶Paddock and Lipton, “Trump’s Indonesia Projects, Still Moving Ahead, Create Potential Conflicts.” In 2015, Setya Novanto, the speaker of the House of Representatives, was temporarily forced to surrender his leadership post, because he was heard on an audio recording seeking a $4 billion payment from Freeport

²⁷Hary, already one of Indonesia’s wealthiest men, may even become Indonesia’s Trump. “Like Trump, he built his fortune–an estimated $1.1 billion–in real estate and media on a mountain of debt. He tweets nonstop to more than 1 million followers. He stages beauty pageants. He loves reality TV. He has a glamorous wife. Just as the tabloids boiled down Trump into a first name, The Donald, the Indonesian press likes to refer to Tanoesoedibjo simply as Hary.And Hary doesn’t seem content to stop there. He too has started aspiring to political power–specifically, the presidency of the world’s largest Muslim country, its fourth largest by population and its sixteenth-largest economy by GDP. Like Trump, this billionaire sees the path to power through an antielitist campaign…. “Tanoesoedibjo has the money to finance the electoral machinery and the media to actually influence public opinion,” says Rainer Heufers, cofounder of the Center for Indonesian Policy Studies, a Jakarta-based think tank. “He has, therefore, the potential to become a relevant political player in a relatively short period of time.” To Heufers, Hary gives every sign of moving Indonesia from a participatory democracy to one with a more authoritarian bent” (Abram Brown, “Meet The Donald Trump Of Indonesia: Another Billionaire Who Wants To Be President,” Forbes, March 28, 2017).

²⁸Timothy Garton Ash, The Polish Revolution: Solidarity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 247.

²⁹Peter Dale Scott, The American Deep State (Langham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014), 9; citing “Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1,” Army Times, September 30, 2008. Many fear also the risk of their possible internment and confinement, since the Army Field Manual (FM 3.39; 2-40) now envisages “I/R [internment/resettlement] tasks performed in support of civil support operations [that] are similar to those during combat operations” (U.S. Army Field Manual, 3.39, Chapter 2: Internment and Resettlement in Support of the Spectrum of Operations, 2-40). I have argued for a decade that Americans should demand the lifting of the State of Emergency enabling this that was proclaimed in September 2001 (itself now arguably illegal under the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1601-1651; Scott. American Deep State, 40-41).

All images in this article are from the author except for the featured image which is from Pinterest.

During the Japanese colonial period, over a million men were taken from Korea to labor at sites across Japan and South Pacific islands; over 145,000 of them were sent to Hokkaido. There, many of them were worked to death, and some were buried in the woods. Around the time of Chusok (Korean Thanksgiving) in 2015, Korean and Japanese volunteer organizations escorted the remains of 115 young Korean men from Hokkaido, Japan to Seoul, Korea. The journey back home took the route they had taken 70 years earlier. Crossing the Japanese archipelago from north to south, a ceremony of remembrance was held in every major city en route. After the arrival ceremony at the Korean port of their departure, Busan, and an official funeral at the Seoul City Plaza, the victims, who had been abandoned and forgotten in the woods of Hokkaido, were finally buried properly in their homeland.

From forced labor sites in Hokkaido to the Seoul Municipal Cemetery in Paju, 2015.

1. Excavation

A chance encounter drew me into the work of excavation and repatriation of the remains of Korean forced labor victims in Hokkaido. In 1989, I went to a daycare center in a small temple in Hokkaido to conduct fieldwork for my dissertation, and met the director, Priest Tonohira Yoshihiko. He was leading a small group of volunteers to excavate the remains of war time forced labor victims. He took me to the forest near a dam construction site where the victims were buried (Tonoira, 2013). I promised him that “when I return to Korea and become a professor of anthropology, I will come back here with a team of archaeologists and students and work with you.”

Eight years later, in the summer of 1997, I was finally able to keep that promise by instituting a program called “Korean-Japanese Student Workshop for Excavation of the Remains of Forced Labor Victims.” The workshop was planned as an anthropological program to further mutual understanding as well as an archaeological excavation of the remains. Finding bases for mutual understanding and reconciliation of young people from two countries that had been positioned as assailant and victim, overcoming conflictual stances and cultural prejudices, were challenging tasks. In order to minimize the risk of misunderstanding and clash, the participants were trained in cultural relativism and methods of fieldwork. They developed an autonomous volunteer organization and formed small groups of mixed Japanese and Korean origins for excavation and discussion. The students and volunteers dug up the historical truth, and tried to find a way past the historical scars and prejudice of the Koreans and the ignorance and denials of the Japanese.

The 1^st Korea-Japan Student Workshop for the Excavation of Forced Labor Victims, Shumarinai, Hokkaido 1997. 

The excavation of the remains was extremely difficult. Scraping the dirt from the ground, level by level, with shovels and trowels and investigating the traces of burial by slight changes in dirt color, we were able to unearth the facts of horrendous treatment of the dead. They were bent and crouched without coffins in shallow ground, some with fractured skulls, their bodies tangled in roots over the years.

When the first of the remains was found in the dirt, the participants from both countries trembled and cried together. Facing the evidence of this historical crime, the young generation pledged to build a peaceful future together based on truth and reconciliation. This project grew into an ongoing exchange program including fieldwork in Korea to find the surviving families of the victims.

In the past 20 years, over 1,500 participants have worked on these projects. They worked and played together, ate and drank together, and talked and slept together. Through this experience, they built a deep friendship and sense of community that could not be achieved through superficial international exchange programs that frequently overlook or downplay dark historical realities. In the process, they learned each other’s languages, and studied and worked in each other’s countries. Many fell in love and some married and had children. The workshops, as a rite of passage, changed the lives of many people, and continue today as a reconciliation and peace program for the young generation, extending from Korea and Japan to China (Chung, 2017).

A Physical Anthropologist Examines Excavated Skeletons, Asajino, Hokkaido, 2006.

2. Repatriation

In 2015, the year of the 70th anniversary of the Independence of Korea from Japanese colonialism, we decided to bring home the remains of the victims which were kept in temples near the excavation sites in Hokkaido. The families of the victims were getting old, and their memories were slipping away. Their wished urgently for return of the remains for a proper burial in the homeland.

Neither the Korean nor the Japanese government was willing to return the remains to the homeland. We had to carry out the project without any help or cooperation from either government. Rather, we had to worry about possible bureaucratic barriers and institutional interference. The journey took ferries instead of an airplane, and buses instead of trains to avoid possible conflict with government regulations. The film So Long Asleep, Waking the Ghosts of a War follows our pilgrimage across the Japanese islands as we carried those remains for proper funeral ceremony and reburial in the cemetery in Seoul.

The journey back home took the route over 3,000 kilometers in seven days. We stopped and held ceremonies of remembrance in Sapporo, Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka, Hiroshima and Shimonoseki. This was at a time when the Japanese government was trying to legislate the ‘Security Law’, which would enable the country to go to war again. The repatriation march arrived at Busan port in Korea at a time when Koreans’ mistrust and wariness toward Japan were at their highest.

Procession for the Commemoration Ceremony at Nishihonganji Temple, Kyoto, 2015.

The Japanese representatives of the repatriation group acknowledged and apologized for the past crimes against humanity of Japanese citizens, and urged their government and responsible corporations to follow their example. The distinguished historian Tessa Morris-Suzuki (2015) describes this as the largest such return of remains by grassroots citizen groups, which is a testimony to the longing of many Japanese people to right the wrongs of wartime and seek reconciliation with neighboring countries. This longing for reconciliation survives despite the rising tides of nationalism in East Asia, and despite recent failures of the Japanese government to address the troubled legacies of war with sincerity and good faith. It is also a testimony to the power of ordinary people to create dialogue across borders and to address deep-seated problems of remembrance and reconciliation.

A huge crowd gathered in Seoul City Plaza to attend the public funeral, and the victims were finally commemorated properly. At the Funeral Ceremony, the director and producer of the film So Long Asleep, Prof. David W. Plath, the pioneer media anthropologist, delivered a moving dedication. It reads as followings.

“Now I know that my idea of the human life cycle has been too narrow. Human life is greater than the cycle that we run from first breath to last gasp. We are known as persons long before we can speak and long after we go silent. A truly civil society will carry its persons through all their years of being known. … I want Americans to see our images of people in East Asia carrying white boxes. I wish the whole world could see those images and learn from them. …. Let’s imagine a day when it will not only be two dozen people in East Asia, but a day when all the people on this planet will be doing the right thing. Doing what we must do because governments can’t do it for us. Doing the free labor of carrying, the free labor that can change boxes holding what was lost into shrines that transport all of human life. That day will be Day One of lasting world peace because finally we all will be carrying one another.”

This homecoming project is one example of a worldwide effort to create new ritual forms for confronting traumatic historical events. The film So Long Asleep can be considered a visual dedication to the humane collective journey home. It ends with a public funeral ceremony in Seoul City Plaza and re-interment in a new memorial site in Seoul Municipal Cemetery. But the project continues.

Watch a short video here.

Coming Home After 70 Years at Seoul Municipal Cemetery, Paju, Korea, 2015.

3. Steppingstone for Peace

During the Chusok Holidays, many visitors came to pay respects to the forced labor victims in Seoul Municipal Cemetery. Not only the victims’ families but many ordinary citizens came to commemorate their lives. The Peace Movement organizations in Korea and Japan named this cemetery “Coming Home After 70 Years,” introducing it as a “memory site (Nora, 1989),” a place to visit for Korean and Japanese people together to share the history of forced labor and to commemorate the victims.

Lately, we have begun to set a commemorative bronze tablet, named ‘Steppingstone for Peace.’ For each victim of forced labor in Hokkaido, we are creating a small bronze tablet inscribed with his name and life details in front of his old home in Korea. (The idea comes from a project in Germany, named the Stolperstein, that has placed 56,000 such monuments near the homes of victims of the Holocaust throughout Europe). And near each labor site in Hokkaido we are placing a tablet that lists the names of the men who were sacrificed and describes the historical facts of the place.

A Steppingstone for Peace on a Street Near a Victim’s Home, Seoul, 2016.

While regimes and corporations continue to disregard the historical truth, civil organizations have worked to recognize and remember the victimization not as abstract numbers but as individuals, each with a personal history. The Steppingstone is thus a ‘symbol of remembrance’ as well as a ‘symbol of truth’ that brings the history of life and death of each victim to the sphere of our everyday lives. This, we hope, will provide a steppingstone for reconciliation and peace in East Asia.

Sources

Chung, Byung-Ho, 2017, “Giuk gwa chumo ui gonggong inryuhak: ilje gangjenodong huisaengja balgul gwa gwihwan (Public Anthropology of Memory and Commemoration: The Excavation and Repatriation of the Korean Forced Labor Victims in Japan.)” Hanguk munwha inryuhak (Korean Cultural Anthropology) 50(1): 3-46 (in Korean).

Morris-Suzuki, Tessa. 2015, “Long Journey Home: A Moment of Japan-Korea Remembrance and Reconciliation.” The Asia-Pacific Journal 13(36), 2015.

Nora, Pierre. 1989. “Between memory and history.” Representations 26:7–25.

Yoshihiko, Tonohira. 2013, Ikotsu (Skeleton). Kyoto: Kamogawa Shuppan (in Japanese).

All images in this article are from the author except for the featured image which is from Japan Today.

Responding to US-led attacks on Syrian and allied forces, a Russian Foreign Ministry statement said Sergey Lavrov “strongly disagreed with the US strikes against pro-government forces, calling for specific measures to prevent similar incidents in the future.”

The most recent incident occurred in what CENTCOM called a “deconfliction” zone – unilaterally declared by Washington.

Lavrov said he knows nothing about this zone. Russia rejects it, he stressed. US-led forces operate illegally in Syria without Security Council or Damascus authorization.

Establishing Pentagon bases in the country shows regime change remains Washington’s objective. Phony claims about combating ISIS conceal its real aim.

On Thursday, Russia’s Defense Ministry warned about US-led coalition HIMARS multiple rockets launchers moved to its illegal al-Tanf military base in southern Syria being used.

Deploying them likely means they’ll be used to attack Syrian and allied forces, a Russian Defense Ministry statement saying:

“The range of the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) is not enough to support…US-backed” anti-government forces – death squad terrorists masquerading as moderate rebels.

“At the same time, the US-led…coalition has several times attacked the Syrian government forces near the Jordanian border, so it can be assumed that such attacks will continue, but this time involving the High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems.”

Russian forces in Syria are monitoring things closely, notably in northern areas near Raqqa and along the Jordanian and Iraqi borders in the southern part of the country.

Deploying weapons anywhere in Syria without Damascus permission is flagrantly illegal. So is America’s presence and support for the terrorist scourge it claims to oppose.

During the State Department’s press briefing days earlier, spokeswoman Heather Nauert claimed CENTCOM’s so-called deconfliction zone “was established through a mutual understanding” among coalition countries…to ensure (their) forces are not endangered by other forces” – a clear perversion of truth.

She failed to address the illegality of America’s presence in the country along with its rogue allies, claiming “the urgent challenge to defeat ISIS” – the scourge Washington created and supports wherever its death squads are deployed.

“We do not see (the buildup of US-led forces in southern Syria) “as an escalation,” she said.

Reality on the ground indicates otherwise.

She declined to discuss planned US operations in Syria, saying “I’m just not going to get into that.”

Separately, Vladimir Putin told Oliver Stone in part three of his interview that Russian aircraft conduct on average between 70 – 120 daily airstrikes on terrorist targets.

During his annual Q & A marathon on Thursday, he said Russian operations in Syria have been “a significant benefit for our defense industry.”

“The use of advanced weapons allowed us to better understand the principles of their use in combat conditions and to make certain changes to the quality of these advanced weapon systems.”

“We have already known that these arms are good and could be used, but when we tested their capabilities in combat conditions, it is a different story” – the best way to proved their effectiveness.

Many groups, including Sunni ones, expressed willingness to cooperate with government and Russian forces against ISIS and al-Nusra. Assad welcomes it, Putin explained, adding:

“We we are eager to establish a dialogue in order to preserve the territorial integrity of the country. It’s very difficult. It’s difficult to reach a consensus, but direct contact with both sides gives us such a chance. And in general we achieve success.”

Achieving conflict resolution depends on cooperation from Washington and its regional allies – not at all forthcoming, unlikely given their rage for regime change and destroying Syrian sovereignty.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new 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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image: credits to the owner

Having succeeded in blocking a recent UN report that accused Israel of maintaining a system of apartheid, Israeli officials are now attempting to remove another UN report, which has charged  along with a list of other human rights violations.

The report by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), which previously accused Israel of apartheid, has come under fire from Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, because it states that in the period from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 Israeli security forces killed 63 Palestinians, including 19 children, and wounded an additional 2,276 Palestinians including 562 children.

The previous ESCWA report, which had accused Israel of apartheid, was removed by the UN following protests by Danon and US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, who this week described the UN report of “reeking with anti-Israel bias”.

The new report accuses Israeli security forces of using disproportionate force against Palestinians and in some cases of “extrajudicial executions”. The report cites the UN Committee Against Torture and its concern about “Israeli practices towards Palestinian detainees”.

The list of human rights violations included in the report were also “torture or ill-treatment of Palestinian children” and “deprivation of basic legal safeguards for administrative detainees, isolation and solitary confinement of detainees, including minors, punishment and ill-treatment of hunger strikers.” The report also claimed that

no criminal investigation was opened into more than 1,000 complaints of torture or ill-treatment filed since 2001.

Israeli sources have reported that Danon will work to have this report removed.

“This is yet another blood libel against the State of Israel,” Arutz Sheva reported Israel’s envoy to the UN saying. “Just as we succeeded in having the previous preposterous report removed, we will fight relentlessly against this blatantly false distortion of the truth as well.”

Featured image: Mohammed Elshamy/Anadolu Agency via MEMO

Dear Hassan Diab Supporter,

June 21^st marks Dr. Hassan Diab’s third summer incarcerated in France away from his family in Ottawa, Canada. We have an important, indeed urgent, request of you…

On Wednesday June 21^st, please telephone Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and ask him to intervene with the French government and request Hassan’s release and return to his home in Canada.

We need to have as many of these calls as possible from different parts of the country on the same day to amplify our message. We also suggest that you ask a friend to call. You and your friend can also call the Prime Minister’s constituency office.

It is possible that you will not get through to an assistant, but only to an answering machine or service. That’s OK.  Please leave a message in your own words using the text below as template. It is best to call during business hours.  In addition to phoning, you may also consider sending a fax if you have access to a fax machine.

Mr. Justin Trudeau
House of Commons
Phone: 1 (613) 992-4211
Fax: 1 (613) 941-6900

Constituency Office
Phone: 1 (514) 277-6020

Template Message:

“Hello (or good morning, good afternoon, etc.). My name is ______________.  I am a supporter of Justice for Dr. Hassan Diab and I am calling to ask that the Canadian government and Prime Minister Trudeau intervene to secure Hassan Diab’s release. Hassan has been in prison for almost three years, despite the fact that there is consistent evidence that he is innocent. Three different French judges have ordered his release six times, yet he remains in prison in France. This is a violation of Hassan’s rights, and we insist that the Prime Minister intervene with the new French government and ask for Hassan Diab’s immediate return to Canada. To do less dishonors Canada and Canadians.

I look forward to your response.  You can call me personally at ______________”.

***

Thank you for your support in the struggle to free Dr. Hassan Diab.

Featured image: credits to the owner

“If there is an institution in this country that is an anti-national institution, it would be the Canadian military…The Canadian military is not oriented toward defending Canadian national sovereignty. It’s oriented toward fighting wars of the US Empire.” -Yves Engler, from this week’s interview

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

There is a sense that if a person lives under their parents’ roof, if they don’t at least pay for room and board, they can’t lay claim to being independent and responsible for their own lives.

That is the sentiment Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland seemed to be evoking in a June 6 House of Commons speech. She spoke of the need to invest billions in a “well-funded and well-equipped military” so as not to be overly dependent on shelter under the US Security umbrella, which would make the country a ‘client state.’ She especially highlighted the importance of setting a ‘clear and sovereign course’ at a time when America appears to be abandoning its role of global leadership under Trump.

The very next day, Canada’s Minister of Defence Harjit Sajjan, speaking on behalf of the government, introduced the policy document Strong, Secure, Engaged: Canada’s Defence Policy, which among other proposals, would ratchet up annual defence spending from the current level of $18.9 billion to $32.7 billion in ten years, thereby funding the creation of 15 new war ships and the procurement of 88 new fighter jets, among other initiatives.

Ironically, this supposedly bold national project constitutes in effect a capitulation to President Trump’s earlier demands that NATO partners up their military spending, and dresses it up as protecting national sovereignty and promoting Canadian values.

There has been virtually no significant challenge, either in the Canadian media or in Parliament, as to the virtue or sensibleness of such spending priorities. Even the opposition NDP, once dubbed the ‘conscience of Parliament‘, is emphasizing the need to spend more on the military.

Canada has been an active participant in numerous military engagements since World War II, most recently in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq (contrary to popular opinion), Haiti, and Libya. Under Trudeau, Canada is supporting the call to oust Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, and Canadian troops are being dispatched to lead a multi-national NATO contingent in Latvia, right on Russia’s doorstep.

As has been documented numerous times on this website and on the Global Research News Hour radio program, these operations can hardly be described as benevolent.

The release of Canada’s new defence policy provides the backdrop for this week’s program dedicated to the true nature of Canadian foreign policy and how various media and academic institutions, including mainstream peace organizations, are complicit in brainwashing the public into going along with a program of Western imperialism and war. We open up the discussion with two past guests of the show.

Yves Engler is the author of eight books, including Canada in Africa: 300 years of aid and exploitation, The Ugly Canadian: Stephen Harper’s Foreign Policy, and his latest – A Propaganda System: How Canada’s Government, Corporations, Media and Academia Sell War and Exploitation. His work has appeared at rabble.ca, the Dominion, Z Net, and Global Research, as well as some mainstream publications, including the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, and the Ottawa Citizen. A complete list of his books and articles can be found at the site yvesengler.com

Richard Sanders is the coordinator of the Coalition Opposed to the Arms Trade, and has a history of involvement in anti-war activism that spans three decades. He is also a researcher and the publisher and editor of Press For Conversion Magazine.

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

Last week Britain voted in the most significant and surprising general election in modern history. What did we learn and where does this leave our work for global justice? 

1. Mass politics is back

Armies of progressive Britons, many of them young people, came out to campaign in this election. Young people recognised that only a massive vote by them would prevent the Conservative landslide predicted in the polls, and they got involved in door knocking, delivering leaflets, standing on stalls, organising rallies and more. It wasn’t all for Labour – young people came out in huge numbers to support a progressive alliance as well, or other parties like the Greens and the SNP.

If, like us, you think only mass movements of people can change things, this bodes well. If these people stay engaged and involved in campaigning for change, anything is possible. We all have a role to play in helping them stay active. After all, it was the disaffection, frustration and anger of young people that gave us the sweeping political changes of the 1960s.

2. Neoliberalism is wounded. The fight for its successor will be fierce

The Labour manifesto firmly rejected ‘neoliberal’ economics of the free market, embedding instead social democratic principles of redistribution, industrial policy, high levels of investment, and an ethical foreign policy aimed at peace and cooperation. It was the most critical Labour position on the free market and big business since the early 1980s.

The Conservative manifesto also rejected aspects of neoliberalism, as May talked up industrial policy and the importance of the state, downplaying the traditional emphasis on free markets and declaring she wouldn’t be captured by those on the ‘ideological right’.

There was also much to object to in the Conservative manifesto on global justice issues, including a Trump-lite approach to migration, a push to redefine ‘refugee’ and ‘aid’, and an emphasis on trading with the world – which too often seems to mean human rights-abusing regimes. Some of this will sound good to certain big business interests – just as Trump’s programme has done. But this aside, it seems that here in one of the homes of neoliberalism, the ideological obsession with free markets is crumbling. We’ll have to see whether May’s loss of credibility and lack of a majority in the Commons changes that. But already there are reports of a rethink on austerity.

3. The political rulebook is no longer any use

Few political commentators or politicians expected this result. Indeed, the rules of politics of the last three decades seem to be useless in predicting what will happen next. It seems almost certain that there will be another election in 12 months under a new Conservative leader. But who knows?

This makes long-term planning more difficult. But it also shakes things up. Do we need to develop new sorts of organisations to deal with this new reality? To make new alliances? To look at how we campaign? It’s very possible that big organisations formed in a different period will find this new reality hard to cope with. Change won’t necessarily come from working with the same organisations that have played a big role up till now.

4. A softer Brexit is much more likely, with less arrogance and more cooperation

In terms of Brexit negotiations, nearly everyone thinks that May’s hard line Brexit strategy will need to be rethought. Those Conservatives who support a softer Brexit feel newly empowered. A closer relationship with Europe, perhaps remaining part of more institutions, maybe even the single market in a Norwegian style deal, is once more a possibility. The idea that ‘no deal with the EU is better than a bad deal’ has been dealt a serious blow.

This is good news for maintaining a decent regulatory framework, and maintaining cooperation and trade with Europe. Our central worry is that both Labour and the Conservatives oppose freedom of movement, and support ‘managed migration’. We’ll have to work hard to shift this.

The way that Brexit will come about will also change. Over the weekend Jeremy Corbyn said the Great Repeal Bill is ‘history’. This suggests that this mammoth piece of legislation, which risked giving huge new powers to government ministers, will be fiercely opposed by Labour and other parties. It raises the possibility that we really won’t see our rights diminished as part of this legislation. But we’ll still need to keep up the pressure.

5. There is a real choice – and everything to fight for

If neoliberalism is seriously weakened, the battle for what replaces it is in full flow. There are very big differences between the manifestos on the issues that concern us most. On trade, Labour, the SNP, Greens and Lib Dems all promised a more democratic means of negotiating trade deals. Labour launched a ‘just trade’ initiative, promising to review all investment deals with the aim of removing ‘corporate courts’. The Conservatives offered none of this, and are actually promoting trade deals with several countries with seriously worrying human rights abuses.

While Labour promised to premise aid on social justice, the Conservatives want to redefine the very term ‘aid’ so they can use it on all manner of projects not currently considered aid. While the Conservatives want to redefine ‘refugees’, Labour committed to international responsibilities towards refugees. While Conservative Ministers have cosied up to Gulf states, Labour promised an arms embargo on Saudi and an ethical foreign policy.

This is unusual for us – our policies have become mainstream. But they’re still contested. There is a huge ideological divide between the parties. The coming months will look less like normal governance and more like a protracted election between these competing visions for what sort of country the UK wants to become. It’s all to play for.

Featured image: Global Justice Now

We noted yesterday that the Washington Post is owned by one of the world’s richest guys, worth $72.8 billion  … and who may soon become THE world’s richest.

And you probably won’t hear it from the New York Times, but the largest shareholder of the Times  is the sixth wealthiest guy … worth $54.5 billion. He used to be THE richest person, but he’s slipped a little in the rankings.

It’s not just the Post and the Times …

Forbes reported last year:

Washington Post executive editor Martin Baron and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who owns the Washington Post, on stage at the Post’s “Transformers” conference in May 2016.  (Source: Forbes)

Billionaires have long exerted influence on the news simply by owning U.S. media outlets.

Some billionaires, like Rupert Murdoch and Michael Bloomberg are longtime media moguls who made their fortunes in the news business. Others, like Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, bought publications as a side investment after building a substantial fortune in another industry. Billionaires own part or all of several of America’s influential national newspapers, including The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, in addition to magazines, local papers and online publications.

Several other billionaires, including Comcast CEO Brian Roberts and Liberty Media Chairman John Malone, own or control cable TV networks that are powerful but not primarily news focused.

Here’s a look at some of the billionaires who own news media in the United States:

Michael Bloomberg – Bloomberg LP and Bloomberg Media

Michael Bloomberg, the richest billionaire in the media business, returned to his eponymous media company in September 2014, eight months after stepping down as mayor of New York City. One notable sign of his influence on the publication: Michael Bloomberg doesn’t appear on Bloomberg’s Billionaires Index. FORBES pegs his net worth at $45.7 billion. Bloomberg cofounded his financial data company in 1981 with Charles Zegar and Thomas Secunda, both of whom are now billionaires as well thanks to their minority equity stakes in Bloomberg LP. The company expanded into business news coverage and has more than 2,000 reporters around the world. In 2009, Bloomberg LP bought Business Week magazine from McGraw Hill for a reported $5 million plus assumption of debt.

Rupert Murdoch – News Corp

Rupert Murdoch, former CEO of 21st Century Fox , the parent of powerhouse cable TV channel Fox News, may well be the world’s most powerful media tycoon. He is executive co-chairman of 21st Century Fox with his son Lachlan and is also chairman of News Corp, which owns The Wall Street Journal and other publications. Altogether, his family controls 120 newspapers across five countries. Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal also owns 1e of News Corp, after cutting down his holdings from 6% in early 2015.

Donald and Samuel “Si” Newhouse – Advance Publications

Donald Newhouse and his brother Samuel “Si” Newhouse inherited Advance Publications, a privately-held media company that controls a plethora of newspapers, magazine, cable TV and entertainment assets, from their father. Advance owns newspapers in 25 cities and towns across America and is the country’s largest privately-held newspaper chain. Conde Nast, a unit of Advance Publications, publishes magazines including Wired, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker and Vogue. Si stepped down as chairman of Conde Nast in 2015.

Cox Family – Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Cox Enterprises , owned by the billionaire Cox family, counts The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and a number of other daily papers among its many media investments. James Cox, the company founder and grandfather of current chairman Jim Kennedy, bought his first newspaper, the Dayton Ohio Evening News, in 1898. The Cox Media Group Division today owns the Journal-Constitution and six other daily newspapers, more than a dozen non-daily publications, 14 broadcast television stations, one local cable channel and 59 radio stations.

***

John Henry – The Boston Globe

Billionaire Red Sox owner John Henry purchased the Boston Globe in October 2013 for $70 million. Henry agreed to purchase the Globe just days after Bezos acquired the Washington Post. The Globe was previously owned by the New York Times for twenty years. At the time of his purchase, Henry said he didn’t plan to influence the paper’s sports coverage.

Sheldon Adelson – The Las Vegas Review-Journal

In December 2014, Las Vegas casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson secretly bought the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The newspaper’s  own reporting outed the billionaire buyer, who reportedly arranged the $140 million deal through his son-in-law. Since then, there have been reports of Adelson influencing coverage of himself at a newspaper that in the past was often critical of the billionaire.

Joe Mansueto – Inc. and Fast Company magazines

Morningstar CEO Joe Mansueto made his $2.3 billion fortune at the investment and research firm he founded in 1984. One month after taking Morningstar public in 2005, Mansueto bought Inc. and Fast Company magazine from G&J USA.  In a statement at the time, he wrote, “I wasn’t looking to buy a magazine. Or two, for that matter….I bought them because I’m passionate about their missions. Their past, present, and future contributions.”

Mortimer Zuckerman – US News & World Report, New York Daily News

Real estate billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman is the owner of both US News & World Report and the New York Daily News. Zuckerman serves as chairman and editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report, which he bought in 1984. In the years since, US News & World Report has made a name for itself with its lucrative rankings, including Best Colleges, Best Graduate School and Best Hospitals lists. Zuckerman bought the Daily News out of bankruptcy in 1993 and unsuccessfully tried to sell the tabloid newspaper for six months in 2015.

Barbey family – Village Voice

In October 2015, investor Peter Barbey bought the Village Voice, a New York City alternative weekly, through his investment company Black Walnut Holdings LLC for an undisclosed price. Barbey is a member of the billionaire Barbey family, which made its fortune in textiles and manufacturing. In 1989, John Barbey started the Reading Globe and Mitten Manufacturing Company in Pennsylvania. His son J.E. Barbey took the company, which was then known as Vanity Fair Silk Mills, public in 1951 and the family still owns nearly 20% of the company. The family has also owned a local Pennsylvania paper, The Reading Eagle, for generations.

Stanley Hubbard – Hubbard Broadcasting

Media mogul Stanley Hubbard is CEO of Hubbard Broadcasting, which has 13 TV stations, including a number of ABC and NBC news affiliates in the Midwest, and 48 radio stations. In August, Hubbard bought a stake in PodcastOne, a one-stop shop app for podcasts, through Hubbard Broadcasting. Media runs in Hubbard’s family; his father started Minnesota’s first commercial TV station in 1923.

Patrick Soon-Shiong – Tribune Publishing Co.

On May 23, Tribune Publishing Co. announced that L.A. doctor and pharmaceutical billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong’s Nant Capital was investing $70.5 million into the media company, making Soon-Shiong the second-largest shareholder. He is now the vice chairman of the media company, which owns papers like The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune.  In an interview with CNBC, Soon-Shiong described his investment as an “opportunity to actually transform this newspaper world into this next generation.” In 2014, Tribune Publishing Co. was spun out of Tribune Company , which changed its name to Tribune Media Co. Tribune Co. had previously been owned by billionaire real estate investor Sam Zell, who took control of Tribune Co. in 2007. Less than a year later, the company went bankrupt. Four years later, Tribune Co. emerged from bankruptcy after being bought by Oaktree Capital Management, Angelo, Gordon & Co and JPMorgan Chase.

***

Warren Buffett – regional daily papers

Warren Buffett, as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, has invested in a number of small newspapers and owns about 70 dailies today. In 2012, Berkshire Hathaway acquired 63 daily newspapers and weeklies in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Alabama from Media General for $142 million.

Viktor Vekselberg – Gawker

Russian billionaire Viktor Vekselberg’s investment arm, Columbus Nova Technology Partners, bought a minority stake in Gawker in January 2016 for an undisclosed amount. The online media company took outside funding for the first time in anticipation of legal fees incurred by a lawsuit brought by wrestler Hulk Hogan, according to a leaked memo from Gawker founder Nick Denton. Hogan sued Gawker after it published a sex tape. In March a jury awarded Hogan $140 million in damages. Gawker aims to appeal the ruling.

Even the New York Times notes:

[There is] an aggressive bid by the very wealthy to control the American news media at a time when it is in a financially weakened state, struggling to maintain its footing on the electronic frontier’s unstable terrain.

***

Billionaires do not become billionaires by being passive about their own interests. In other instances, once wealthy individuals are involved, those interests can appear to take over.

***

And long before Mr. Murdoch, there was one William Randolph Hearst, who defined what it meant to be a media mogul.

Noam Chomsky points out that big status quo-loving corporations own the media, cater to other big status quo-loving advertisers, and filter out stories which question the status quo. Extreme media consolidation has made the problem worse than ever before. And see this.

Thing have only gotten worse since this chart was prepared in 2004:

And Matt Stoller points out that monopolization is the problem behind “fake news”.

Is it any wonder that the mainstream corporate media reflects the views of the oligarchs, and not average Americans?

Featured image: 21st Century Wire

The EU has taken the stunning step to pursue pro-migrant sanctions against its fellow Polish, Hungarian, and Czech members.

None of these three targeted countries agreed to Brussels’ unilateral demand that they accept the relocation of Greek- and Italian-based migrants, arguing that it’s illegal for the EU to force them to do this, and also that it would in any case endanger their national and social security. About the latter part, Budapest initially took the lead in opposing the large-scale and illegal migration of civilizationally dissimilar people two years ago when it constructed a fortified fence along the Serbian border. Prime Minister Orban said that the uncontrollable influx of Muslims would wreck social stability and lead to terrorism. Although branded as a “racist”, “fascist”, “white supremacist” by the liberal-indoctrinated Mainstream Media, his national constituency overwhelmingly supported his extreme measures, and furthermore, his rhetoric was soon thereafter echoed by Poland’s Law and Justice party, better known by its abbreviation PiS, after it swept parliament and entered into power in late-2015.

On its own, Hungary could become a symbol of conservative resistance to the ill-thought-out and forced multiculturalism of the European elites, but it would never have been able to sustain such a policy without much larger Poland backing it up. For comparison’s sake, Hungary is a geographically tiny state with nearly 10 million people, while Poland takes up a huge swath of the Eastern European plain and boasts almost 40 million people. Accordingly, PiS’ entrance into power made it possible for Orban’s approach towards illegal migration to become somewhat mainstream in Eastern and Central Europe, hence why fellow Visegrad member, the Czech Republic, also joined its allies in implementing a similar policy as well. These three countries ardently refused to resettle a single illegal migrant in spite of the EU’s threats that this will result in the bloc unprecedentedly sanctioning these states, though to credit their credit, they’re holding firm to their principles and aren’t wavering in the face of Brussels’ economic and political blackmail.

The fact that the EU is moving to sanction three of its own members – which are not coincidentally three of the four Visegrad states – is proof that there is a political civil war raging inside of Europe at the highest levels of international government. We can broadly categorize the two camps as liberals and conservatives, with Brussels being the liberal center and the Polish-Hungarian Strategic Partnership functioning as the conservative one. Both sides seek to reform the EU, albeit in radically different directions. Brussels wants to impose a full-blown liberal dictatorship of centralization in order to keep the bloc together in the post-Brexit aftermath, while Poland and Hungary aspire to restore national sovereignty to the member states through decentralization into what amounts to de-facto regional blocs, such as the Visegrad Group. Bearing these competing dynamics in mind, it’s fair to say that the entire future of the EU is on the line amidst Brussels’ pro-migrant sanctions against three of its rebellious members, but that both sides might unwittingly end up catalyzing the collapse of the bloc if this spat goes too far.

The post presented is the partial transcript of the CONTEXT COUNTDOWN radio program on Sputnik News, aired on Friday Jun 16, 2017:

All images in this article are from the author.

“From nowhere, a grassroots power base of [60,000] left-wing activists overturned Blair’s 20-year “New Labour” project, which took the party into the Clintonite center ground, and ultimately to three straight general election victories, No.10 Downing Street, and government. As the leader of Britain’s main opposition, Corbyn is technically the next prime minister in waiting. This is not a trivial achievement.

“It has left his party’s establishment stunned.” –  ‘Momentum: The Inside story of how Corbyn took control of the Labour Party‘, Business Insider, March 3, 2016

Millions of people put their faith in Jeremy Corbyn (less so the Labour Party I venture to guess). But whether you want it or not, when you get Jeremy Corbyn, you get the Labour Party, the two are joined at the hip. So the question all Labour supporters need to ask is; will a Labour government deliver anything close to Corbyn’s Manifesto, even the neoliberalised version, had they won power? An end to austerity, investing in the health service, in jobs, in housing and in education and ending our imperialist adventures abroad? In other words, not only addressing the basics of life in this, one of the richest countries on the planet, but halting our murderous pillaging of the planet.

To the Barricades? I don’t think so, but…the ‘grassroots’ mobilisation that Momentum, 38 Degrees et al spearheaded shows just what can be achieved once you move outside the Parliamentary straight-jacket and address the real concerns of working people, where they live and work.

British comedian Francesca Martinez (C) speaks at a rally in support of Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn by the grassroots group Momentum at The Troxy on July 6, 2016 in London, England (Source: Labor Union TV)

Apparently, as I suggested in my previous outings on this subject, it was the youth vote that turned the tables, adding around 1.2 million votes to the Labour total (55% of the under-35s and 2 million would have made it a Labour victory). It made the difference, to what exactly, I’m not sure, given how the Parliamentary Labour Party remains light-years away from the millions mobilised by Momentum, 38 Degrees etc. Can the gap (chasm) be bridged?

Of course Momentum and 38 Degrees are over the Moon. The results vindicate their strategy of targeting the youth vote. I got this missive from 38 Degrees following the election result:

My name’s David, I’m executive director of 38 Degrees.

At 6am this morning, I sat down with the 38 Degrees staff team to try to make sense of the general election result.

I don’t know about you, William, but I was pretty surprised it’s a hung parliament. [1] I’m still trying to decide exactly what to do next – and I’d like your help with that.

As 38 Degrees-ers, our strength comes from the fact there are millions of us, and we choose our campaigns together. We don’t make these decisions alone. – email from 38 Degrees

No you surely don’t! The emasculation of Corbyn’s Draft Election Manifesto is proof of that, and it was a compromise to start with. And this is the problem. Momentum mobilises people essentially using a deception. They’ve used the deception that Corbyn’s Draft Manifesto is the Labour Party’s programme but it isn’t, not that of the Labour MPs in Parliament who are, by the way, not bound to reflect the views of the constituencies that nominated them, if indeed they did actually select them.

Rank and file members and supporters of Corbyn’s Labour Party have absolutely no control over the Party’s final programme, that’s all decided behind closed doors by the Party’s hierarchy, with Corbyn. Furthermore, the Momentum/38 Degrees campaign was not for Corbyn per se but for the Labour Party and its bureaucracy of which Corbyn is an integral part.

As proof of this, any attempt at incorporating other progressive voices that are not totally subordinate to the Labour Party will be silenced/removed (as they were during the election process, more on this below).

Progressive voices within the Labour Party, even at the constituency level will be under the watchful eye of the Party bureaucracy for signs of any deviation from the ‘true path’. The mechanism is called Bans and Proscriptions and it’s been used time and time again to remove any ‘toxic’ influence i.e., those to the left of the Labour Party. This is not to say that there aren’t political groups who practice what is known as ‘entryism‘, we saw this during the year-long battle over Corbyn’s leadership of the Party that started in 2015. But such tactics are limited to individual Labour Party branches and hardly constitute a threat to the Labour Party itself. Now I don’t want to get into a tussle over whether such tactics are legitimate, personally, I think that it’s unethical and frankly opportunist, it’s not something I would do. It’s the old, means justify the ends versus the ends justifying means.

As the 1950s came to an end, the number of proscribed organisations continued to grow. In 1959 the Socialist Labour League, of which Gerry Healy was a leading member and whose comrades were also Labour Party members, was proscribed. SLL influence over the Labour Party’s youth organisation, the Young Socialists, led to the Labour right closing YS in 1964. In the 1960s, proscribed organisations included the British-Soviet Friendship Society, the World Peace Council and the World Federation of Trade Unions. In 1965, Labour’s NEC expelled 18 members of Paddington South CLP following allegations of a Trotskyist takeover. – Labour Party Marxists

The problem with the various ‘extra-Parliamentary’ structures setup to help put the Labour Party back in power, the so-called grassroots structures and actions, is that all are geared to work with the Labour Party, and only the Labour Party. So to talk of ‘grassroots’ campaigning is somewhat misleading. The entire campaign was all about returning a Labour government, but not necessarily a Labour government that the 40% voted for.

Momentum

It is likely that as Momentum grows and if it takes to the streets, the political space available to the SWP will continue to shrink. What Corbyn has unleashed is not an electoral machine, but a movement. What happens to this movement is the single most important consideration for the immediate future. If it remains tied to the apron strings of the Labour Party and is subordinated to the electoral whims of the bureaucracy it will dissipate. If on the other hand it goes beyond electoral politics, if it supports workers in struggle, if it revives student protests, if it leads the fight against privatisation, if it organises in the community, if it builds solidarity between all sections of workers including between the youth and the elderly who are going to be under siege, it can change Britain. – ‘MAYfly, Brexit, the Economy and the SWP‘

But using the Labour Party as the vehicle?

So what is Momentum and why is it important to understand its role? Is it a campaigning group, a political action committee (PAC) or even a political party? In some respects it’s all of these things and then none of them. To some extent it’s modeled on PACs and very much the product of the ‘social media’ generation, it has proved incredibly effective at utilising so-called social media tools. I suspect also, that the Labour/Tory/Lib-Dem, you name it, political parties, are clueless about such things and can only gawp, when, for once, the tools of manipulation and control are turned against them.

And who are Momentum? Well you’ve got the Left of the Labour Party posse, who still see the Road to Socialism as running through 10 Downing Street. Then you’ve got an assortment of Leftie ‘marxist’ types, I hazard a guess mainly from the SWP (Socialist Workers Party), who have a long and rather tawdry history of opportunism, ready to jump onto whatever bandwagon rolls past their front door and then jump off whenever it no longer suits them.

Source: Labour Party Marxists

But most important of all, you’ve got a lot of young people who are entirely new to political activism. These are the important people and hopefully, the SWP’s antics won’t put them off.

But have Momentum really created a movement as the guys at planningmotive.com assert? And if so, how does it relate to the Labour Party and any future Labour government? It’s one thing to motivate a lot of youngster via Twitter or Facebook (they don’t read newspapers and probably don’t watch TV either), but as they say, ‘If [Momentum] remains tied to the apron strings of the Labour Party and is subordinated to the electoral whims of the bureaucracy it will dissipate. If on the other hand it goes beyond electoral politics, if it supports workers in struggle, if it revives student protests, if it leads the fight against privatisation, if it organises in the community, if it builds solidarity between all sections of workers including between the youth and the elderly who are going to be under siege, it can change Britain’.

But will Momentum take to the streets and what will be the Labour Party’s hierarchy’s response? It would after all, be a challenge not only to their control of the Labour Party but to the Labour Party itself!

Momentum arose because of the unlikely and unexpected election of Jeremy Corbyn to the head of the Labour Party. Once in place, those on the left saw an opportunity to shift the Labour Party away away from its neoliberal, Blairite position. But toward what? 1945? A return to Keynesian economics and the Welfare state? Is this possible in the current climate? Moreover, do it using the Labour Party? This is after all, where Corbyn’s (draft) Manifesto sat, effectively in the past ‘glories’ of a post-war Labour government.

Game Over?

Late-breaking news, the death of Momentum? Apparently, from the 1st of July all Momentum members will have to be Labour Party members. This was the result of a bitter power struggle within Momentum. In effect the Labour Party will control who belongs to Momentum.

The new voters?

Let’s take a look at these new, young voters: Who are they? What do they want? Is it an homogenous sector of British society? Where do they come from? On the face of it, they clearly want/need what Corbyn was offering them. But assuming Corbyn had actually won the election (for) the Labour Party, would these young voters have been satisfied with what this newly invigorated Labour Party/government had to offer them, in the current climate?

So it’s clearly going to take more, much more than electing the Labour Party, even with Corbyn (theoretically) at its helm, to start the ball rolling and bring about a real, fundamental transformation of society.

Now you may well think me some kind of utopian fool at this point in my investigation but just look at the attempts at overcoming this neoliberal madness; Syriza in Greece, the Bolivarians in Venezuela, Podemos in Spain. All tried to reverse the tide of austerity utilising only the tools of Parliamentarism and all failed. These are the failures of a reformist left that continues to operate within the confines of a so-called democracy.

So what is possible and is Parliament really the best starting point?

Assuming that the ‘Corbyn effect’ is just the beginning of the process of bringing about revolutionary transformation, given that Momentum/38 Degrees etc are really exclusive conduits for the Labour Party, either they have to broaden their base (would the Labour Party tolerate this?) or, here’s a thought: perhaps Corbyn has to carry the constituency parties who supported him, plus the millions who voted for him and create a new mass structure independent of the Labour Party?

Even assuming that this is possible, it’s clearly a long term project that has very little to do with voting for these characters every five years (or whenever they feel like it).

It strikes me that in the UK there are two kinds of lefties; there are the lefties who have no problem with our imperialist antics abroad (see the Labour Party Manifesto for examples), preferring to advocate for ‘socialist’ remedies at home. And this approach goes all the way back to the very foundation of the Labour Party, that once it accepted the so-called Parliamentary road to socialism [sic], it was firmly embedded (read coopted) into the capitalist state.

The brief period of the post-WWII Labour government saw it adopting socialist methods (much as capitalists have done and still do) and for two reasons: firstly because the UK was bankrupt, therefore it was essential for the state to step in (when capitalists are broke, they have no problem accepting the public’s largesse) and secondly, to stave off a real revolution, or at least the possibility of one.

This was the setting of the Cold War and our ‘socialist’ Labour Party had no qualms about its red-baiting tactics used against ‘comrades’ and it’s still being used to this day. But it was our actions abroad where it dived in with gusto to protect the Empire’s assets, in Africa and Asia and wherever ‘our’ interests’ were threatened.

Of course it can be argued that even the emasculated Manifesto that was finally presented to the electorate is the best we can hope for under the circumstances, but is this true? The question Labour voters have to ask themselves is whether the Labour Party programme that they voted for, would ever materialise? And if it didn’t, what means do we have, those who voted for the Labour Party, to enforce our will? In other words, is the Labour Party and this future Labour government democratic?

Richard Seymour, well known on the left has written what is actually more of a historical timeline on the rise of Corbyn than it is an analysis of the election and its result, ‘Where do we go From Here?‘. So we read:

“The result [of the election] now is that Labour is just a two percent swing away from power, with a popular left wing agenda, and ahead in the polls.” [bid] (my emph. WB)

A popular leftwing agenda after Corbyn’s manifesto had been trashed by the Labour Party bureaucracy? I’ll repeat here how the Draft Manifesto was mangled by the hierarchy (with Corbyn’s collusion):

The draft, produced by the team around Labour’s nominally left leader Jeremy Corbyn, was subject to ratification by the party’s top officials on May 11. It sought to marry a watery commitment to certain social reforms and a slight relaxation in the Conservatives’ austerity agenda with a raft of measures demanded by the Blairite right wing. In particular, it committed Labour to the £200 billion renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system, and to supporting NATO, and included a declaration that Corbyn would be prepared to launch a nuclear attack—albeit while being “extremely cautious” about it.

/../

However, the concessions contained in Labour’s draft manifesto have since been revealed as only a staging post for Corbyn in what his shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, described as a “journey” towards accepting NATO and nuclear war.

The qualification on the use of the armed forces contained in the draft version,

“That’s why we will never send them into harm’s way unless all other options have been exhausted,” is removed in the final manifesto.

/../

Nothing Corbyn says is worth a damn. At the launch of the manifesto, he pledged that Labour would end the brutal Tory policy of a freeze on working-age welfare benefits.

“Clearly we are not going to freeze benefits. That is very clear,” he proclaimed. One hour later, he was in full reverse, baldly stating, “We’ve not made any commitment on that.” By the end of the day, Thornberry was stating, “I don’t think we can reverse it entirely. We shouldn’t be promising things we can’t afford.”

In spite of this, Seymour ends on this upbeat note:

“Jeremy Corbyn took the leadership of the Labour Party at a moment when its secular crisis had become crystal clear, offered a diagnosis and a cure, and made it take the medicine even against stubborn resistance. Organisationally and electorally, he has begun to turn it around, much faster than anyone would have expected. He has found hidden reservoirs of support and strength for the Left, raw materials for social transformation. In doing so, he has also exposed the inherent fragility of the supposedly indomitable, terrifying Tory machine, accentuating its inherited crises and long term decline, and potentially hastening the end of its role as a viable party of government.

“This is a once in a lifetime moment, wherein mobilisation and activism could fundamentally change the whole direction of the country, giving a socialist inflection and shape to popular discontents and aspirations. The Left has nothing better, or more important, to do than make this happen.”

But in reality, these stirring words are more wishful thinking that an accurate reflection of the state of play. Seymour still sees the Parliamentary Labour Party as the vehicle to carry out social transformation, when it’s clear that the Labour Party has no intention of doing anything other than try to assure its own survival and the survival of capitalism. We need look no further than the duplicitous history of the Labour Party stabbing its supporters in the back.

Postscript: I had intended to include an interview I conducted with someone who joined the Labour Party as a direct result of the rise of Corbyn, but firstly this essay is already nearly 3000 words and I could easily see the interview doubling that. So I decided to publish it as separate essay shortly.

Featured image: In Defence of Marxism

Just days after President Donald Trump publicly scolded Qatar for being a “high level” exporter of regional terrorism in the Middle East, its government announced Wednesday the signing of a deal to buy $12 billion worth of F-15 fighter jets from U.S. weapons makers.

The Pentagon justified the massive sale by saying the jets—reportedly 39 of them—would increase “security cooperation” between the two countries.

Pointing towards the glaring hypocrisy, journalist Jeremy Scahill quipped,

“Ah yes. Take that, Qatar! Feel the wrath of the Trump…”

Last Friday, Trump told reporters at a White House press conference that

“Qatar, unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level.”

The president then said he had decided to take a harder line with the country.

Oil-rich Qatar is home to a major U.S. airbase in the region and a longtime ally, but the latest weapons sale comes amid boiling tensions in the region centered around ongoing wars in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen as a well as a diplomatic crisis between members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

And NBC News notes:

Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates cut diplomatic and transport ties with Qatar last week and accused it of supporting terrorism and regional unrest.

Despite these allegations, Qatar is a crucial ally to Washington in the Middle East. It is home to 10,000 American troops and a major American military base that acts as the center of U.S. operations in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Like Scahill, historian and Middle East expert Vijay Prashad, said the weapons sale in this context, if not surprising, is telling:

US agrees with KSA/UAE that Qatar is a 'state-sponsor of terrorism', and then sells Qatar $12 billion in arms. Credibility gap is wide.

— Vijay Prashad (@vijayprashad) June 15, 2017

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

Featured image: credits to the owner

He’s dead wrong on vital domestic and geopolitical issues – serving wealth, power and privilege exclusively, harming most others at home and abroad.

He’s right about a deplorable witch-hunt – dark forces assaulting the office of the presidency and the nation if successful, an undeclared coup d’etat attempt, wanting easily controlled Pence replacing him.

He may have been the deep state’s choice for president all along, once Trump emerged last aspirant standing among the array of GOP hopefuls – Pence a neocon Tea Party hardliner, an imperial war cheerleader, an Islamophobe and Russophobe, hostile to immigrant rights, and much more of concern.

He’s anti-progressive, anti-social justice, anti-governance serving everyone equitably, anti-abortion rights, anti-LGBT and women’s rights, anti-gay marriage, an evangelical supporter of Israel’s worst crimes.

He’s part of the lunatic fringe infesting Washington, a bigoted Christian white supremacist, a far-right religious fundamentalist, serving in the nation’s second highest office.

He’s for virtually everything free societies abhor. Americans have just cause to fear a Pence presidency if Trump’s ousted from office – from the frying pan to the fire, as the saying goes.

Trump made a colossal mistake appointing him. GHW Bush was much wiser choosing Dan Quayle, unqualified for any public office, unlikely any Washington power broker would want him replacing GHW.

Democrat VP candidate Lloyd Bentsen put him down resoundingly in their one vice-presidential debate, memorably saying “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.” Neither was Bentsen or any US president past or present.

It’s too late for second thoughts on his VP choice, Trump stuck with Pence, a decision he may long regret if things go against him.

Responding to the assault on his presidency, he tweeted

“(y)ou are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people!”

“They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice”

Tweets aren’t the solution to his dilemma, a clear attempt to further denigrate, weaken and oust him from office by whatever means it takes.

He’s responsible for appalling domestic and geopolitical policies – including war crimes for escalating aggression in multiple theaters, along with other abuses of rule of law principles.

No legal basis exists for charging him with obstruction of justice. No evidence suggests it. Nothing indicates he or his team colluded improperly or illegally with anyone in Russia.

Law Professor Jonathan Turley advises no tweeting about special counsel Mueller’s investigation – calling it “highly damaging to both his public and legal case.”

He should consult his legal team before saying, doing, or tweeting anything relating to the ongoing investigation. They know what’s in his best interest, and what can cause him further trouble.

According to Turley, his comments

“into aspects of the investigation could put his position under great scrutiny.”

As they say, anything he says can be used against him. Trump should follow the advice of competent attorneys representing him.

Perhaps it’s his only chance to stay in office – besides avoiding one or more assassination attempts.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new 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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image: credits to the owner

In The End of America, Naomi Wolf shares concerns about the increasingly authoritarian nature of government in the United States; she calls to action on this matter reflecting on the nature of fascism as a process (a shift) rather than something that takes place overnight. Fascism came to power in both, Italy and Germany, legally, incrementally and in the mist of functioning democracies, she said. It is important for people to know this because many believe that fascism came to power violently and overnight. Knowing about this process can help people identify and hopefully prevent fascist shifts.  

Canadians understand themselves as distinct from Americans and politicians seem to agree and accept that having a distinct identity favors pride in a vision of Canada as a caring society. With the arrival of neo-liberalism and the signing of free trade agreements Canada becomes more like the United States. The Canadian U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA) forces integration with the U.S. and with the signing of NAFTA (the North America Free Trade Agreement) continental integration starts. Free trade agreements are not about trade but about corporate money flow and increased power in decision making. Adopting these agreements was like adopting a new Economic Constitution for Canada, and one that greatly limits what the Canadian state can and cannot do. Sadly, McBride and Shields point,

“the Canadian state has thus been actively complicit in its own dismantling, a process that can best be explained by the dominance of capital in the political process of the country” (8).

Thus, when the Harper government came to power (2006-2015) important neo-liberal work had already been completed. Harper expanded and cemented ideological efforts changing Canada’s culture, with the support of think tanks, into a meaner, more militaristic and secretive society while furthering the agenda of corporations and the rich to the detriment of an increasing number of Canadians. Harper’s way, in keeping with “Reform,” brought a hate-based culture that shocked and scared many of us; and yet, it was a culture in sync with the purpose of free trade and neo-liberalism. Mc Bride and Shields define it as a transition in preparation for things to come.

“Neo-liberalism provides the perfect ideological vehicle for a transition from a society based on democratic political decision-making to one where many issues are outside politics and are settled by the undemocratic rule of the marketplace.” (8) That is, corporate rule.

Naturally, if asked, most Canadians would disagree with moving towards a hateful, non-egalitarian Canada, where growing numbers of part-time, minimum wage jobs and fewer benefits and programs become the norm. And yet here we are, even after the Harper government, continuing to ignore evidence, science and truth, in crucial areas like the environment, in favor of the hocus pocus of privately funded “think tanks.” As governments change but free trade and war remain unquestioned, we need to ask who, then, keeps taking us back to the 19^th century. In mid-September 2006 members of the Canadian business elite organized a three-day meeting at the Banff Springs Hotel including top-level American, Canadian and Mexican government officials and many senior corporate heads. The clandestine meeting organized by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Canada West Foundation was discovered; not seeing information about it anywhere, Mel Hurtig sent information to the media including the meeting agenda. Still, nothing appeared on the Globe and Mail, the National Post, CBC, CTV or Global (6).

Local rumors about the meeting, however, prompted a few media enquires. Linda McQuaig explains that

“John Larson, who acted as a spokesperson for the gathering, which called itself the North American Forum, refused to confirm who attended or to release details of what was discussed. ‘The participants joined the conference essentially knowing that it would be a private function,’ he said.” The meeting, says McQuaig, “is the ultimate expression of the treachery of our business and political elite…the essence of what was going on in Banff was that key members of our elite were meeting with business and political leaders from the United States to discuss ways to further a far-reaching agenda that is at odds with the Canadian public interest.” (9)

There are elements of a fascist shift in the coming to power of neo-liberalism in Canada; neo-liberal policies increase inequality and unfairness, and attack democratic processes that could eventually generate discontent and favor collective action. In many third world countries this elitist corporate agenda could not be imposed by regular governments, dictatorships were required. In Chile, the Pinochet dictatorship turned to neo-liberalism with support and guidance from the “Chicago boys” (the Chicago School of neo-liberal thinking). Chile was the first and it was used later as example to impose neo-liberalism everywhere, privatizing state enterprises and even pensions.

Some say the ideological impact of the Mulroney government made it impossible for liberal governments after him to challenge neo-liberalism. Liberals did not try to but expanded the neo-liberal grip by signing NAFTA, cutting benefits and programs even farther and faster than conservatives; and, leading us to conclude that there is collusion among political parties. Therefore, focusing on “Harper the mean,” like Chileans focusing on “Pinochet the mean” (more likely given his Darth Vader’s cape and shades), mainly distorts truth helping to hide the workings of a corporate elite managing from behind our political parties, and ensuring their “peculiar” vision of globalization, one that takes us back to the Age of Capital, is implemented. In this way neo-liberalism creates a neo-liberal world.

In Canada, and during the last half of the 20^th century, dissent has been managed generally through ideology, but this was not always this way, there were struggles and confrontations before, and, more of this could take place in the future. The Chilean motto of “by reason or by force” favors ideological dominance too, when feasible, but force is there to be used when enough concern encourages people to take to the streets to actively organize to protect their rights. In Canada, today, we seem mostly unconcerned about neo-liberalism returning us to our oppressive past; we march behind the Pied Piper decidedly focused on unlimited consumerism and generally oblivious to increasing personal and national debt. Our money elite, however, has enough experience to know that one day this could change and those captured by the Piper could wake up; then, “reason” may no longer work.  Our elite prepares for such a time, ensuring key elements are in place if needed. This is how fascist shifts connect with oppressive ideologies like neo-liberalism; they can be useful when force, rather than reason, becomes the answer.

What about fascist shifts

A fascist shift implies a militaristic system opposed to democracy and seeking to crush it. It also implies top-down terror to which most people (the non-targeted) somehow adapt through complicity, so while a minority of citizens is terrorized and persecuted a majority lives fairly “normal” lives by stifling dissent and going along “quietly” with the state’s act of violent repression. The cases of Italy and Germany show how legislation, cultural pressure, and baseless imprisonment and torture were used to progressively consolidate fascist power. In both cases, state terror was used to subordinate and control individuals and in both cases dominant ideology was radically antidemocratic and used the law aggressively to pervert and subvert it (1).

Fascist shifts include ten crucial steps. All dictators

(a) invoke an external and internal threat,

(b) create a secret prison system,

(c) develop a paramilitary force,

(d) use surveillance on ordinary citizens,

(e) arbitrarily detain and release them,

(f) infiltrate/harass citizens’ groups,

(g) target writers, entertainers and other key individuals for dissenting,

(h) intimidate the press,

(i) recast dissent as treason and criticism as espionage, and, eventually,

(j) subvert the rule of law.

These same ten steps shut down democracies during the 20^th century all over the world, not just in Italy and Germany, in Indonesia, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Paraguay, Ecuador, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, Argentina; people paid a high price. Those of us who lived though one understand Wolf´s argument as basically correct.

Wolf sounds the alarm about changes taking place in the U.S. since September 11, 2001, publishing her book during George W. Bush time. She is not arguing that the U.S. is a fascist state; she is identifying “historical echoes” that help citizens know how episodes today connect with the past and fascism. The “mob of young men dressed in identical shirts, shouting at poll workers outside a voting center in Florida during the 2000,” or “Bush supporters in the South holding organized public events to burn CDs by the Dixie Chicks,” echo Nazi events. When in 2002 the Bush administration created the “Department of Homeland Security,” calling the U.S. homeland was peculiar, homeland is how Nazi propagandists in 1930 referred to Germany. The USA PATRIOT Act, requiring doctors to give up confidential records echoes Nazi Germany doctors having to disclose citizen medical records to the state.

Enemies are treated harshly after September 11. President Bush “argued that the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay could be treated harshly because they were not covered by the Geneva Conventions.” The Nazis argued their invading troops in Russia should treat the enemy with marked brutally because they were not covered by the Hague Conventions. American perceptions also changed. Condoleezza Rice (National Security Advisor) and Vice President Cheney coined a new phrase: America was on a “war footing.” Nazi leaders after the Reichstag’s fire said Germany was on a war footing too (a kriegsfausz). The White House under the Bush administration embedded reporters with US military units in Iraq. Nazi propaganda officials did the same so “Filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl was embedded with Nazi troops in Poland” and “U.S. correspondent William Shirer drove with German units into occupied France.”

The new-old right in Canada

Changes in our neighbor affect us more after free-trade. Concerns about a “new” political culture emerged with the Reform Party -vocal, militant, aggressive and more in sync with the U.S. Republicans. But our political culture started changing during the Mulroney government (1984-1993) as we moved closer to U.S. Republicans under Reagan and because of CUSFTA. Mulroney knew of the impact the agreement will have in moving our parties to the right. He facilitated neo-liberal ideological takeover by cutting funding to three of the neutral, academic research-based organizations created before him –The Economic Council of Canada (1963-1992), The Science Council of Canada (1966-1992) and The Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security (1984-1992). He also transformed the Foreign Investment Review Agency into “Investment Canada” to fit his purposes (3).

The next conservative government followed suit and cut funding to the surviving ones –the Law Reform Commission of Canada (1970-2006), the Canadian Policy Research Networks (1994-2009), the National Welfare Council (1968-2012) and the North-South Institute (1976-2014).  The Institute for Research on Public Policy (1972) survived because it had its own endowment. Mulroney and Harper were strategic, eliminated unbiased publicly funded research advising policy to make room for the biased recommendations of privately funded neo-liberal think tanks, like C.D. Howe Institute or the Fraser Institute (3).

Liberal governments after Mulroney (Chretien, Martin) did not challenged this; over the years these neo-liberal think tanks earned a legitimacy they did not deserve, becoming government preferred source of information and advice (3).  They are obviously ideological. I attended a full day event organized by the Fraser Institute at the Convention Centre in Edmonton -free of charge, lunch included. It discussed immigration and other issues. I left after the morning section afraid of the ideology portrayed. It was “survival of the fittest,” which meant abandoning people at the mercy of the markets. Individuals needed to manage on their own and within their families (if they had one). Decentralization of the state and privatization of public corporations were mantras. The welfare state and the unions were the enemy. Immigration perspectives were market-based. It was a pervasive ideology in the West.

It turned out it was quite common in other places too. Mulroney did not believe in free trade but changed his views in 1984 adopting neo-liberalism and opening the country to foreign investment. He was following The C.D. Howe Institute, which adopted neo-liberalism and free trade in the early 1980s. Free Trade was promoted by Mulroney with a wink and a smile; it was bad medicine taken with sugar. When Mulroney was defeated and Progressive Conservatives were decimated, there was something already cooking in the West. Harper will become leader of the Canadian Alliance and eventually merge it with the Progressive Conservatives to form the Conservative Party of Canada (8).

Harper worked with Preston Manning and Tom Flanagan –the guru of the “Calgary School” at the department of political-science of the U of C. Flanagan was an American recruited by Burke Inlow –also American, head of the U of C political-science department (by invitation and directly after an assignment for the Pentagon). Flanagan and Harper understood neo-liberalism as favoring the primacy of “economic freedom” over everything else. Dismantling the welfare state was the goal, but not ending welfare to corporations. A strong state, not a weak one, is a neo-liberal requirement because the state needs power to create and enforce markets, and to prop them up when they fail -like they did in the 2007-2008 financial melt-down (3).  Neo-liberalism changed politics in England and the U.S. facilitating the ascendance of Thatcher and Regan. It will do the same for Harper. In Canada it was delayed by the re-election of Pierre Trudeau until 1984.

Harper came to power in a convoluted way that Flanagan describes in his 2007 book (Harper’s Team) -a book Harper did not like, not because Flanagan did not praise him enough; Harper may prefer to keep details secret, concerned information can be used against him. Much of the political culture had already changed by then and Harper knew it. He explained it to Civitas in 2003 this way:

“socialists and liberals began to stand for balanced budgeting, the superiority of the markets, welfare reversal, free trade and some privatization.”

Harper used the ideological work of neo-liberal think tanks to further change and to support his policies (3).

Harper favored incremental change because it worked and favored less resistance. To achieve majority Harper was in constant political campaign, focusing only on voters he could win. He played on the perception of “western alienation” while building on regional discontent. He targeted minorities because of their conservative views of the family. He controlled and suppressed information, manipulated the media (when not with him), and trained party representatives on what to say, not to say and how to say it. He spent lots of money on negative ads attacking the opposition. He muzzled bureaucracy and scientists working for government. He worked at keeping his party, Cabinet, and any dissent within the ranks under control. And he developed a unified (closed) Prime Minister Office (PMO). Harper authoritarian, controlling, and ruthless style was his Achilles heel (1).

Fascist shifts and neo-liberalism

Canada does not have secret prisons or a paramilitary force; and yet the Harper government used a number of strategies included in fascist shifts. Harper government favored undemocratic strategies and an authoritarian style, internal and external threats, the surveillance of ordinary citizens and harassment of specific citizen groups and key individuals (David Suzuki stepped down from the Board of Directors of the Suzuki Foundation in 2012 to avoid government harassment). The press was restricted, public servants were mistreated and criticism was treated as espionage and dissent as treason.

Dictators and undemocratic leaders: authoritarian styles in fascist shifts

Harper ran one of the most undemocratic regimes in Canadian history, undermining and abusing democratic institutions and procedures. He is the only Canadian prime minister to be found in contempt of Parliament after his government refused to release costs on certain programs to opposition MPs. Harper pushed Bill C-51 which raises concerns about the criminalization of free speech, allows government agencies to share personal information and gives intelligence agencies freer range to spy anybody. These agencies (Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, the Royal Canadian Mounted police, RCMP, the Communications Security Establishment Canada CSEC) can hold people for up to a week in “preventative detention.” For Christian Nadeau (political philosopher, Université de Montréal) the Harper government is the worse we had ever had:

“We have a weaker democracy…a weaker social justice system…compromised the environment for many decades to come…” (2).

Harper is an “arrogant autocrat” said Hurtig, while pointing to the need of reforming our electoral system to ensure proportional representation. Thus, in the future we do not have a Harper repeat of majority power in Parliament with only 39.6 percent of the votes, that proceeds to

“systematically dismantle our democracy, crippling or eliminating many of the institutions…developed over decades to deliver programs…and to allow for a democratic exchange of information and ideas between the electorate and the elected” (5).

Protesters outside the Central East Detention Centre in Lindsay, Ontario, 2015. Photo by Jeff Bierke via VICE

The Harper government took democracy to its limit and proved that much damage can be caused. Harper prorogued Parliament four times, shutting it down for a total of 181 days. He used omnibus bills showing his government cared little about democratic procedures, discussion or dialogue. Starting in 2010 Harper tabled a bill of 883 pages including changes to Canada Post and environmental assessments and, as he often did, put a cap limiting discussion time. Harper followed with 10 more such bills, all pushed through in Parliament without much discussion. Bill C-38 gutted Canada’s environmental laws, cut $36-billion from health care funding, weakened Canada’s food inspectors (cutting jobs), and made it harder to qualify for EI benefits. Harper’s Fair Elections Act overhauled Canada’s election laws in dealing with electoral fraud, weakened the power of Elections Canada, muzzled the chief electoral officer from communicating with the public and MPs about investigations, cutting off the investigations arm (2).

Internal and external threats

Much evidence suggests that deficits and rising public debt have little to do with excessive government expenditures and much to do with forgone tax revenues, high interest rates, and recessions largely the product of neo-liberal economic policies (8).  A number of writers have argued that loopholes, tax breaks and tax expenditures lead to a shortfall of revenues since 1975 –and, even though not all these tax breaks benefitted corporations or the wealthy most did (8).  Despite this deficits are used to cut benefits and programs dismantling our welfare state.

Terrorism, an external threat, encouraged the Harper and Mulroney governments towards militarism. Harper put greater effort in promoting patriotic militarism as key to our political culture. For Lawrence Martin “Harper´s far-more hawkish stance benefited greatly from the events of 9/11.”  In 2006, the Harper conservatives responded with Cold War style rhetoric, echoing the U.S., adopting a “war on terror” discourse and committing Canada enthusiastically to military action. Harper visited the troops in Afghanistan and had Governor General Michaëlle Jean visit too and sport a military uniform at the November 11 ceremonies in Ottawa. Still, Canadians remained opposed to the Afghan mission. Canada’s participation in the Libyan expedition was expanded at Harper’s request; his persistence, however, did not move Canadians towards militarism (1).

A Canadian child prisoner in Guantanamo Bay

The Harper government ignored Omar Khadr, taken prisoner to Guantanamo Bay were he stayed for 10 years before being brought to Canada by insistence of the Clinton administration. Khadr was taken in Afghanistan in 2002 at the age of 15; his family returned home and his father, affiliated with an extreme group, indoctrinated him to fight. The 15 year old became involved and was injured when captured. He confessed to throwing a grenade and pleaded guilty, not remembering what happened but following his lawyer advice and hoping to return to Canada. Khadr was finally repatriated in 2012 to serve the remainder of his sentence; he was released on bail in May 2015 but only after the Alberta Court of Appeal refused to block his release as requested by the Harper government (6).

Freedom of Speech, Citizen´s surveillance and the harassment of organizations in Canada

The Harper government limited freedom of speech by not allowing scientists working for government to share information about their research with the press or in international conferences. The government also used propaganda (paid from the public purse by taxpayer’s money) estimated in $500 million dollars (between 2009-2015) by the Toronto Start. (2)  Citizens’ surveillance and spying, acceptable under Harper, was used on environmental, aboriginal activists and on groups like Idle No More, Leadnow, Forest Ethics Advocacy, Council of Canadians, Eco-Society, Dogwood Initiative and the Sierra Club of BC. This was discovered by Jeffrey Monaghan, a criminologist at Carleton University, when he obtained documents from CSIS and the RCMP and found they have been spying particularly on those opposing pipelines or participating in the National Energy Board (NEB) hearings. Harassing groups through auditing was acceptable too; the groups selected were those working with the environment or civil society, and charities working in areas considered problematic (environment, anti-poverty, foreign aid and human rights). Among the audited was Amnesty International, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the United Church of Canada, but not one conservative think tank or group (2).

Restricting the press

“The Harper Conservatives came to power with a visceral dislike of the entire fourth estate at the national level, believing it represents a central-Canadian bias as well as a liberal one. As a result, the Harper government has worked hard to control and limit its interactions with the national media.”

Harper refused to participate in traditional media scrums after parliamentary debates using instead scripted press conferences. Later, he insisted in a lineup of questioners provided to his press secretary in advance and those deemed “hostile” to him or his government were often not allowed to place a question. Soon the media fell into line; only a handful of print-media columnists dared to criticize or even report on this state of affairs. As time went on the PMO prevented any media access at all. Techniques helpful in portraying the prime minister in a positive light, like prepared texts and photos, were adopted (1).

Intimidation of public servants

The Global Business and Economic Roundtable on Mental Health declared:

“there was a mental health crisis in the federal public service…According to several observers the primary culprit was the climate of fear that the government was creating further damaging the bureaucracy´s already strained relationship with the Harper government.” (1)

Government behavior intimidated bureaucracy, the government dismissed public servants who did not agree with its agenda, often vilifying them before and after their dismissal and painting them as both incompetent and unstable. Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Elections Canada), and Robert Marleau (Information Commission) resigned. Linda Keen (chair of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission), Alan Leadbeater (Assistant Information Commission), Adrian Measner (president, Canadian Wheat Board), Dr. Arthur Carter (National Science Adviser), Kevin Page (Parliament Budget Officer), Paul Kennedy (chair, RCMP Complaints Commission), Peter Tinsley (chair, Military Police Complaints Commission), Pat Stogran (ombudsman, Veteran Affairs), Mary Cheliak (director, RCMP Firearms Registry) were all dismissed (1).

“Given its zero tolerance for dissent and its single-minded pursuit of critics, it is hardly surprising that the Harper government includes opposition parties on its enemies list. What is surprising is the degree of success the Conservatives have had in convincing Canadians that their hard-line approach to their political adversaries is both reasonable and fair in a democratic society. Essentially, their approach has been to bankrupt the opposition and hopefully destroy the Liberal Party, which Harper continues to see as his principal opposition and the epitome of liberal thinking. As senior Harper adviser Keith Beardsley acknowledged that “He hates the Liberal Party, and I would say his aim from day one –and I don´t think anyone would disagree- was to break the brand…” (1).

In summary, Canada shows evidence of fascist shifts including many of the steps discussed by Wolf. There is still reason to be concerned about Canada after Harper; trade agreements are in place to be expanded and they are the economic framework of neo-liberalism. The liberal government under Justin Trudeau has completed some work towards rebuilding institutional damage, ensuring a more open government, stopping anti-union legislation, implementing the mandatory long Census form and initiating a national inquiry on the murders of indigenous women among others. And yet, it does not question neo-liberalism or our war involvement. Both free trade agreements and the war on terror are not being challenged and crucial elements of the neo-liberal agenda remain in place.  Canada should focus on citizens’ basic human rights to food, shelter, education, health, employment, and protection and safety including ensuring citizen safety from abuses by the state.

Sources

1. Brooke Jeffrey, Dismantling Canada. Stephen Harper’s New Conservative Agenda. (2015, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press).

2. Bruce Livesey, “Is Harper Canada’s worst prime minister?” News (June 7^th, 2015) Part 1 and 2 of 32 articles from “Assessing Stephen Harper” (Special Report).

3. Donald Gutstein, Harperism: How Stephen Harper and his think tank colleagues have transformed Canada. (2014, Toronto: James Lorimer & Co. Ltd. Publishers).

4. Naomi Wolf, The End of America: a letter of warning to a young patriot. (2007, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company).

5. Mel Hurtig, The Arrogant Autocrat. Stephen Harper´s Takeover of Canada. (2015, Vancouver: Mel Hurtig Publishing).

6. Mel Hurtig, The truth about Canada. (2008, Toronto: McClelland & Stewart Ltd).

7. Wikipaedia, Omar Khadr, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr

8. Stephen McBride & John Shields, Dismantling a Nation. The Transition to Corporate Rule in Canada. (1998, Halifax: Fernwood Publishing).

9. Linda McQuaig, Holding the bully´s coat. (2007, Doubleday Canada-Randon House of Canada Ltd).

Featured image: Alternate History

The New York Times characterizes special prosecutor Robert Mueller as being independent and fair:

Robert S. Mueller III managed in a dozen years as F.B.I. director to stay above the partisan fray, carefully cultivating a rare reputation for independence and fairness.

Let’s fact-check the Times …

Anthrax Frame-Up

Mueller presided over the incredibly flawed anthrax investigation.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office says the FBI’s investigation was “flawed and inaccurate”.  The investigation was so bogus that a senator called for an “independent review and assessment of how the FBI handled its investigation in the anthrax case.”

The head of the FBI’s anthrax investigation says the whole thing was a sham. He says that the FBI higher-ups “greatly obstructed and impeded the investigation”, that there were “politically motivated communication embargos from FBI Headquarters”.

Moreover, the anthrax investigation head said that the FBI framed scientist Bruce Ivins. On July 6, 2006, the FBI’s anthrax investigation FBI Plaintiff provided a whistleblower report of mismanagement to the FBI’s Deputy Director pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 2303, which noted:

(j) the FBI’s fingering of Bruce Ivins as the anthrax mailer; and, (k) the FBI’s subsequent efforts to railroad the prosecution of Ivins in the face of daunting exculpatory evidence.

Following the announcement of its circumstantial case against Ivins, Defendants DOJ and FBI crafted an elaborate perception management campaign to bolster their assertion of Ivins’ guilt. These efforts included press conferences and highly selective evidentiary presentations which were replete with material omissions.

In other words, Mueller presided over the attempt to frame an innocent man (and see this).

Unsure About Assassination of U.S. Citizens Living On U.S. Soil

Rather than saying “of course not!”, Mueller said that he wasn’t sure whether Obama had the right to assassinate Americans living on American soil.

Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley commented at the time:

One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his responsibilities, including whether he can kill citizens without a charge or court order.

***

He appeared unclear whether he had the power under the Obama Kill Doctrine or, in the very least, was unwilling to discuss that power. For civil libertarians, the answer should be easy: “Of course, I do not have that power under the Constitution.”

Spying on Americans

Mueller participated in one of the greatest expansions of mass surveillance in human history.  As we noted in 2013:

NBC News reports:

NBC News has learned that under the post-9/11 Patriot Act, the government has been collecting records on every phone call made in the U.S.

On March 2011, FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Senate Judiciary Committee:

We put in place technological improvements relating to the capabilities of a database to pull together past emails and future ones as they come in so that it does not require an individualized search.

Remember, the FBI – unlike the CIA – deals with internal matters within the borders of the United States.

On May 1st of this year, former FBI agent Tim Clemente told CNN’s Erin Burnett that all present and past phone calls were recorded:

BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It’s not a voice mail. It’s just a conversation. There’s no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

CLEMENTE: “No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It’s not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the ainvestigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

BURNETT: “So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

CLEMENTE: “No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not.”

The next day, Clemente again appeared on CNN, this time with host Carol Costello, and she asked him about those remarks. He reiterated what he said the night before but added expressly that “all digital communications in the past” are recorded and stored:

NSA whistleblowers say that this means that the NSA collects “word for word” all of our communications.

FBI special agent – and a 2002 Time Person of the Year – Colleen Rowley writes:

Mueller’s FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the lhttp://www.washingtonsblog.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=68066&action=editaw improperly serving hundreds of thousands of “national security letters” to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating “terrorism.”

Torture

FBI special agent Colleen Rowley points out:

Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any “war crimes files” were made to disappear. Not only did “collect it all” surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller’s (and then Comey’s) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.

Iraq War

Rowley notes:

When you had the lead-up to the Iraq War … Mueller and, of course, the CIA and all the other directors, saluted smartly and went along with what Bush wanted, which was to gin up the intelligence to make a pretext for the Iraq War. For instance, in the case of the FBI, they actually had a receipt, and other documentary proof, that one of the hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had not been in Prague, as Dick Cheney was alleging. And yet those directors more or less kept quiet. That included … CIA, FBI, Mueller, and it included also the deputy attorney general at the time, James Comey.

Post 9/11 Round-Up

FBI special agent Rowley also notes:

Beyond ignoring politicized intelligence, Mueller bent to other political pressures. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Mueller directed the “post 9/11 round-up” of about 1,000 immigrants who mostly happened to be in the wrong place (the New York City area) at the wrong time. FBI Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seemed to be essentially P.R. purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply grist for FBI press releases about FBI “progress” in fighting terrorism. Consequently, some of the detainees were brutalized and jailed for up to a year despite the fact that none turned out to be terrorists.

9/11 Cover Up

Rowley points out:

The FBI and all the other officials claimed that there were no clues, that they had no warning [about 9/11] etc., and that was not the case. There had been all kinds of memos and intelligence coming in. I actually had a chance to meet Director Mueller personally the night before I testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee … [he was] trying to get us on his side, on the FBI side, so that we wouldn’t say anything terribly embarrassing. …

But overwhelming evidence shows that 9/11 was foreseeable. Indeed, Al Qaeda crashing planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was itself foreseeable. Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission said that the attack was preventable.

Rowley also said says:

TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a “bombshell memo” to the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller’s having so misled everyone after 9/11.

In addition, Rowley says that the FBI sent Soviet-style “minders” to her interviews with the Joint Intelligence Committee investigation of 9/11, to make sure that she didn’t say anything the FBI didn’t like.  The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Official Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 confirmed that government “minders” obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses (and see this).

Mueller’s FBI also obstructed the 9/11 investigation in many other ways. For example,  an FBI informant hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000. Specifically, investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location.  And see this.

And Kristen Breitweiser – one of the four 9/11 widows instrumental in forcing the government to form the 9/11 Commission to investigate the 2001 attacks – points out:

Mueller and other FBI officials had purposely tried to keep any incriminating information specifically surrounding the Saudis out of the Inquiry’s investigative hands. To repeat, there was a concerted effort by the FBI and the Bush Administration to keep incriminating Saudi evidence out of the Inquiry’s investigation. And for the exception of the 29 full pages, they succeeded in their effort.

Conclusion

Rather than being “above the fray”, Mueller is an authoritarian and water-carrier for the status quo and the powers-that-be.

As Coleen Rowley puts it:

It seems clear that based on his history and close “partnership” with Comey, called “one of the closest working relationships the top ranks of the Justice Department have ever seen,” Mueller was chosen as Special Counsel not because he has integrity but because he will do what the powerful want him to do.

Mueller didn’t speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn’t speak out against torture. He didn’t speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn’t tell the truth about 9/11. He is just “their man.”

While not the worst of the bunch, neither Comey nor Mueller deserve their Jimmy Stewart ‘G-man’ reputations for absolute integrity but have merely been, along the lines of George ‘Slam Dunk’ Tenet, capable and flexible politicized sycophants to power, that enmeshed them in numerous wrongful abuses of power along with presiding over plain official incompetence. It’s sad that political partisanship is so blinding and that so few people remember the actual sordid history.

Featured image: Wikipedia

The SAA reportedly entered into the Al-Ajrawi farm south of the Tabqah airbase after repelling an attack by ISIS fighters on its new positions in the Raqqah province. Earlier this week, the SAA liberated the Al-Thawra oil field, the Al-Thawra housing and pumping station.

According to pro-government sources, the SAA may continue its advance via the Athria-Rusafa-Raqqa road. If government troops reach Rusafa, they will control the northern road to Deir Ezzor.

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), backed up by the US-led coalition’s airpower, artillery units and military advisers, have taken control of Al-Sinaa district in the eastern part of the ISIS-held city of Raqqah. The SDF also began storming Al-Batani and continued clashing with ISIS in Al-Bared.

Separately, the SDF has captured Hawra Jrayat village and surrounding areas in the Raqqah countryside.

In Daraa city, the SAA and its allies further advanced against militants in the Nazheen camp and captured about a half of it. Clashes were also reported in Al-Manishiyah and Dara’a Al-Balad districts.

In the countryside of Palmyra, clashes between the SAA and ISIS continued near the Arak field. Following the previous gains, government forces captured the SyriaTel Hill that allows to dominate over the nearby positions controlled by ISIS.

The Russian Defense Ministry confirmed on Thursday that the US military has deployed two High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) from Jordan to Syria. The ministry added that these systems cannot provide a support to the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces storming the ISIS stronghold of Raqqah. Instead, they pose a direct threat to government forces.

“The US-led anti-Daesh coalition has several times already attacked Syrian government forces fighting Daesh [ISIS] near the Jordanian border. It is possible to assume that similar strikes could be continued in the future, involving HIMARS from now on. So what objectives is the US pursuing in Syria and whom are the US servicemen fighting there?” the statement read.

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: SouthFront

Colonel Andrew Bacevich, a professor at Boston University, served in Vietnam. His son was killed serving in Afghanistan. He comes from a military family. I know him. He is among the best that our country has produced.

As has occurred before, he has saved me from having to write an article by writing it himself. And he has written it better.

Bacevich points out that the orchestrated attack on President Trump is based on the assumption that President Trump has launched an attack on the open, liberal, enlightened, rule of law, and democratic order that Washington has established. This liberal world order of goodness is threatened by a Trump-Putin Conspiracy.

Bacevich, a rare honest American, says this that this characterization of America is a bullshit myth.

For example, the orchastrated image of America as the great upholder of truth, justice, democracy, and human rights conviently overlooks

• Washington’s “meddling in foreign elections; coups and assassination plots in Iran [Washingtonn’s 1953 overthrow of the first elected Iranian government], Guatemala, the Congo, Cuba, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and elsewhere;
• indiscriminate aerial bombing campaigns in North Korea and throughout Southeast Asia;
• a nuclear arms race bringing the world to the brink of Armageddon; support for corrupt, authoritarian regimes in Iran [the Shah], Turkey, Greece, South Korea, South Vietnam, the Philippines, Brazil, Egypt, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and elsewhere—many of them abandoned when deemed inconvenient;
• the shielding of illegal activities through the use of the Security Council veto; unlawful wars launched under false pretenses; ‘extraordinary rendition,’ torture, and the indefinite imprisonment of persons without any semblance of due process [the evisceration of the US Constitution].”

In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as “liberal internationalism.” All “liberal internationalism” means is American hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in “liberal internationalism.”

President Trump is in trouble, Bacevich says, because

“he appears disinclined to perpetuate American hegemony.”

American hegemony is the neoconservatives’ God, and “the Russian threat” is the savior of the military/security complex’s $1.1 trillion annual budget. President Trump is a threat to both.

Here is Col. Andy Bacevich’s column: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-global-order-myth/

Featured image: Bloomberg

Trump and Tillerson apparently disagree on Qatar.

On June 9, the Secretary of State called for regional countries to “immediately take steps to de-escalate the situation.”

On June 10, he “called on Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt to ease the blockade on Qatar.”

On June 11, he said the situation regarding the country

“is the biggest testimony to US failure in the Gulf. (It) gives others the impression the US does not know how to manage the relationship with its allies or is incapable.”

Trump earlier said

“Qatar…has been a funder of terrorism at a very high level. We had a decision to make. Do we take the easy road or do we finally take a hard but necessary action.”

Qatar indeed supports ISIS and other terrorist groups. Expressing US support for Saudi Arabia, a family dictatorship, Trump ignored the epicenter of regional proliferated terrorism – along with Israel, other regional rogue states and America’s presence.

He was silent about Saudi public whippings, beheadings, torture, political prisoners, inequality and violence against women, along with other horrendous civil and human rights abuses.

He oozed praise for his Saudi hosts, sealed a $110 billion arms deal, signed a memorandum for around $350 billion over the next decade – to be used for aggression, homeland repression, and proliferating regional terrorism.

He lied saying

“(o)ur (shared) goal is a coalition of nations who share the aim of stamping out extremism and providing our children a hopeful future…”

His first two foreign destinations were Saudi Arabia and Israel – the region’s most appalling regimes, allied with America’s war OF terrorism on humanity.

During his Riyadh visit, Trump called Qatar “a crucial strategic partner.” Back in Washington, he accused the Gulf state of funding terrorism.

This week, a deal was reached to sell Qatar F-15 warplanes, costing around $12 billion. According to Reuters and Bloomberg News, Defense Secretary Mattis finalized it during a Wednesday visit with Qatari officials.

Qatar signs LOA for the purchase of the F-15QA fighter jets creating 60,000 new jobs in 42 states across the United States pic.twitter.com/tnOAC3KGma

— Meshal Hamad AlThani (@Amb_AlThani) June 14, 2017

Before Saudi Arabia and other neighboring states severed ties, Congress approved the sale of 72 warplanes costing $21 billion.

Praising the consummated deal, the Pentagon said it “strengthen(s)” bilateral defense ties in the battle against “violent extremism and promote(s) peace and stability in our region and beyond” – notions both countries consider anathema.

Qatar hosts Washington’s largest regional military base. Days after Trump accused the country of funding terrorism, two US warships arrived in Doha to take part in joint military exercises with its navy.

Last week, the Pentagon praised the country for hosting US forces and its “enduring commitment to regional security.”

Mixed messages from Washington make it unclear what its position is on the Gulf state.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new 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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image: The Times of Israel

The “historic” appearances of James Comey Chameleon and Jefferson Davis Andersonville Sessions before a Senate committee have come and gone, leaving us … pretty much where we were before.

Trump was made to look stupid and thuggish (not exactly front-page news); his GOP apologists and enablers employed even more ludicrous justifications for said stupidity and thuggery (“Hey, the kid is still green, he didn’t know he was doing anything wrong — not that he did do anything wrong, mind you.”); media outlets reaped tons of ad revenue; twittery was rampant on every side. We all had a jolly good time. But as for the ostensible object of the exercise — learning more about possible Russian interference in the electoral process, and any part Trump’s gang might have had in colluding with this and/or covering it up — there was not a whole lotta shaking going on.

That’s to be expected. For I don’t believe we are ever going to see confirmable proof of direct collusion between the Trump gang and the Kremlin to skew the 2016 election. I don’t doubt there is a myriad of ties between Trump and nefarious Russian characters, all of whom will of necessity have some connection to Putin’s authoritarian regime. And there may well be underhanded Trump gang ties of corruption to the state itself. But I don’t think a “smoking gun” of direct collusion with Trump’s inner circle in vote tampering exists. If it did, it would be out by now. It’s obvious the intelligence services and FBI were all over the Trump campaign, looking into Russian ties from many angles.

I’m not saying the Russians didn’t try to tamper with the vote. (Although, as a patriotic American, I doubt they can tamper as well as we can.) I’m not saying it’s not important or not worth looking into. I’m just saying that if you put most of your focus and resources and political capital on the bet that you will find some smoking gun of direct collusion between Trump and his circle with the Russian state — evidence so direct and overwhelming that even the GOP extremists in Congress can’t overlook it — then you are going to be disappointed. You will not bring down Trump, who, despite mountains of dirt thrown on him, will still walk away and claim vindication.

Meanwhile, away from the “dramatic hearings” and the all-day permanent Red scare of the “Resistance,” the Trump White House and the Congressional extremists are quietly, methodically, relentlessly transforming the United States into a hideous oligarch-owned, burned-out, broken-down, looted-out, chaos-ridden, far-right dystopia. Right now, the Senate Republicans are trying to push through, in secret, a “health-care” bill that is scarcely less draconian than the universally hated House version, and like that bill, consists of two main parts: a gargantuan tax cut for the very rich and taking away healthcare coverage for millions upon millions of ordinary citizens, including the most vulnerable people in the nation.

And what did we hear Monday from Democratic staffers? That the Senate Democrats are NOT going to wage a fight to the death to prevent this monstrosity from being inflicted on the people; they’re not “going nuclear,” using every possible tactic and procedural rule to derail the Trumpcare bill, or at least stall it long enough to raise a public outcry against it. And why not? Why, because the Republicans have promised that no sanctions will be removed on Russia without the Democrats getting a chance to vote on it in the Senate. This is the kind of misplaced priority I’m talking about.

I won’t even get into the fact that progressives and liberals now venerate the intelligence services they used to rightly condemn for decades of lies and deceit and misinformation and covert murder and, yes, manipulation of our electoral process (not to mention those of other nations.) And let’s put aside how every “anonymous leak” from an “intelligence source” is now treated as gospel — even though it comes from the same “intelligence sources” that anonymously leaked all that “credible” evidence of Saddam’s WMD way back in caveman times. And told us that Gadafy was about to unleash genocide on his people and was sending in rape squads jacked up on Viagra, etc., only to sheepishly admit later these claims had been all false … after Gadafy had been sodomized and murdered in the street by NATO-backed Islamic extremists, even as Hillary Clinton laughed out loud and declared,

“We came, we saw, he DIED!”

Let’s put aside the fact that former head of the FBI — who has spent years waging war on Black Lives Matter and concocting fake terrorist plots to entrap mentally ill loners in order to garner good PR for himself — is now a liberal hero, even a “sex symbol,” because he was fired by a lunatic fascist that no one with a shred of honor should have been working for in the first place. Let’s put aside that former CIA honcho James Clapper — who has lied under oath to Congress about the CIA’s Putin-style hacking of the US Senate to stop release of reports on, er, CIA torture, who lied repeatedly about Saddam’s non-existent WMD when he was a key player under George W. Bush, and who is now repeatedly saying that Russians have some kind of genetic defect that makes them inherent, unredeemable scheming lowlifes — has also become a much-lauded liberal hero. Let’s put aside the abandonment of principle and common sense the “Resistance” has shown toward the bankrupt morality and demonstrable mendacity of these men and their institutions. And how anyone who expresses the same skepticism toward these “organs” that they have been expressing for decades — no matter who is in power —  is now regarded as a Putin apologist, a Kremlin stooge or, more and more often, an outright, active traitor.

Let’s put aside all this for now, disheartening as it is, and focus on this: if the intent is to bring down Trump, then there is ample material just lying there for the taking — evidence of blatant criminality and corruption that could be taken up right now, keeping Trump and his whole sick crew tied up in prosecutions, investigations, special committees and independent prosecutors out the wazoo. The man had known Mafia figures with him at his New Year’s celebration in Mar-a-Lago just months ago, for God’s sake. You don’t have to pry piss-tapes from the Kremlin to bring down a mook like Trump.

Of course, part of the problem is that a genuinely wide-ranging and thorough investigation of Trump’s criminal corruption would doubtless expose the deep rot at the heart of our system, the incredibly complex entwining of the underworld and the “upper world”:  the dirty deals, the tax dodges, the sweetheart contracts, the cut-outs to maintain “deniability,” the bribes, the “gifts,” the special arrangements, the corporate espionage, the interpenetration of state and corporate power at every level, even in warfare and diplomacy — in short, all of the “corrupted currents” that lay behind the gilded facade maintained by our bipartisan elites and their servitors in the political-media class. If you start to pull too hard on the stinking threads of Trump’s criminal entanglements, who knows what else might come undone, who else might be exposed?

We saw during the last campaign this reluctance to really go after Trump for the string of dodgy deals and frauds he’s left across a decades-long career. Every now and then there would be a quick jab, but even these would usually be obscured by Trump’s artful use of blathering idiocy on Twitter. Was he defrauding veterans and cancer patients with his patently fraudulent charities? “Look there! Trump just said McCain was a loser for being captured in Vietnam!” Didn’t Trump commit criminal fraud in scamming people out of millions with his fake Trump University? “Look there! Trump’s tweeting racist attacks on the judge!” And so off we’d go, fixing on the galling spectacle of Trump’s character, while the focus on actual crime and corruption would recede. This reluctance was evident in both the GOP primary and in the general election. I kept waiting for the gloves to come off on Trump’s dirty deals, but they never really did. The focus remained on his sleazy character, not his legal dangers; and Trump had long known that the spectacular sleaziness of his character was the mainspring of his popularity, both as a celebrity and candidate. (And yes, this sleaziness and corruption was well-known even when Bill and Hillary were wrapping their arms around Donald at his wedding years before.)

Be that as it may, there is still probably more than enough material on the surface for our elites to bring Trump down without going too deep into the corrupted currents where their own murk might be stirred up. Heck, there might even be enough honest players in the political circus to lead a multi-front attack on Trump’s corruption without worrying about themselves being exposed. If you really want to bring Trump down — and in that way, cripple or at least hamper the ravages of the extremists who are using him as their tool — then it seems to me this more straightforward approach would be far more likely to succeed than waiting for some spy to come in from the cold and put incontrovertible proof of direct collusion in our hands.

But I don’t see any sign of this happening anytime soon, if ever. The focus will remain on the Russians, who despite being genetically inferior lowbrow swindlers are nevertheless capable of orchestrating practically every event in the world, including, I guess, the rise of Rupert Murdoch and the right-wing media machine, the politicised fundamentalist churches and the thousands of sinister ideological outfits bankrolled by weird billionaires, all of which have spawned an entire alternative universe in which millions of people now live, feeding on lies and smears and hatemongering that fuels their prejudices, their fears, their resentments and their anger, and corrodes their sense of commonality and community with their fellow citizens. I would venture to say that the deliberate cultivation of this vicious and violent alternative reality — along with the creation of the Electoral College in the 18th century, and the vote suppression laws passed by billionaire-funded extremists in state legislatures that disenfranchised millions of anti-Trump voters — had more to do with Trump’s victory than any phishing expeditions or email leaking by the Russians.

Again, I’m not saying that the latter didn’t happen; it may well be that the people who lied to our faces about yellow cake and aluminium tubes and vials of sarin and CIA torture, the people who wage drone wars on farmers and wedding parties, the people who persecute the mentally ill for their own aggrandizement while stirring up needless fear and hatred are now being honourable and truthful in every single thing they tell us. I genuinely hope so. If they produced that smoking gun from the Kremlin tomorrow and brought Trump down, I’d be over the moon. But I don’t think that is going to happen. And I fear we will find that a great deal of ruin has been done — and many more promising avenues of attack have been ignored, perhaps for good — while we chase ghosts in the shadowlands of espionage.

But hey, don’t listen to me. I not only write for a publication which was put on a McCarthyite list of “subversives” trumpeted in the Washington Post (before it had to backpedal), I actually even lived in Russia once, which as we know — in an age where Louise Mensch is regarded as a credible source by the “Resistance” and all things Russian are tainted — means I am obviously a Kremlin agent or a Putin fanboy trying to save Comrade Trump from the forces of righteousness. What’s more, I know people who still live in Russia, some of whom are even — gasp! — genetically Russian. (Please don’t tell liberal hero James Clapper!) So of course, all of these people must be Kremlin tools as well — even though they are putting their lives and livelihoods on the line every day fighting Putin’s tyranny, with a courage I doubt we’ll see from many of our “Resisters” when Trump finishes with Muslims, immigrants, African-Americans, the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the insulted and injured of every stripe and finally come for the “real” people who read the New York Times and watch Rachel Maddow. For these days it’s simply impossible to be associated with Russia in any way, or to question the credibility of our security organs in the slightest, or to suggest possibly better alternatives for removing Trump’s copious rump from the Oval Office, without being shunned by polite progressive society.

So take what I say with a pinch of bread and salt. (The traditional Russian offering of welcome — oh damn, I gave myself away again!) But if the focus stays largely on Moscow, don’t be surprised to see Trump sitting on the White House toilet playing with his tweeter four years from now while Steven Bannon and Richard Spencer plan his re-election campaign.

Featured image: credits to the owner

The disputed of territory of Kashmir, lying in the north of the sub-continent between India and Pakistan, does not often feature in the world news media, but recently the little-known yet most sensitive region has received attention, not only because of boundary clashes between the armies of India and Pakistan but because there have been some dramatic incidents in the Indian-administered region. Tension is rising, as indicated by comments from politicians and media in both countries, which have been swinging from casual abuse to extremes of frenzied condemnation.

The Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) in India is a right-wing, religiously-based ultra-nationalist political party with a large following which actively supports the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, which bases its policies on the aspirations of a strongly nationalistic community. The leader of the VHP, Acharya Dharmendra, declared in a speech on June 2 that

“India should drop a nuclear bomb on Pakistan for creating tension at the border. It is a rogue nation and India must teach that country a lesson. It is important for peace in the Indian subcontinent”.

So far as can be determined, no Pakistani politician has yet made such a statement, publicly, at least, but the feeling in Pakistan as regards the use of nuclear weapons is much the same as in India: very many citizens of both countries believe that nuclear weapons just make a bigger bang. This is worrying, to put it mildly, especially as these two well-armed nations are squaring up to each other over the Kashmir imbroglio.

Before India and Pakistan became independent in 1947 there were some 560 feudal rulers of princely states, of which Kashmir was one of the few in which a Muslim majority were subjects of a Hindu maharajah. He decided to accede to India but the territory continued to be disputed between India and Pakistan, and remains in such status on the books of the UN Security Council.

The main UNSC resolution about Kashmir is 122 of 24 January 1957. It reminds the governments of India and Pakistan that

“the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations”.

India has tried for many years to convince the world that the 1972 India-Pakistan Simla Accord following their war of 1971 in some way invalidates UN Security Council resolutions regarding Kashmir. But the first paragraph of the Simla Agreement is “that the Principles and Purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the countries”. Then it states that

“the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them” [emphasis added].

It is obvious that, contrary to Indian claims, there is no legal exclusion of the UN or any third party from mediation over Kashmir, given the covenant to include “any other means” towards settlement.

India, however, seized upon its selective interpretation of the wording of the Accord to unilaterally forbid the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) to carry out its duties to “observe and report” on both sides of the line of Control dividing the disputed territory. That Mission has forty uniformed observers who investigate cease-fire violations on the Pakistan side, but are not permitted to operate in Indian-administered Kashmir. This state of affairs neutralises objective UN reporting about the region, and one has to ask the question: who benefits from that?

Indian-administered Kashmir is a scenically beautiful region which is economically self-supporting by virtue of food production, tourism, and export of world-class handicrafts — carpets and papier-mâché and carvings. Its citizens desire only fair governance, but over the years have become increasingly alienated from the Indian mainstream, and the recent increase in anti-India violence in the Valley is an indication of infuriated frustration. The insurgency has settled into a grumbling resentment with occasional outbreaks of forcefulness, and some barbaric incidents such as the recent unforgivable murder of a young man.

On 9 May 2017 a young Indian army officer was kidnapped and murdered. He was aged 22, recently commissioned, unarmed, and home to attend a family wedding in Indian-administered Kashmir when five men burst into his father’s house and overpowered him, took him away and shot him dead after treating him despicably.

Lieutenant Ummer Fayaz was an enlightened Kashmiri from a humble background who had made good because he was intelligent and hard-working. He was, of course, a Muslim, which made him doubly vulnerable to those evil fellow-Muslims who killed him. Their achievements were to plunge a family into grief, deprive the world of a good upright citizen, spread even deeper hatred throughout India, and demonstrate that they were vile savages who murdered a defenceless man. These reptiles are not freedom fighters. They are simply murderous criminals who lack any sort of morality and possess not a shred of compassion for their fellow human beings. Which brings us to the treatment of another young man, Farooq Dar, a Kashmiri not much older than Lieutenant Ummer Fayaz, who survived to tell his tale, but also suffered at the hands of brutal bullies who had no fear of justice being applied.

According to the Economist, a reputable publication with no axe to grind in the India-Pakistan imbroglio over Kashmir, Mr Farooq Dar “suffered a severe beating” by Indian soldiers and was then “tied up on a spare tyre attached to the front bumper of an armoured jeep. Indian soldiers claimed he had been throwing stones. Mr Dar was driven in agony through villages… The soldiers reckoned the sight of him would deter others from throwing stones at their patrol”.

By far the majority of the citizens of Indian-administered Kashmir who object to draconian Indian rule in the disputed territory are peaceful and want matters to be resolved politically, in accordance with Security Council Resolutions, but some have resorted to barbarism, and unfortunately the Indian army and paramilitary forces have lowered themselves to the level of the extremists. The use of pellet-firing shotguns to deliberately blind protestors was particularly malevolent, but in line with the recent statement by India’s army chief that

“This is a proxy war and proxy war is a dirty war. It is played in a dirty way… You fight a dirty war with innovations”.

Like blinding people. The Indian Express reported that after one demonstration in 2016, doctors performed nearly 100 operations on people with pellet gun injuries. Sixteen had been blinded. Welcome to free Kashmir.

As Human Rights Watch observed, “a major grievance of those protesting in Kashmir is the failure of authorities to respect basic human rights”, but the whole Kashmir catastrophe is about human rights, and it is time India and Pakistan devised a solution about the disputed territory. Countless lives would be saved if these governments eschewed the crude and dangerous attractions of ultra-nationalism and agreed to settle the dispute by referring it to independent arbitration. There is no possibility that India would ever agree to surrender the territory it occupies, because no Indian government would survive five minutes after making such a decision. Pakistan must live with the unpalatable fact that it has lost the territory and must make the best compromise.

At this moment the disagreement between India and Pakistan over Kashmir is one of the world’s most dangerous confrontations. It could only too easily lead to nuclear war, given Pakistan’s preparedness to use tactical nuclear weapons if Indian forces penetrate Pakistani territory, as they will probably do if there is a major fire-exchange incident along the Line of Control.

Then there will be a world catastrophe, because there is no such thing as a limited nuclear war.

The Line of Control in Kashmir should be declared the international border, with minor adjustments effected after independent mediation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan should meet and declare that the Kashmir imbroglio is over, and that the countries have agreed to go forward to mutually beneficial cooperation.

Then they could go to Norway to accept their Nobel Peace Prizes.

Brian Cloughley is a British and Australian armies’ veteran, former deputy head of the UN military mission in Kashmir and Australian defense attaché in Pakistan.

All images in this article are from the author. 

In southeastern Syria, the region around al-Tanf has quickly become a focal point for the ongoing conflict in the region. Near to both the Iraqi and Jordanian borders (see map below), al-Tanf is currently the location of a contingent of US-led coalition forces, supposedly there for the purpose of providing training to ‘anti-ISIS’ militias, but also anti-Assad militias too – the fabled ‘moderate rebels’. Not surprisingly, the US-led coalition has unilaterally imposed a self-styled ‘deconfliction zone‘ around their camp in al-Tanf and claim to be defending their position from ‘pro-Syrian forces’, otherwise known as the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and allied militias. It has been reported by mainstream media outlets that coalition members represented at al-Tanf include not only the United States but also the British SAS, and also possibly Norway too.

Although coalition forces are also present in other parts of Syria, including the area around Raqqa, an ISIS stronghold, the last few weeks have seen coalition forces striking Syrian military targets on at least three occasions near the coalition training camp close to al-Tanf – including incidents on May 18th, June 6th and June 8th. It is now being reported that the US is supplying “truck-mounted long range missiles” to its forces near al-Tanf, in a move that risks immediate escalation in the already-tense situation, and despite diplomatic efforts by Russia to calm the situation. All this comes as the US and its Kurdish proxy militia, the SDF, mount there attack on the ISIS stronghold Raqqa in Northeast Syria. The US have also seized the opportunity to invade more Syrian territory after an alleged sarin gas attack on April 4th that prompted President Trump to launch a missile strike on a Syrian airbase in retaliation.

In the following segment film two weeks ago, 21WIRE editor Patrick Henningsen speaks to RT International about the recent US strike on Syrian forces near Al Tanf. Henningsen explains how the US are taking advantage of the tension to secure its own territory inside of Syria:

US and Britain: A Policy of Deception

One could easily be confused by the narrative that is being spun by the US, Britain, and compliant mainstream media in both countries. Less than two years ago, in 2015, then British Prime Minister David Cameron ruled out sending British ground troops into Syria. In mid-2016, however, it emerged that British special forces were engaged in combat in the country. Between 2013 and 2015, former US President Barack Obama said on at least 16 occasions that there would be ‘no boots on the ground’ in Syria, but then changed his mind in late 2015 when US Special Forces were deployed into Syria.

President Trump’s statements are no less contradictory. On April 11th 2017, soon after his initial missile strikes on the Syrian airbase, Trump said that the US was “not going into Syria”; the current situation at al-Tanf simply contradicts that statement.

Since that time, both Britain and the US have been slowly ramping up their presence in Syria, ostensibly to fight ISIS. But by repeatedly striking at Syrian government forces – the single most effective fighting force against ISIS – the US and Britain are actually helping ISIS to achieve its objectives.

Note the mismatch between the US-led coalition’s presence in Syria and how it’s presented to the public. Not only do they claim to be fighting ISIS while at the same time indirectly helping them, but they also call their attacks on Syrian army targets ‘defensive’ – even though the Syrian military has never attempted to attack any coalition forces. And it is similarly ironic that these strikes against the Syrian military have occurred in what the coalition calls a ‘deconfliction zone’, where supposedly no conflict is allowed. According to security analyst Charles Shoebridge:

“These are self-declared [US occupied] zones of ‘deconfliction.’ What they really mean there is that they are not allowing other people to enter these zones, notwithstanding that this is part of a sovereign country, Syria… What they mean is that actually conflict is allowed, and military forces, as long as they are American, British and their ‘rebel’ allies. They are not agreed deconfliction zones. Syria doesn’t agree to them. Russia, which of course has established de-escalation zones elsewhere in the country, hasn’t agreed to this. Consequently they really are, as [Russian Foreign Minister] Lavrov or his spokesman said, effectively unilateral zones.”

And not only is the narrative confusing, it is also not given the highest priority among mainstream headlines, with many other prominent stories conveniently serving to occupy the public while the situation in al-Tanf escalates. In a week that saw Congressmen shot at and injured at a baseball practice, a massive tower block fire in London taking at least 17 lives, and the UK election aftermath continuing to be unresolved, one could easily remain unaware of the escalating situation around al-Tanf in Syria. With the US-led coalition now directly and deliberately attacking Syrian forces, what has been a proxy war is suddenly growing more dangerous, and the prospect of a direct conflict between nuclear-armed powers looms ever closer.

As former British Ambassador to Syria Peter Ford remarked during a recent conversation with 21WIRE, the British military has neither Syrian approval to be in Syria, nor international approval from the UN, nor even legislative approval from its own Parliament. The same applies to the United States; although the US Constitution gives the power to declare war exclusively to Congress, the US now has quite a long history of entering wars or using deadly military force without Congressional approval under the flexible guise of an ‘Authorization of Force.’

Featured image: Wikicommons

The State Department today released a long-awaited “retrospective” volume of declassified U.S. government documents on the 1953 coup in Iran, including records describing planning and implementation of the covert operation. The publication is the culmination of decades of internal debates and public controversy after a previous official collection omitted all references to the role of American and British intelligence in the ouster of Iran’s then-prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddeq. The volume is part of the Department’s venerable Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series.

For decades, neither the U.S. nor the British governments would acknowledge their part in Mosaddeq’s overthrow, even though a detailed account appeared as early as 1954 in The Saturday Evening Post, and since then CIA and MI6 veterans of the coup have published memoirs detailing their activities. Kermit Roosevelt’s Countercoup is the best known and most detailed such account, although highly controversial because of its selective rendering of events. In 2000, The New York Times posted a 200-page classified internal CIA history of the operation.

Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and President Dwight D. Eisenhower, (undated photo).

In 1989, the State Department released what purported to be the official record of the coup period but it made not a single reference to American and British actions in connection with the event. The omission led to the resignation of the chief outside adviser on the series, and prompted Congress to pass legislation requiring “a thorough, accurate, and reliable documentary record” of U.S. foreign policy. After the end of the Cold War, the CIA committed to open agency files on the Iran and other covert operations, and the State Department vowed to produce a “retrospective” volume righting the earlier decision.

But it took until 2011 for the CIA to – partially – fulfill its commitment, and even then it was only in the form of a previously classified segment of an internal account of the coup that for the first time included an officially released explicit reference to the agency’s role in “TPAJAX,” the U.S. acronym for the operation. Roughly two years later, after years of research by historian James C. Van Hook, as well as internal negotiations between State and CIA over access to the latter’s records, the Office of the Historian at the Department produced a draft of the retrospective volume, which then had to await top-level clearance.

What explains the refusal by two governments to acknowledge their actions, and the inordinate delays in publishing this volume? Justifications given in the past include protecting intelligence sources and methods, bowing to British government requests and, more recently, avoiding stirring up Iranian hardline elements who might seek to undercut the nuclear deal Iran signed with the United States and other P5+1 members in 2015.

While the volume’s contents still are being sifted through, here’s a description from the Preface:

This Foreign Relations retrospective volume focuses on the use of covert operations by the Truman and Eisenhower administrations as an adjunct to their respective policies toward Iran, culminating in the overthrow of the Mosadeq government in August 1953. Moreover, the volume documents the involvement of the U.S. intelligence community in the policy formulation process and places it within the broader Cold War context. For a full appreciation of U.S. relations with Iran between 1951 and 1954, this volume should be read in conjunction with the volume published in 1989.

“This is going to be an important source for anyone interested in the tortured relationship between Washington and Tehran,” said Malcolm Byrne, who runs the National Security Archive’s Iran-U.S. Relations Project. “But the fact that it has taken over six decades to declassify and release these records about such a pivotal historical event is mind-boggling.”

As Archive staff make their way through the hundreds of records in the volume, we will update this posting with highlights.

Read the volume:

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954: Iran, 1951-1954 (2017)
Editor: James C. Van Hook

 

 

 

 

 

 

All images in this article are from the original source .

Every month, it seems, a new book on Palestine comes across my desk for review. I think: “Oh, this reminds me of one I saw last year,” or “She likely adopts the same theme as in her last novel.” Perusing a few pages of this volume, seeing that the stories herein are not really new, I nevertheless declare: “They will never give up”.

I mean by this, the infinite ways that Palestinians– mother, child, shopkeeper, student, prisoner, poet, exile or resident, teacher or politician, from peasants to scions of established Jerusalem or Jaffa families—devise to narrate their heavily traveled route from the bucolic olive groves and stone houses of the Jordan Valley, across the biblical lands, through wars, to prisoner cells, tattered refugee shelters and uneasy exile.

When I say ‘they never give up’ I am of course aware that countless have quit. Many perished in their struggle for statehood by one means or another; others have been co-opted into a bourgeois lifestyle and successfully (sic) assimilated, or otherwise lured away. Perhaps for every one still identifying with the struggle, ten times that number has burned out or lost hope. Not to mention countless (millions) of fellow Arabs who championed the cause with their scholarship and poems, offering Palestinians sanctuary, financial aid, diplomacy, and armed action as well.

Still we have at least four generations of Palestinians dispersed throughout the world–from Australia and South Africa to inside Israel, to the Caribbean Islands, Brazil and our New York neighborhoods– who persist. Many feel compelled to know and value their story, then to make others hear them and be moved. It’s not just the injustices and indignities endured, but the treasures as well: stories embedded inside found family portraits, in diplomas won, in property deeds folded away, in emblems embroidered into gowns, and in songs.

Just last month, my colleague Francisco Casanova (Chahin/el-Mufdi) originally of Beit Jala near Bethlehem, now settled in New York via Dominican Republic, circulated a newly unearthed photo of his great-grandparents Yadallah and Ackle Mufdi (~1920), located by his cousin in a magazine in Dominican Republic where Francisco’s family settled in the late 1800s.

This is one example of tens of thousands of narratives that infuse the enduring campaign. Traces make threads and threads are woven into something decipherable emerging into an instrument for action. Defying the Zionist agenda to erase Palestine, more stories emerge, year after year– from those married to non-Palestinians, even children of families who seemed to have forgotten the homeland. Memoirs pour forth from those with the most tenuous ties to the land as well as from those newly dispersed. This “persistence of memory”  is discussed in poet Ibtisam Barakat’s latest essay.

What provokes my observation ‘they never give up’ is not just today’s hunger strike by Palestinian prisoners, not those past daring flotillas to Gaza, not inspiring graffiti on the apartheid wall or words by hip-hop artist Shadia Mansour. It’s the tireless reinvention of the quintessential story.

On my desk is the newly released Young Palestinians Speak: Living Under Occupation, yet another collection of testimonials and historical sketches. Designed for young readers, it offers maps, notes, interviews and photos assembled by two British writers.

Some may conclude it’s a worn and futile theme. Indeed, the book offers nothing new to those familiar with Palestinian history. But we always find people to whom the story is unknown. The books roll out, even when few Palestinian histories will reach American schoolrooms. A portrayal of military occupation in another part of the world may be welcomed by librarians. But given Israel’s vigilance of its international image, this book, if selected for an American school library or listed as a school resource for world history, may find itself banned.

From the testimonies of the children interviewed and comments by school staff quoted in Young Palestinians Speak, the injustices are evident. Like another collection for young readers, Gaza Writes Back, some writers, editors and publishers remain compelled to remind us of the story of Palestine. Sameeha Elwan, one of 23 contributors to the Gaza book writes how each tale,

“whether it stems from genuine experience, the representation of experiences of others, or those enshrined in Palestinians by virtue of being Palestinian … are worth remembering and telling. Memory is itself the only thing that is left of (our) comprehension of home and identity.”

Featured image: credits to the owner

[Prefatory Note: This jointly authored essay was initially published in The Hill on May 30, 2017 under the title, “Averting the Ticking Time Bomb of Nukes in North Korea.” We did not choose such a title that is doubly misleading: our contention is not that North Korea is the core of the problem, but rather the retention of nuclear weapons by all of the states pose both crises in the context of counter-proliferation geopolitics and with respect to the possession, deployment, and development of the weaponry itself; a second objection is with the title given the piece by editors at The Hill. While acknowledging the practice of media outlets to decide on titles without seeking prior approval from authors, this title is particularly objectionable to me. The term ‘nukes’ gives an almost friendly shorthand to these most horrific of weapons, and strikes a tone that trivializes what should be regarded at all times with solemnity.]

Alarmingly, tensions between the United States and North Korea have again reached crisis proportions. The United States wants North Korea to curtail any further development of its nuclear weapons program, as well as to stop testing its missiles. North Korea evidently seeks to bolster its security by acquiring a sufficiently robust deterrent capability to discourage an attack by the United States. The unpredictable leaders of both countries are pursuing extremely provocative and destabilizing patterns of behavior. Where such a dangerous interaction leads no one can now foresee. The risk of this tense situation spiraling out of control should not be minimized.

It is urgent that all governments concerned make a sober reassessment in a timely manner. The following questions need to be addressed: What can be done to defuse this escalating crisis? What should be done to prevent further crises in the future? What could be learned from recurrent crises involving nuclear weapons states?

It is discouraging that the White House continues to rely mainly on threat diplomacy. It has not worked in responding to North Korea’s nuclear ambitions for the past few decades, and it is crucial to try a different approach. Currently, there are mixed signals that such a shift may be underway. President Trump has turned to China, imploring that it use its leverage to induce Kim Jong-un to back down, and has even mentioned the possibility of inviting Kim for crisis-resolving talks. Also relevant and hopeful is the election of Moon Jae-in as the new president of South Korea, and his insistent calls for improved relations with the North.

In the end, no reasonable person would opt for another war on the Korean Peninsula. The only rational alternative is diplomacy. But what kind of diplomacy? American reliance on threat and punitive diplomacy has never succeeded in the past and is almost certain to fail now. We assuredly need diplomacy, but of a different character.

It is time to abandon coercive diplomacy and develop an approach that can be described as restorative diplomacy. Coercive diplomacy relies on a zero/sum calculus consisting of military threats, sanctions, and a variety of punitive measures. Restorative diplomacy adopts a win/win approach that seeks to find mutual benefits for both sides, restructuring the relationship so as to provide security for the weaker side and stability for the stronger side. The challenge to the political imagination is to find the concrete formula for translating this abstract goal into viable policy options.

The basic shift is a mental recognition that in the context of the Korean Peninsula any military encounter, whether nuclear or non-nuclear, is a recipe for catastrophe. It is not a win or lose situation. It is lose/lose in terms of human suffering, devastation, and likely political outcome. If nuclear weapons are used by either or both sides, millions of casualties could occur and the wider consequences an unprecedented disaster.

While there have been suggestions from the Trump administration that the time for talk with North Korea is over, actually the opposite is true. A solution to the present Korean crisis would involve an immediate return to the negotiating table with positive inducements made by the U.S. in exchange for North Korea halting its development of nuclear weapons and missile testing. Such incentives could include, first and foremost, bilateral and regional security guarantees to the North Korean government, ensuring that the country would not be attacked and its sovereignty respected. This could be coupled with confidence-building measures. The U.S. and South Korea should halt their joint annual military exercises in the vicinity of North Korea, as well as forego provocative weapons deployments. In addition, the U.S. and possibly Japan could offer North Korea additional benefits: food, medicine, and clean energy technology. China could play a positive role by hosting the negotiations, including possibly inviting the new leader of South Korea to participate.

Beyond resolving the current crisis is the deeper challenge to prevent recurrent crises that pit nuclear weapons states against one another. There is no way to achieve this result so long as some countries retain, develop, and deploy nuclear weapons, and other countries are prohibited from acquiring such weaponry even if their security is under threat. Iraq and Libya arguably suffered from the consequences of not having nuclear weapons to deter attacks against them.

The only way out of this trap is to recognize that the nuclear nonproliferation regime has failed. The treaty provisions calling for nuclear as well as general and complete disarmament negotiations have been neglected for nearly a half century. Outside the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the United States has acted as an enforcer of a nuclear nonproliferation regime. Such a role motivated the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2003 with its disastrous impacts on the country and the entire Middle East. It also underlies the current crisis pitting Washington’s demands against Pyongyang’s provocations. Hard power approaches to such dangerous developments have a dismal record, and pose unacceptable risks of regional and global havoc.

To prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons epitomizes prudence in the Nuclear Age. It is the only way to prevent a crisis between nuclear-armed opponents turning into a nuclear catastrophe. Such behavior would constitute an act of sanity for humanity and its future given the extreme dangers of nuclear weapons, the periodic crises that erupt among nuclear-armed countries, and the growing odds of nuclear weapons being used at some point. Yet for smaller, weaker nuclear weapons states to go along with this approach, the United Nations Charter and international law must be respected to the point that regime-changing geopolitical interventions by dominant states are convincingly rejected as a reasonable policy option.

Any use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic.. Depending upon the extent of the nuclear exchange, cities, countries, civilization, and even all complex life, including the human species, would be at risk. Experts anticipate that a nuclear war between India and Pakistan in which 100 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons were used against cities would likely cause a nuclear famine taking two billion lives globally. An all-out nuclear war could be an extinction event for complex life, including humanity.

Nine countries currently possess nuclear weapons (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea). Nine leaders could initiate nuclear war by mistake, miscalculation or malice. The future rests precariously in the hands of this small number of individuals. Such an unprecedented concentration of power and authority undermines democracy, as well as being extremely reckless.and irresponsible.

It is essential to maintain our focus on the challenges posed by the development of North Korean nuclear capabilities. At the same time, while struggling to defuse this crisis hanging over the Korean Peninsula, we should not lose sight of its connection with the questionable wider structure of reliance on nuclear weapons by the other eight nuclear-armed countries. Until this structure of nuclearism is itself overcome, crises will almost certainly continue to occur in the future. It is foolhardy to suppose that nuclear catastrophes can be indefinitely averted without addressing these deeper challenges that have existed ever since the original atomic attack on Hiroshima.

Richard Falk is Senior Vice President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law Emeritus, Princeton University.

David Krieger is President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

Featured image: credits to the owner

For a magician, the greater the illusion attempted, the more showmanship that’s required to distract audiences from that fact that it is indeed just an illusion. For US politics, something very similar applies, particularly regarding the latest, ongoing narrative surrounding alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election.

Having concluded over half a year ago, had there been actual evidence of state-sponsored election interference by Russia, it would have surfaced and the necessity for a lengthy and dramatic public spectacle would not only be absent, it would obstruct real measures needed to protect America’s political process from future foreign influence.

However, actual evidence has not surfaced.

Instead, complex conspiracy theories buttressed by the most tenuous documentation have been spun and promoted in the midst of public hearings, political rearrangements in the White House and other theatrics designed to keep the public engaged and convinced of the notion that Russia’s government actually attempted to manipulate the results of America’s presidential election.

However, the entire spectacle and the narrative driving it, is based entirely on the assumption that Russia’s government believes the office of US President is of significant importance enough so as to risk meddling in it in the first place. It also means that Russia believed the office of US President was so important to influence, that the substantial political fallout and consequences if caught were worth the risk.

In reality, as US President Donald Trump has thoroughly demonstrated, the White House holds little to no sway regarding US foreign policy.

While President Trump promised during his campaign leading up to the 2016 election cooperation with Russia, a withdrawal from undermining and overthrowing the government in Damascus, Syria and a reversal of decades of US support for the government of Saudi Arabia, he now finds himself presiding over an administration continuing to build up military forces on Russia’s borders in Eastern Europe, is currently and repeatedly killing Syrian soldiers in Syria and has sealed a record arms deal with Saudi Arabia amounting to over 110 billion US dollars.

It is clear that the foreign policy executed by US President George Bush, continued by President Barack Obama and set to continue under US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, is instead being faithfully executed by President Trump.

Any and all efforts to skew the electoral process either through leaked e-mails or through hacking electronic voting machines would have carried a political risk that far outweighed what is clearly a negligible outcome.

Cui Bono? 

For US foreign and domestic policy, however, the grand illusion of Russia meddling in America’s political process helps in at least three fundamental ways.

First, it provides a distraction for the American public. While President Trump continues the policies of previous administrations in the service of the unelected special interests that actually determine and benefit from US foreign policy, the “US election meddling” narrative provides a diversion that prevents President Trump’s backtracking and hypocrisy from taking precedence in public debates.

Second, creating hysteria over the possibility that a foreign nation might have interfered with America’s political process helps reinforce the illusion that America’s political process is legitimate and meaningful in the first place. It buttresses the notion that America’s destiny is determined by the electorate and the representatives it puts in office, not the multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations and financial institutions that lobby America’s legislative bodies and place their representatives within each presidential cabinet regardless of who the American public vote into office.

And third, accusing Russia of interfering in America’s political process helps perpetuate the adversarial nature of US-Russian relations, justifying the continued existence and expansion of NATO and all of the conflicts it both fuels and feeds off of. In addition to geopolitical objectives, this process reaps billions in defense contracts and opens up new potential markets for US corporations and financial institutions.

Ultimately, the co-opting or elimination of Russian competitors across a multitude of industries globally would give existing US monopolies and even tighter grip on the planet, its resources and its people.

For Russia who already faces an all but openly declared policy of encirclement, containment and undermining by the US, including crippling economic sanctions and an array of politically subversive (not to mention ironic) activities sponsored openly by the US through fronts like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), excuses like alleged Russian meddling in America’s presidential election only gives Washington continued apparent justification for its incremental efforts toward taking apart Russia as a reemerging world power.

Accusations of foreign meddling amid the domestic political affairs of a sovereign nation are serious. However, evidence is required not only to level accusations against a nation for doing so, but are essential before undertaking subsequent measures against the accused nation. While the United States openly manipulates the political processes of nations worldwide through organizations like NED which literally creates and directs opposition parties globally, it has failed to produce convincing evidence or even assign a rational motive regarding its accusations against Russia.

Were Russia determined to challenge American hegemony worldwide, it would not do it by interfering in an already rigged and irrelevant US election, but by creating alternatives to the industrial, military, financial and institutional monopolies the US uses globally to achieve, maintain and expand hegemony. Russia is already doing this, which is why the US seeks justification for confronting Moscow, revealing the true culprits and motive behind the “US election meddling” narrative.

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

Featured image: New Eastern Outlook

For nearly two years now we have been following the dedicated work of Robert Stuart in exposing the possible fabrications behind the infamous BBC Panorama documentary “Saving Syria’s Children.” On June 11 he gave a public presentation summarising his work to date, which is also available as a PDF. As an overview of the evidence in the case, it is well worth reading. You can download it HERE. And below are some of the highlights.

First a brief reminder of the back story:

On August 29 2013, as the UK Parliament was about to vote on possible military action against the Assad government in Syria, the BBC’s 10 o’clock news aired a segment titled Syria crisis: Incendiary bomb victims ‘like the walking dead’ in which it was claimed a Syrian fighter jet had dropped an incendiary bomb containing a “napalm-type” substance on the playground of the Urm al-Kubra school near Aleppo. The BBC claimed its own team “inside Syria filming for [the documentary series] Panorama” had been witnesses to the victims arriving at the Atareb hospital, and it aired a segment of footage showing incoming casualties. This footage later formed the basis for the documentary “Saving Syria’s Children.”

The discrepancies and other problems surrounding this footage and the BBC documentary are legion. We have documented some of them here and here and here, and Robert Stuart’s blog offers a detailed database that puts it beyond doubt the BBC has not been entirely honest about the origins of and motives behind this film.

Stuart’s PDF highlights some additional areas of interest:

The Reality of the Alleged Injuries

The injuries visible in the BBC footage have been questioned by medical professionals:

Can our readers see any sign of injury on this – thankfully – healthy-seeming little baby, let alone ’80% burns”?

Number and Identity of Victims

In a real event the number of victims, their names, backgrounds and photos should be reasonably consistent. Wide disparities would be hard to reconcile with something happening in the real world. Especially so in this case, given the people giving us the figures were allegedly there on the scene either treating the victims hands-on or filming it being done. You’d expect a pretty clear and definite report on the numbers treated in the quite small Atareb hospital. But this doesn’t seem to be the case:

How is it that Dr Ahsan, who was right on scene, first claimed there were “25” victims, but in a later interview almost doubled the number to “40”, while Ian Pannell claimed there were “30” victims treated at Atareb that day, and Rola Hallam’s Hand in Hand For Syria website trumped them all, claiming “50” of the victims were brought to Atareb?

Did neither Dr Ahsan nor Ian Pannell, nor the Hand In Hand for Syria website make any effort to obtain a definitive account of the numbers they treated? Were they just grabbing figures at random?

Chronology

It ought to be possible, in today’s interconnected age, to determine when an event occurred with a maximum disparity of – say – one or two hours if the event occurred in a remote rural location and much less if it was in an urban setting with numerous witnesses. Of course some variation in the accounts of those present is to be expected, because humans are fallible and the events themselves are traumatic and confusing. But even so there is a minimal standard of consistency we need to demand.

Yet look at the huge disparity of timings offered up about this event:

The fact that different sources can place the alleged attack on the Urm al-Kubra school as much as six hours apart is very hard to reconcile with any form of veridical reality.

Let’s remember there was a BBC camera crew right there to record these events. Even allowing for shock and confusion, we might expect Ian Pannell, the reporter, and his award-winning cameraman, Darren Conway to pin down the timing pretty firmly. But Pannell says the events happened at “around 5:30”. Conway says “I don’t know, it was somewhere between 3 and 5.”

“I don’t know”? “It was somewhere between...”? “Around 5:30”? This isn’t quite the stringent attention to detail we might expect from professionals in a war zone. Surely they can pin it down a bit closer than that? How come Pannell has ended up thinking it was at least two and a half hours later than the earliest time given by Conway? Didn’t they discuss the timing with one another after the event? Don’t they have phones or watches? Doesn’t any of their footage have a time code?

Dr. Saleyha Ahsan

Dr Saleyah Ahsan, one of the two British medical personnel to appear in the Panorama documentary, and filmed attending to the alleged victims, is a former British Army captain, trained at the elite Sandhurst military academy, who served in Bosnia and went out to Libya to “support the revolution”, before staying on to give medical service to the “fighters” (presumably the NATO-backed “rebels”).

I’m sure we can all agree this is definitely not the profile of someone in Military Intelligence.

Interestingly, her ex-CO now runs medical simulation training exercises, as Saleyah herself revealed in passing when she was sent to cover the exercises by BBC Newsnight

The below images are of FAKE INJURIES provided by a professional medical simulation firm. You might argue they look more convincing than anything seen on the BBC Panorama program.

Dr. Rola Hallam and Her Shadowy Dad

Saleyah’s connections are as curious as those of the other British doctor present during the filming of alleged casualties at the Atareb hospital, Dr Rola Hallam, executive on the board of the Hand in Hand For Syria charity, and whose father Dr Mousa al-Kurdi, may or may not be connected with the self-styled “Syrian National Council”, a supporter of the terrorists/“rebels” and a barely-concealed front for western-backed interests in Syria. He certainly seems to be no friend of the current Syrian president.

We say “may or may not be connected with the SNC”, because Rola Hallam is on record denying her father is a member of the SNC, while her colleague seems to be of a different opinion:

These women clearly need to work harder at co-ordinating their narrative.

***

The evidence for some form of fakery here is now undeniable. Not only are some of the major players shown to be previously involved in pro-western regime change narratives and/or politically active in the bid to unseat Assad, but the footage taken by the BBC itself shows clear signs of being less than real. The alleged injuries look questionable, not simply to lay people but to medical professionals. The narrative is inconsistent, the timing extremely convenient for the pro-west, pro-NATO agenda.

What does this mean in a wider context? If the BBC and elements of the British medical profession have – as seems highly possible – colluded to produce fake news of a fake event, how should we view other such convenient narratives involving alleged loss of life, implicating acknowledged enemies of the West, and seeming to justify more wars of intervention, more surveillance, more curbs on our freedom? What if an event were to happen in future in – say – Berlin, New York, London, Melbourne that has all the same hallmarks of questionable-seeming injuries, vague timelines, vague or poorly sourced victim-lists, and a seemingly pre-prepared perp that plugs right in to the west’s current hate-list or perpetual war agenda?

How parochial or racist is it for us to to assume fakery is a priori impossible when the victims are mostly white and have Facebook pages?

All images in this article are from the author except for the featured image.

The United States government is guilty of war crimes. This is the stark conclusion reached by the independent international commission of inquiry established by the United Nations in 2011 to investigate human rights violations stemming from the protracted US-backed war for regime change in Syria.

The Pentagon’s relentless bombing campaign in and around the northern Syrian city of Raqqa, the so-called “capital” of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), has inflicted a “staggering loss of civilian life,” while forcing over 160,000 civilians to flee their homes, Paulo Pinheiro, chairman of the UN’s commission of inquiry, said on Wednesday.

US warplanes have dropped tens of thousands of munitions on Raqqa and the surrounding area, killing and maiming thousands of Syrian men, women and children. US Marines units, which have steadily swelled the ground forces illegally deployed on Syrian soil, have unleashed further lethal firepower, firing 155mm howitzers into crowded urban neighborhoods and flying Apache attack helicopters to provide close air support to the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces. This proxy force of Washington is dominated by the Kurdish YPG militia and “advised” by US Special Operations troops.

The bloody siege of Raqqa is unfolding even as the Pentagon is carrying out a similar slaughter, begun last October, in Mosul, an Iraqi city 232 miles to the east that once boasted a population of over 2 million. Most of Mosul has been pulverized by US bombs, rockets and shells. Thousands have been killed and wounded, while many remain still buried under the rubble.

The scope of the war crimes being carried out by the Pentagon comes more sharply into focus with the verified reports that US artillery units are firing white phosphorus shells into both Raqqa and Mosul. These incendiary chemical weapons, banned under international law for use in populated areas, ignite human flesh on contact, burning it to the bone, while those who breathe the gases released by the shells suffocate and burn from the inside out. The horrific wounds caused by these weapons reopen when exposed to air. White phosphorus is used to strike terror among those under attack.

Another murderous weapon being employed against the populations of Raqqa and Mosul is the MGM-140B rocket. Fired from a mobile rocket launcher, the weapon detonates in midair, scattering some 274 anti-personnel grenades, each of which is capable of killing anyone within a 15-meter radius.

Last month, US Defense Secretary James Mattis told the media that the Pentagon was adopting

“annihilation tactics” in its anti-ISIS campaign, adding, “Civilian casualties are a fact of life in this sort of situation.”

Mattis, a recently retired Marine general whom the military nicknamed “Mad Dog,” knows whereof he speaks. In 2004, he led the two murderous sieges of Fallujah that claimed the lives of thousands of Iraqis, and, as in the latest US atrocities, made use of white phosphorus shells against a civilian population.

The US military interventions in Iraq and Syria are not aimed at “annihilating” ISIS, itself the product of the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq, followed by Washington’s utilization of Islamist fighters as proxy ground forces in the regime-change wars in both Libya and Syria. While Raqqa has been surrounded by US-backed forces from the north, east and west, an escape route for ISIS fighters has been opened up to the southeast in order to funnel them into the province of Deir al-Zour, so they can fight the Syrian army there. Similarly, large numbers of ISIS fighters were allowed to flee Mosul, crossing the border into Syria for the same purpose.

Washington’s strategic objectives in Iraq and Syria are not those of “fighting terrorism,” but rather consolidating US hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East and preparing for war against the principal obstacles to this objective, Iran and Russia. For US imperialism, undisputed control over both the Persian Gulf and Central Asia would provide the means to cut off energy supplies to its global rival, China.

These predatory aims are the source of war crimes, and not only in Iraq and Syria. In Yemen, Washington is backing a near-genocidal war led by the Saudi monarchy with the objective of weakening Iran’s influence in the Persian Gulf. During his visit to Riyadh last month, President Donald Trump announced a $110 billion arms deal with the kingdom, which will, in the first instance, replenish the bombs and missiles it is raining on the population of the most impoverished nation in the Arab world.

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

This arms package follows similar deals signed by the Obama administration, which also supplied the Saudis with logistical and intelligence aid for the Yemen war, including mid-air refueling for its warplanes and US naval backing for a blockade that is starving the population and denying it medical supplies. In addition to killing 12,000 people outright, the US-Saudi war has left at least 7 million Yemenis on the brink of famine, while cholera is threatening to kill thousands more. Save the Children reports that, on average, one Yemeni child is contracting the disease every 35 seconds.

Meanwhile, Washington is preparing to once again escalate the protracted slaughter in Afghanistan. US officials reported Tuesday that Trump has authorized Mattis to set troop levels in the country, which the US has occupied since 2001. Thousands more soldiers are expected to be deployed, with the aim of carrying out the “annihilation tactics” favored by the defense secretary. A taste of what is to come was seen Monday when US troops whose convoy hit a roadside bomb opened fire indiscriminately on civilians, killing a brick kiln laborer and his two sons, ages eight and 10.

As these atrocities play out across an ever-expanding global battlefield, what is striking is the absence of any organized opposition to US war crimes. The continuous wars are not even a subject of debate in Congress and are supported by both Democrats and Republicans. The media, a faithful propaganda arm of the Pentagon and the CIA, has shown a complete disinterest in US war crimes, paying attention only when allegations are made against Russia or the Syrian government.

Moreover, while masses of working people in the US and around the world are opposed to war, the pseudo-left groups that got their start in the middle class antiwar protests of the 1960s and 1970s have abandoned even verbal opposition to US military aggression. Reflecting the interests of privileged middle-class layers, groups like the International Socialist Organization in the US, the Left Party in Germany and the New Anti-capitalist Party in France have articulated the politics of this new constituency for imperialism, justifying neo-colonial interventions in the name of “human rights” and portraying CIA regime-change operations as in Libya and Syria as “revolutions.”

The emergence of a genuine antiwar movement is today a matter of life and death, as the war crimes being carried out by Washington across the globe threaten to coalesce into a global conflict involving the major nuclear powers. Such a movement can be built only in the fight to mobilize the working class independently on the basis of a socialist program to put an end to capitalism, the source of war.

Featured image: credits to the owner

The 2017 British general election has generated the beginnings of a qualitative-change in the relationship between the Labour Party, much of British society, and parliament. That transformation can be understood as the emergence of a permanent reformation.

Labour’s much better-than expected support raises the distinct possibility of its victory in the next election. Against all the odds – the polls, the hostile right-wing press, expectations within the Labour Party itself – Jeremy Corbyn led the party through a brilliantly coordinated campaign, presided over the biggest swing to Labour since the earth-shaking 1945 general election, and placed socialist ideas firmly back on the political agenda.

The significance of the Labour surge is not, primarily, a question of a shift in the balance of political power in parliament. It is much more profound than that. Labour’s campaign let the proverbial genie of class politics out of the bottle.

The Genie of Class Politics

For decades that genie has been kept prisoner. First, under Margaret Thatcher’s momentous attack upon the trade union movement and her declaration that there was “no such thing as society.” Second, under Tony Blair’s third way progressive policies were framed as benign gifts to the poor, to be delivered in a context where Labour was, in Peter Mandelson’s infamous words, “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich.” Blair’s New Labour discouraged any revival of working class militancy. For example, he famously opposed and beat back the Fire-Fighter’s strike for a 30K a year wage. Thirdly, following David Cameron’s Conservative-led coalition, austerity was imposed with a vengeance, with working class communities bearing the brunt.

During the election campaign Corbyn was relentless in his critique of the wealth-gap in the UK. The campaign gave confidence to the millions of people, who voted Labour, that an alternative to austerity is possible.

Jeremy Corbyn in a campaign rally (Source: Socialist Project)

While the Tories won the election, Theresa May’s authority is shattered, and the Tories are weakened. But, whenever the next election comes, the Tories will be much better prepared. They will, in all probability, have replaced May with a leader who can communicate effectively with the press and public. They will have a fully costed Manifesto. Their attacks on Labour will be sharper and better coordinated. So what about Labour?

Labour’s result has put Corbyn firmly at the head of the party for the foreseeable future. The key dynamic is not, however, within the parliamentary Labour Party. It is among the party’s 500,000+ membership and its support base.

The hung parliament represents a breathing space for Labour, and a chance for it to consolidate, build upon, and strengthen its base. A core ingredient of Labour’s victory was the unprecedented volunteer mobilization across the country to campaign and canvass for the party. While the hugely successful Bernie Sander’s campaign was built over two years, Labour’s election campaign was put into action over less than two months.

Can Labour Continue Its Momentum?

The question is, how can Labour increase the momentum of this campaign so that it can prevail when it faces a better-organized Tory party at the next election?

There are a number of things that Labour can do. First, it must continue to increase its membership base. Given the success of the campaign it is not unrealistic to aim for a membership of 1 or even 2 million people. Members should be encouraged to contribute financially to the party. A 1 or 2 million-strong party, with each member contributing £10 a month, would generate the new-found resources with which to finance its momentum.

Secondly, membership and support for the party cannot be based, simply, on the electoral cycle. The culture-ideology of neoliberalism – self-seeking individualism – has sunk deep roots in the UK (and across much of the world). Labour needs to help generate a counter-culture of solidarity and community to combat neoliberal ideology. A mass, subs-paying membership, can contribute to financing a counter-cultural movement. Labour Party branch meetings will, quite obviously, be a place to discuss local and national politics. But they must be so much more. Tens of thousands of artists, intellectuals, and musicians support Labour. Branch meetings can be a place for a counter-cultural flowering, where members and supporters can meet. Well-financed local Labour parties can support myriad cultural events (for example, showing films such as “I Daniel Blake” with discussions).

Thirdly, Labour must engage in an ideological insurgency. The Tory mantra during the election was that Labour are fiscally irresponsible and that there is ‘no magic money tree’ to pay for Labour’s projects. Let us leave aside that, in response to the global financial crisis, the Bank of England and the UK Treasury collaborated to create £375-billion of new money through quantitative easing. There is a real need for something approaching a Labour Party membership and supporter education which explains the rationale of alternative economic and social policies.

Fourthly, there is a need for a combination of defensive and offensive campaigning, at the local and national level. Defensive campaigns will range across issues such as defending the National Health Service (NHS) and schools against cuts and privatization. Offensive campaigns will probably include those to reinstate free education, to cease arms-sales to dictatorships (such as Saudi Arabia) to protect the environment, and ensure clean air for all. Given the Tory party austerity-addiction and their desire to privatize everything in sight, these campaigns will, more likely than not, be permanent as long as the Tories are in power.

Fifthly, and crucially, struggles and strikes by workers need to be supported and stimulated. Theresa May leads the weakest Tory party government since the Edward Heath government in the early 1970s. Strikes will not only contribute to weakening it further, but can also be part of the generation of a solidarity-based counter-culture.

The Labour Party sees itself as a family. The massive surge in support for it during the election represents the political crystallization of the yearning for a different form of government, democracy and society. The five points above could represent the first steps of Labour’s permanent reformation. When it gains political office that reformation will need to be ramped up all the more.

Benjamin Selwyn is Professor of International Relations and International Development, University of Sussex, UK. He is author of The Struggle for Development.

Featured image: credits to the owner

Two weeks after the grand pomp of President Trump’s visit, Saudi Arabia announced the complete blockade of small neighboring state Qatar on June 5. The blockade is an act of war.

Emboldened by Trump’s visit, Saudi Arabia quickly gathered eight other countries to participate in the blockade. The action includes cutting all food shipment and all land, sea and air travel; severing all diplomatic relations; freezing Qatari bank accounts; and expelling all Qatari citizens, within 48 hours, from nine countries in the region.

These are devastating acts, as the Doha International Airport in Qatar is a transit point for 37 million people a year. Qatar imports almost all its food and basic supplies, with 600 to 800 trucks a day rolling into Qatar from Saudi Arabia.

Source of terror: U.S. wars

Hardly any political commentator from left to right, or any media from major corporate to alternative, believes Saudi Arabia’s official reason for the blockade of Qatar.

The pretext is that Saudi Arabia is carrying out President Trump’s demand to end the funding of terrorists in the region. Trump has projected the notion of a grand Arab-NATO military alliance supposedly to fight the Islamic State group and Iran. Trump immediately took credit, in a tweet, for the Saudi action against Qatar.

Screenshot from Trump’s Twitter Account

Of course, U.S. imperialism’s wars in the region are the greatest act of terror there. Millions of people have been dislocated as refugees. Whole countries lie in ruin due to U.S. bombs. Sectarian militias and mercenary armies, along with tens of thousands of U.S. troops, have wreaked havoc.

Saudi Arabia assisted these U.S. wars by funding, arming and training fanatical religious groups since the 1980s war in Afghanistan.

Qatar is also guilty of funding groups and sending troops to aid in the destruction of Libya and continually funding forces in the war against Syria. At the time of the Saudi decision, Qatar was aiding Saudi Arabia’s war against a popular people’s movement in Yemen, the poorest country in the Gulf region.

Both the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the State of Qatar are repressive absolute monarchies. Almost all the vast oil and gas wealth in each country is owned by one family or extended clan, the House of Saud and the Al Thani family in Qatar. Unions and political parties are banned in both countries.

Almost 90 percent of the 2.5 million population in Qatar and over one-third of the Saudi population of 31 million are migrant workers barred from citizenship. They have no rights to education, health care and all social services.

These conditions are true for each of the six oil-rich Sunni Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf bound together in the Gulf Coordinating Council.

Is the Saudi-Qatar conflict just a falling out among thieves and reactionary forces? Or is there a wider significance?

Ordered to cut ties with Iran

Besides announcing the blockade of Qatar on June 5, Saudi Arabia issued a list of 10 demands that Qatar must immediately meet. These included cutting off all links with Iran; expelling resident members of the Palestinian militant group Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood; closing the Al-Jazeera news channel; and ending “interference” in the affairs of foreign countries.

These add up to an attempt to put a brake on Iran’s growing political and economic influence in the region. This is what is motivating both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia to attack Qatar.

Since the massive upheaval of the 1979 Iranian revolution broke with financial domination of U.S. banks and oil corporations, Iran’s very existence, despite decades of sanctions, remains a threat to the corrupt Gulf monarchies where all power and privilege is inherited.

When suicide bombers attacked the Iranian parliament and Ayatollah Khomeini’s mausoleum in Tehran on June 7, when at least 13 people died, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards blamed Saudi Arabia. The terror attack was also tied to Trump’s Saudi visit.

 

While threats against Iran seem to be the primary motivation behind the joint U.S.-Saudi attack on Qatar, there are other immediate financial motivations for this move.

Gas, oil and currency competition

Qatar has become, in 25 years, the world’s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas. The country now has 30 LNG terminals, with six more under construction.

Qatar has diplomatic relations with Iran, not because the Qatari monarchy is forward thinking, but because Qatar shares with Iran the gas field that has made the Al Thani family fabulously wealthy. The South Pars/North Dome Field is offshore from Qatar and Iran in the Persian Gulf, so the two countries share exploration rights.

It is impossible for Qatar to cut off all relations with Iran and survive. The Saudis understand this all too well.

Qatar has attempted with its new wealth to chart a more independent foreign policy. It is often a go-between and negotiator in the region. It is a host to Arab forces connected to Hamas in Palestine and to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Qatar is also the first country in the region to open a clearinghouse that allows gas and oil to be traded in yuan, the Chinese currency. This financial hub immediately undercuts the position of the dollar and puts banks in Doha, the capital of Qatar, ahead of other Gulf financial centers.

Meanwhile, the Saudis are desperately concerned with chronically low oil prices. They are spending billions in a losing war in neighboring Yemen, a war that seeps back into Saudi Arabia.

The second largest exporter of LNG gas is the U.S., so U.S. companies would benefit from a blockade of Qatar.

So the immediate economic beneficiaries of a shutdown in Qatar are U.S. and Saudi Arabian oil and financial interests.

Trump, the big corporations and the absolute monarchs of the oil-rich Gulf States are products of capitalism in its most vicious, competitive, cutthroat form. They are predators, always on the search for hostile takeovers and mergers. Seizures of assets are the order of the day. Glut and overproduction as well as loss of profit are their greatest fears. War is always on the table.

Dislocation across region, in NATO

The Trump-Saudi scheme to force Qatar to capitulate to their demands or face an internal coup may not succeed so easily. It is instead fracturing alliances in a highly unstable and volatile region, where no U.S. war has succeeded as yet and U.S. domination is already waning.

So far the Saudi action has not only split the six-nation Gulf Coordinating Council. Given German and Turkish opposition to the Saudi move, it also seems to have split NATO, the U.S.-dominated military alliance.

From the GCC, Saudi Arabia has pulled in Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates behind its anti-Qatar moves. Other countries dependent on Saudi Arabia dutifully signed on to the blockade, including Mauritius, Mauritania, the Maldives, the Saudi-backed government of Yemen and Libya’s eastern-based government. But Kuwait and Oman have resisted participation.

Of NATO members, Germany’s Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel blasted the Trump-Saudi policy as “completely wrong, and it is certainly not Germany’s policy.” He warned it could “lead to war.” (Reuters, June 7) The Turkish Parliament has approved a plan to deploy troops to Qatar and to provide immediate food and water.

Iran immediately sent aircraft and ships with hundreds of tons of food to Qatar. Iran, Iraq, Jordan and Turkey opened their airspace to Qatari flights now blocked from flying over Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

The U.S. is well situated militarily to enforce demands on Qatar, as the country hosts the biggest concentration of U.S. military personnel in the Middle East at the Al Udeid Air Base. With 11,000 U.S. troops stationed there, the base is the center of U.S. command and control of air power over Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and 17 other countries.

But contradictions in this situation were on full display in two June 9 press briefings in Washington. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, former CEO of ExxonMobil, knows better than Trump what’s at stake in the long term. He urged de-escalation and negotiation. Ninety minutes later, Trump took the opposite view, again applauding Saudi Arabia.

President Trump’s visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia two weeks before the blockade resulted in a $110 billion sale of weapons to ramp up military threats against Iran, although this monstrous weapons sale is facing fierce congressional opposition.

It is when old alliances fracture — and glut and overproduction prevail — that the danger of war moves to red alert.

Featured image: Workers World

Close bonds between the people of the African continent and the Caribbean island-nation of Cuba have been centuries in the making.

Africans caught in the Atlantic Slave Trade were taken to Cuba where their presence made an indelible mark on the character of the political, economic and cultural fabric of the country.

Since the 1960s, in the early aftermath of the 1959 seizure of power by revolutionary forces led by Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and others, African independence and transformative struggles have constituted a major factor in Cuban foreign policy. President Castro noted in 1976 that socialist Cuba was populated by a Latin African people opposed to colonialism, racism and imperialism.

This historical tradition was reinforced at a recent conference held in Windhoek, Republic of Namibia which brought together African leaders and Cuban governmental officials to renew ties among the geo-political regions and to chart a way forward in the current period. The Fifth Continental African Conference of Solidarity with Cuba was convened June 6-8 and brought together over 200 delegates from 26 African states under the theme of “Intensifying Solidarity and Continuing the Legacy of Fidel and Che.”

The first of these conferences was held in South Africa in 1995 just one year after the demise of the racist-apartheid system that brought President Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress (ANC) to power. Subsequent gatherings took place in Ghana during 1997, Angola in 2010 and Ethiopia, the headquarters of the African Union (AU), in 2012.

1967 marks the 50th anniversary of the martyrdom of Che Guevara in Bolivia while he was in the South American country assisting revolutionary forces fighting against the neo-colonial regime which was supported by the United States. The Cuban Revolution from its inception posed a challenge to American imperialist dominance over the Caribbean, South America and other colonial and neo-colonial territories around the world.

In November 2016, 90-year old former President Fidel Castro passed away in Havana. His funeral was attended by many African leaders including Namibian President Hage Geingob who paid tribute to the revolutionary leader in an address to the mourners.

In a statement to the Conference, Namibian deputy Prime Minister Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah emphasized that:

“The holding of this conference is all the more timely because it is taking place when retrogressive forces are bent on reversing the gains made recently to normalize relations between Cuba and the United States.”

Under the previous U.S. administration of President Barack Obama, the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba after a breach of over 50 years raised expectations of a possible lifting of the economic blockade imposed by Washington in October 1960.

Without the abolition of the blockade relations cannot be fully normalized despite the exchange of diplomats and the reopening of embassies. The U.S. Congress would have to approve the liquidation of the blockade and there are political elements within the legislature which categorically opposes full economic and trade relations with Havana.

Nonetheless, the Fifth Continental African Conference supported the address by Namibian President Hage Geingob who said:

“We applaud the positive development in this respect and we commend the U.S. government and Cuba for their efforts towards normalizing of ties. However, there is still much ground left to cover to ensure the complete lifting of the blockage against Cuba.”

Geingob emphasized the urgency of the conference to develop a unified African strategy in regard to supporting Cuba. In addition, the delegates passed resolutions demanding the return of Guantanamo Bay, which remains over a century later after the so-called Spanish-American war under U.S. control, to the Cuban people.

A co-founder of the ruling Southwest Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) Party, Andimba Toivo ya Toivo, who passed away just days after the conference, noted that:

“Historically, Cuba assisted African countries in the fight against foreign domination. Through this patriotic support, Cuban people have shown us the meaning of solidarity, hence (we should show) our support for Cuba.”

Final Declaration Calls for Continuing Solidarity 

African leaders viewed the current situation involving the status of U.S.-Cuban relations as being critical in light of the political character of the administration in Washington. President Donald Trump does have the prerogative of reversing the reforms instituted by his predecessor.

Therefore, the Conference stressed as a mandate for future actions to

“continue developing and strengthening the Cuba solidarity movement in each one of our countries, struggling for unity and truth …. We demand that Cuba’s right to self-determination and sovereignty, as well as its right to decide the political system of its choice, be respected.”(Granma International, June 7)

Moreover, the struggle to maintain and enhance the independence and sovereignty of Cuba is linked with other countries within the region. In recognizing this reality the conference expanded its scope to encompass other states which have also been under pressure from successive U.S. administrations.

Therefore, the final declaration pledged support to “the causes of all sister countries struggling for a better world. In particular, we pledge our support to Puerto Rico in its struggle for self-determination, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and the people of Brazil, Bolivia, and Argentina, and all peoples of the continent defending their sovereignty.”

In attendance as well from Cuba were Fernado González, president of the Cuban Institute of Friendship with the Peoples (ICAP) and Cuban Ambassador in Namibia, Giraldo Mazola.

Historical Tradition of Solidarity and Cooperation

In 1961 in the aftermath of the assassination of Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, Cuban Minister of Economic Planning Che Guevara spoke out strongly in condemnation of the murderous act which was carried out by the U.S., Belgium and other imperialist states utilizing local surrogates. Che during 1965 toured Africa in an effort to build solidarity and make preparations for Cuban internationalists intervention in Congo aimed at supporting the revolutionary forces fighting for the ideals of Lumumba.

Although this mission was not successful, the experience taught profound lessons which laid the foundation for the deployment of Cuban military units a decade later in Angola in defense of the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) beginning in October 1975. President Fidel Castro was requested to send support by Angolan President Agostino Neto in the face of an invasion by the South African Defense Forces (SADF), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the surrogate U.S.-backed UNITA and FNLA rebel groups designed to derail the genuine independence of the oil-rich former Portuguese colony.

Cuban Internationalists spent another 13 years in Angola where they assisted in defeating the SADF in a series of battles around Cuito Cuanavale in 1988. After the humiliating losses by the SADF, negotiations began which resulted in the liberation of Namibia, the release of South African political prisoners in 1990 and the transition to non-racial democratic rule in the citadel of apartheid settler-colonialism by 1994.

In recent years, Cuba has educated thousands of African students in universities in the Caribbean socialist state. These students are provided with free tuition and lodging.

During the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) pandemic of 2014, Cuba deployed hundreds of physicians and other healthcare workers to Liberia and Sierra Leone, two of the hardest hit West African states, which was instrumental in turning the tide in efforts to halt and eradicate the crisis. The U.S. was forced to recognize the role of Cuba in the battle against EVD which paved the way for the reopening of diplomatic relations.

Outside of the conference deliberations in Windhoek, the delegates visited historic sites including Heroes Acre and the Museum of Independence on June 7. The participants decided in its conclusion that the Federal Republic of Nigeria will be the venue of the next Continental African Conference in Solidarity with Cuba.

All images in this article are from the author except the featured image which is from Prensa Latina.

A lawsuit filed by Maryland and the District of Columbia is the second such suit alleging that President Trump is violating the clause in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits officials from accepting emoluments from foreign states.

The principal focus of the suits is the Trump hotel that occupies the Old Post Office Building a few blocks from the White House (and is the subject of yet another irregularity, in that government officials are supposed to be legally barred from leasing that publicly owned property).

The new suit may have a better chance than the first one of establishing standing to sue, given that the plaintiffs represent jurisdictions with business interests that may lose customers to the Trump hotel because of its connection to the presidency. Earlier this year, for example, the Kuwaiti embassy, which for many years had held its national day celebration at the Four Seasons Hotel, held the event instead at Trump’s hotel.

The lost business is legally significant regarding standing to sue, and when a public official gains a commercial advantage because of his position, there is a fairness issue regarding businesses competing on an uneven playing field. But which Washington hotel gets to host embassy parties is hardly the most important question involved.

We can get a sense of the relevant concerns of the Founding Fathers by noting that the Emoluments Clause is part of a broader prohibition in the Constitution (in Article I, Section 9) that bars the granting of any title of nobility and the acceptance “of any present, Office, Emolument, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump are escorted by Saudi King Salman on their arrival, May 20, 2017, to the Royal Court Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (Official White House Photo Shealah Craighead)

Emolument may be an Eighteenth-Century word that is not in many active vocabularies in the Twenty-first Century, but the concern about the effects of flattery and favor are at least as relevant today as they were when the Constitution was written.

Trump’s Fondness for Flattery

In fact, with the current President, the concern is more relevant than ever. The role of flattery in the Trump presidency was in full display in the public portion of a cabinet meeting this week, in which the self-congratulation from the man in the center and the sycophancy from nearly everyone else at the table was what one might expect from a meeting of the North Korean cabinet.

Foreign governments have concluded that flattering Trump is one of the best ways to influence his policies. The Saudis pulled out all the stops to do so during Trump’s recent visit to the kingdom, including projecting a five-story image of Trump’s face on the side of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. In view of the output of the visit, including Trump quickly taking Saudi Arabia’s side as it subsequently lowered the boom on Qatar, the Saudis no doubt consider their efforts to have been worthwhile.

Another all-too-obvious strand of Trump’s presidency, and one at least as relevant to his ownership of unfairly advantaged hotels, is his throwing of ethics into the trash. A shameless mixing of public business and private financial interest has been a major feature of this presidency (and such steps as letting his sons manage his business day-to-day do nothing to remove the conflict of interest stemming from his ownership of businesses that profit from presidential actions).

That disregard for ethics also has set a terrible example for people around that Cabinet table and others in this administration who also have conflicts of interest. All this is a major problem even when no foreign governments are involved. Many aspects of domestic policy are being shaped by people who have private interests at stake, which often point in a different direction than the nation’s interests.

Founders’ Worries

The writers of the Constitution were concerned about this broader problem of keeping public business separate from private pecuniary interests. Another place in the document where the term emolument comes up is in Article II, which is about the presidency and the Executive Branch. Section 1 says that the president’s salary should not be changed during his term and that “he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”

In contrast to Barack Obama, whose respect for the Constitution, including the Emoluments Clause, led him to request a formal legal opinion from the Department of Justice to determine whether he should be permitted to accept his Nobel Prize, Trump gives no indication of having even passing thoughts about such things, or about government ethics. His conduct in that regard is the opposite of what the writers of the Constitution sought in trying to erect a strict divide between private interests and the nation’s business.

President Donald Trump touches lighted globe with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and Saudi King Salman at the opening of Saudi Arabia’s Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology on May 21, 2017. (Photo from Saudi TV)

When a foreign government is involved, in violation of the Emoluments Clause in Article I, the fundamental problem is that U.S. foreign policy may be influenced by the President’s private financial interests and thus may be shaped in ways different from what is in the national interest. The shaping need not entail a specific quid pro quo with a foreign state; general affinities or preferences, or a natural inclination to favor those who have bestowed favors — or profitable business — in the other direction may be sufficient to shape policy in ways detrimental to U.S. interests.

Moreover, the ability of foreign states to influence U.S. policies in this way is not an equal opportunity matter. Governments that are better able to do things such as holding expensive receptions at high-priced Pennsylvania Avenue hotels have more of an opportunity to play this game than do governments that are less well-heeled. Favoring the former over the latter is not necessarily in U.S. interests.

There can be a further detriment to U.S. interests that involves how other foreign governments perceive the drivers of U.S. policy, and their willingness to conform to or cooperate with that policy. If foreign leaders are left to wonder whether a U.S. president’s policies reflect the president’s private pocketbook rather that U.S. national interests, let alone interests that the two countries share, U.S. credibility suffers.

Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose to be one of the agency’s top analysts. He is author most recently of Why America Misunderstands the World. (This article first appeared as a blog post at The National Interest’s Web site. Reprinted with author’s permission.)

Featured image: credits to the owner

Surveys of hundreds of private health clinics and patients reveal that extra user-fees amounting to hundreds or even thousands of dollars are threatening access to healthcare and hurting patients, and Canada’s governments are doing too little to stop it. A new cross-Canada study “Private Clinics and the Threat to Public Medicare in Canada,” includes the results of surveys of 136 private hospital, diagnostic and ‘boutique’ physician clinics across Canada and with almost 400 individual patients. Both clinics and patients were asked about extra user-charges for needed healthcare services. Under the Canada Health Act such user fees are forbidden. But the Health Coalition found evidence that at least 88 clinics in six provinces are charging extra user-fees. Two-hundred and fifty patients detailed instances in which they have been charged for care.

Health Coalitions and public-interest advocates across Canada are warning that challenges to public healthcare posed by private clinics have come to a head, and unless governments act to protect patients, public healthcare is at risk. Two major legal actions have been launched from opposite sides of the country: in British Columbia, private clinics have brought a charter challenge to dismantle legal prohibitions on extra billing, user fees and private insurance. In Quebec almost half-a-million seniors petitioned the federal court to force the Federal Health Minister to stop burgeoning user fees. At the same time, Saskatchewan’s government passed legislation to bring in two-tier healthcare in flagrant opposition to the Canada Health Act.

“As private clinics have moved in and taken over services provided by our public hospitals, they have bolstered their owners’ incomes and profits by charging extra user fees to patients amounting to hundreds or even thousands of dollars,” explained Natalie Mehra, executive director of the Ontario Health Coalition and the report’s author. “We found that the majority of private clinics are charging extra user fees to patients, with many also billing the public health system. We found that costs for patients in the private clinics are exorbitant – up to five times or more than those in the public system.”

“As a result of extra charges for healthcare, patients described running short on rent, using a significant amount of their pension, forgoing groceries, and finding themselves unable to buy things for their families,” she reported. “The stories are shocking. It is unacceptable that patients are manipulated into paying outrageous prices for healthcare when they have already paid in their taxes. Healthcare should be based on need, not wealth. This is the cornerstone principle of public healthcare and it has come under threat.”

“Under Canada’s Public Medicare system, provinces are required to protect patients against unlawful user charges and extra-billing,” said Adrienne Silnicki, national coordinator of the Canadian Health Coalition. “The federal government is obligated to uphold the law and has the power to penalize provinces that fail to comply. Both levels of government also have an obligation to provide needed hospital and physician care to meet our communities’ needs. But they are failing to do so.”

The coalitions are calling for:

1. Federal and provincial governments to recommit themselves to the Canada Health Act and the values of equity and compassion upon which it is based. The federal government must uphold the Canada Health Act, stop illegal user-fees for patients, and impose penalties on provinces that fail to protect their residents.
2. The privatization of public and non-profit hospital services to be stopped. Capacity must be built in our public hospitals and services that have been cut and shed from public hospitals must be restored.
3. Governments at both levels to engage in sound planning to build public hospital capacity to reduce wait lists and to act to improve equity and access.
4. The Federal government to reverse funding cuts imposed in the recent bilateral funding deals with provinces and territories, and to provide a Canada Health Transfer of at least 5.2 per cent as recommended by the Parliamentary Budget Office, the Conference Board of Canada, the Ontario Accountability Office and Health Coalitions across Canada.
5. Governments at all levels to protect public healthcare from international trade agreements through a general carve out for all healthcare services.

Featured image: Canadian Dimension

What is inescapable in the Australian landscape is its cosmic character, one that mixes suggestively astral dust with the brilliance of the blinding sun. Desolate, parched earth becomes poetic affirmation, though it is the poetry of death and distraction, its stanzas luring the life from you. 

Ted Kotcheff’s Wake in Fright (1971), based on the Kenneth Cook novel of the same name, still retains that grim sense of the life that is drawn out in such spaces, and left to expire, slowly. Its importance has been given another airing this year with the efforts of Australian film critic David Stratton in Stories of Australian Cinema. 

The characters, liberated from ties of urbanised civility, go about living as the days were their last. The tussle between Eros and Thanatos is ever present, and the god of death certainly gets a good run for his money.

Themes of servitude abound, perhaps unsurprising given that Australia was itself a conception of prison, its colonisation inflicting the cruelty of civilisation upon prior inhabitants, not to mention its own prison population. Settler societies never expel the echo of cruelty that governs character and existence.

John Grant, the school teacher played by a trim, sharply dressed Gary Bond, speaks of his bondage to the Education Department, his condemnation to work more or less as an indentured teacher in a two-building town called Tiboonda. There are the students; there is the cranky bar man. And there is the vast expanse. 

The teaching period ends. Grant dreams of a holiday filled with beach sand and purifying sea. Sydney and a girlfriend beckon. But before that, he needs to get to Bundanyabba (“The Yabba”), a mining town that echoes Broken Hill. From there, the metropolis beckons. 

Grant meets a superbly sinister policeman played by Chips Rafferty and is assured that the town is a delight, with few suicides. But things go terribly wrong, and he finds himself broke after losing in a game of two-up. 

There is a simplistic, instinct driven barbarism in Kotcheff’s realised Outback: the game of two-up, played by the roughly attired, those sodden in sweat, beer and smoke pouring through mouths like chimney stacks, draws Grant in. A game that involves a toss, a heads or tails outcome, is hardly going to tax the cerebral. But here, away from the calming hand of reflection, fortunes can be made in the red blood moment. They can also be lost.

Trapped, the Yabba encloses him. He meets Tim Hynes and his daughter Janette. He sponges. He is fed and watered (more the point “beered”). In what is an endlessly alcoholic sequence, miners Dick and Joe, turn up to Hynes’ abode. As does the alcoholic doctor and resident sage, Doc Tydon, played with pungent menace by Donald Pleasence. Then comes the kangaroo hunting.

There is ceremonial worship for fallen comrades in times of war, as if reminding Australians that their distance was no excuse not to give blood to foreign causes. Gamble, play the poker machines, and drink, but do not forget to stand on ceremony when it counts.

Even the local hospitality, as the film notes, is aggressive, direct to the point of being tyrannical. To demand your own views – to refuse a beer that is dashed down with flash flood speed – is to commit something tantamount to treason.  Never is the hand allowed to be free of a beer can, a glass, or bottle.  The only true hero in this script is, perhaps, the amber fluid. 

Such hospitality ultimately turns Grant’s character. Propriety is suspended by a concept of mateship that seeks expression in unshackled violence. He is with gun-toting mates. Spine tingling scenes of the kangaroo hunt brings the Australian cosmic scape into view, which is one of unholy massacre.

There is nothing noble in this confrontation. This is not a mystical confrontation between the hunter and the hunted, with the latter being given at least a sporting chance. This is a spectacle of carnage, and a beastly one at that. Wounded animals are butchered; half carcasses are left in the manner of a Goya sketch on war.

Strikingly, we are left with no moment of empathy, no sense of catharsis. Grant’s crumpled character is far from edifying. He is civilisation’s fragile prop lost in the enormity of the Never Never, and it is unpleasant. He is a participant incapable of maintaining himself, holding the fort as the Yabba locals clamour to break through his defences. Drawn into the nativist trap like Joseph Conrad’s Kurtz, his life darkens. The exits close, and the town keeps drawing him back, draining his mortal reserves.

It was for good reason film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times, Roger Ebert, deemed this effort “powerful, genuinely shocking and rather amazing”. It also left Martin Scorsese “speechless”, though at Cannes, where the film was nominated for the Palme D’Or, he proved effusively enthusiastic. But most amusingly for novelist Peter Temple, in a testament to how celluloid can move, it may well have set back tourism in Australia back twenty years.[1]

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

Note

[1] http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/wake-in-fright-prepare-to-be-disturbed-mate

Featured image: Film International

British Prime Minister Theresa May traveled to Paris Tuesday to meet with newly-elected French President Emmanuel Macron, in the run-up to the opening next week of formal talks between the European Union (EU) and Britain on the terms of Britain’s exit from the EU. It was the occasion for top German and French officials to signal that they would allow London to reverse the Brexit vote and resume a close alliance with the remaining EU powers.

The first such comment came from German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble.

“The British government has said we will stay with the Brexit,” Schäuble told Bloomberg News as Macron prepared to meet May. “We take the decision as a matter of respect. But if they wanted to change the decision, of course, they would find open doors.”

At the joint press conference with May, the French president also said that

“the decision was taken by the British people to leave the European Union, and I respect that decision.” He said however that “the door is also open as long as the Brexit negotiations aren’t over … once the talks have started, we have to be collectively conscious that it’s much more difficult to go back.”

May, badly weakened by the loss of her Conservative Party’s absolute majority in Parliament after last week’s snap election, said she had confirmed to Macron that

“the timetable for Brexit negotiations remains on course, and will begin next week.”

She did not take a position however on calls from within the British ruling elite, including from inside the Conservative Party, to adopt a “soft Brexit” strategy to maintain closer relations to the EU.

May and Macron also discussed plans for stepped-up censorship of social media, threatening to fine social media corporations who do not take down posts deemed radical or terrorist.

These proposals reflect the increasingly desperate maneuvers of the rival European states as they seek to contain growing popular discontent, while a bitter struggle between the EU and Washington unfolds after Trump’s first tour of Europe—including over Britain’s foreign policy orientation.

Berlin and Paris understand the setback dealt to May in the recent snap election as a sign of growing popular rejection of austerity and nationalism in Britain. They are hoping through a combination of threats and inducements to convince London to abandon its fading hopes of an alliance with Trump, and to side with Europe instead, through some type of soft Brexit or conceivably an abandonment of Brexit altogether. At the same time, they hope to limit growing popular opposition to their own reactionary plans for militarism and austerity across Europe.

Schäuble said he had discussed the British election with his British counterpart, Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond. He said,

“we agreed from the first day that Brexit is a decision we have to accept by the British voters. But we will minimize the potential damage and maximize the mutual benefit.”

After speaking to Hammond, Schäuble said, he concluded “they are thinking” in the UK about the fact that young voters supported Jeremy Corbyn of the Labour Party based on “more distance to Brexit.”

Bloomberg added that Schäuble saw certain “parallels” with the situation in France. There, the population elected Macron despite broad opposition to his policies of deep austerity, a militarized alliance with Berlin, and a permanent state of emergency. The vote was primarily due to opposition to neo-fascist candidate Marine Le Pen and the plans of Le Pen’s National Front for a French exit from the euro. It is widely expected, including inside the ruling elite, that these policies will provoke bitter and explosive social opposition in the working class in France.

Schäuble’s remarks came after several leading British conservatives, including former prime ministers David Cameron and John Major, pushed for a “soft Brexit” strategy. Major called plans for a hard Brexit “increasingly unsustainable,” while Cameron called on May to consult “more widely with other parties” on her Brexit strategy.

While Schäuble and Macron held out limited prospects for an accommodation with London, other EU figures, including the EU’s Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, continued to threaten London with harsh economic consequences for the Brexit vote.

In an interview on his Brexit strategy with a consortium of European newspapers, including Le Monde, Barnier said:

“We will implement it without aggressiveness, without desire for revenge or punishment, but without naiveté. What will our future relations with London be? We are preparing for every option, including the ‘no deal’ option that British political leaders regularly mention.”

Barnier added that the “no deal” option would be particularly harmful to British trade with Europe.

The role of Schäuble and Macron in floating soft Brexit proposals underscores the essentially reactionary character of all the bourgeois factions in the Brexit debate. While the hard Brexit factions were the most overtly nationalistic and determined to slash regulations and attack the workers, those advocating a soft Brexit or remaining inside the EU are also backing an aggressive policy of austerity and militarism, advanced by the EU.

The critical question, as the Socialist Equality Party (Britain) stressed by calling for an active boycott of the Brexit referendum last year, is the rejection of all the bourgeois camps and the formulation of an independent, revolutionary and socialist perspective for the working class. As the coordination of policy between reactionary bourgeois politicians on both sides of the Channel increasingly makes clear, this can only take place through a fight to unify British workers with workers inside the EU in struggle for the United Socialist States of Europe.

What is emerging in the capitalist classes of Europe, on the other hand, is a ruthless geopolitical struggle and drive to increase military spending that presages new wars in Europe. The situation is all the more explosive due to the open calls from top German officials, including Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, for an independent European foreign and military policy formulated in opposition to that of the Trump administration.

Since Macron’s election in France, Berlin has an ally in Paris that is siding closely with its drive to establish a German-dominated EU as the world’s hegemonic power, replacing the United States.

Some of the calculations underlying Macron’s foreign policy were laid out in a recent interview in Le Point by Dominique Moisi, the special geopolitical advisor to the Institut Montaigne think tank. He called on Macron to work rapidly and closely with Berlin, as “Trump is his greatest stroke of luck.” Moisi laid out a program for a far-reaching EU bid for global hegemony, predicting that if “the United States disengage and the US decline accelerates, everything will change very fast.”

Moisi hailed Macron’s handling of the summit meeting last month with Russian President Vladimir Putin as “the first time anyone told Vladimir Putin, ‘Enough silliness! Now get to work.’ We were waiting for that.” He added that Macron’s nomination of former Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian as foreign minister would reassure “authoritarian governments and certain important partners like General al-Sisi in Egypt and the Saudis.”

He also pointed to rapid improvements in Chinese-EU ties at US expense:

“Due to Trump, we are seeing counterbalancing alliances whose implications are not yet fully understood. This is not just on climate, where the Chinese are totally aligned on the Europeans. As the United States today is unpredictable, China has no choice but to turn to Europe. China wants stability above all. It will doubtless need to take on its responsibilities and become the policeman of Asia sooner that it had expected.”

Featured image: Rex Features via The Sun

The week saw one of the worst urban disasters in recent history, as runaway fires consumed a low-income high-rise council estate in the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea. So far, police have confirmed 17 dead and have indicated that they expect to find many more fatalities.

As the old adage goes, there are no natural disasters, only human ones.

But this horrific scene in west London symbolises much more than simple negligence. The image of a Wicker Man comes to mind.

Were low-income residents sacrificed at the altar of austerity, greed and corporate privatisation?

As North Kensington’s towering inferno continues to smoulder into the early morning, circumstantial evidence is beginning to emerge showing how Conservative MPs  sidelined legislation that would have required higher safety standards. According to reports, a group of Tory MPs have consistently voted against tenants’ rights including voting down Labour’s amendment to the recent Housing and Planning Bill which would have required landlords to make their homes “fit for habitation.” Perhaps not surprisingly, the 72 Tory MPs who killed the legislation also just happened to be commercial landlords themselves.

To add insult to injury, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson (left) during his tenure as Mayor of London instituted cuts that have stripped London of 7,000 of its firefighters in the last five years, with numerous Fire Station closures and other cuts to frontline emergency services.

So how did Grenfell Tower turn into a death trap for so many? The organisation responsible for maintenance and safety at the social housing block is the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO). But the organisation’s name is deceptive – far from being a tenant-run company, the ‘TMO’ is actually a private company – an aloof ivory tower that sits far above the actual residents, and who ‘manage’ 10,000 properties… with handsome salaries and fees for selected executives and contractors. Although Grenfell Tower is owned by the Borough Council of Kensington and Chelsea, the management of the tower block is subcontracted out to the TMO.

Critics of the public-private partnership, or PPP, management hand-off claim that the quasi-privatised TMO arrangement is rife with corruption, including sweetheart deals to contractors. It also enables connected board members to fleece poor residents while taking home enormous sums of money for doing little if anything for it. Last year, the KCTMO was paid £11million ($14 million) in taxpayer money to manage Grenfell Tower. According to the Mail Online, four senior members of TMO took £650,000 between them last year. And that’s not all:

“There are also claims that there was no central sprinkler system – or it was also not working properly during the fire. Others have claimed that the new cladding encasing the block added during last year’s £10million refurbishment by Rydon Construction caught alight ‘like a matchstick’.” This [petroleum-based, flammable plastic] exterior cladding was apparently added to the building to improve the view and cosmetic appearance of the tower when seen from a new development or private luxury flats in the locality.

Apparently, this was all part of a “regeneration project” which was said to be completed last year on only one building: Grenfell Tower.

Watch the full-length live feed of the fire here:

It gets worse. According resident advocacy blog Bella Caledonia:

“It’s emerged that the local Council – the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea – actually threatened a local blogger and action group with legal action for calling to attention the state of the building. We’re told also that “Theresa May’s chief of staff ‘sat on’ report warning high-rise blocks like Grenfell Tower were vulnerable to fire.”

Resident Darren Cullen said on Twitter:

“Any attempt to depoliticise an event like this is a political act in itself.”

Despite numerous warnings by the residents of Grenfell Tower, local action groups believe that the TMO did not take any significant action to rectify fundamental health and safety flaws.

Those saying that the #GrenfellTower fire had nothing to do with politics need to see this clip pic.twitter.com/NKWTTlhCu8

— The Pileus (@thepileus) June 14, 2017

Reporter Holly Baxter of the London Independent detailed how a series of prophetic warnings posted by the residents’ advocacy group were routinely ignored:

“The Grenfell Action Group residents’ association had consistently warned about the possibility of such a tragedy; this morning, they updated their website with a post which reads: “Regular readers of this blog will know that we have posted numerous warnings in recent years about the very poor fire safety standards at Grenfell Tower and elsewhere in RBKC [the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea]. ALL OUR WARNINGS FELL ON DEAF EARS and we predicted that a catastrophe like this was inevitable and just a matter of time.”

“Links to their earlier posts prove it: in 2013 they warned that shutting down the block’s car park would mean just one narrow, restricted road for emergency vehicle access, something which eyewitnesses reported slowed down the fire engine response this morning; the same year, they wrote a long post about continuous electrical surges which had been causing fire hazards in the building (“decisive action was only taken yesterday after highly distressed residents descended en masse on the estate office to demand help and assistance. They had woken to find smoke issuing from various electrical appliances in their homes, including the light fixtures, and descended in panic to the estate office to demand help”) ; and in November 2016, their frustration about what they called inadequate fire escapes culminated in a frighteningly prescient post titled Playing With Fire: “The Grenfell Action Group firmly believe that only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of our landlord, the KCTMO, and bring to an end the dangerous living conditions and neglect of health and safety legislation that they inflict upon their tenants and leaseholders… It is our conviction that a serious fire in a tower block… is the most likely reason those who wield power at the KCTMO will be found out and brought to justice”.

But the Tories can’t take all the credit. It’s been said by some party grandees (not to mention Margret Thatcher herself) that the Thatcher Era’s greatest achievement was New Labour and Tony Blair – both of whom helped to push Thatcher’s mass-privatisation agenda over the goal line. Blair’s corporatist trojan horse was camouflaged under the heading of a ‘New Deal for Communities,’ along with the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit nested within the Department for Communities and Local Government and fueled by millions of pounds in “regeneration grants” from the EU – supposedly designed to lift-up some of the England’s most deprived neighbourhoods, which instead paved the way for a bold social engineering project which led to the mass-gentrification of low income areas across the UK, where massive profits were booked on the back of privatising council properties, taking advantage of an over-inflated housing market. It was during this period that PPP takeovers like the TMO took hold of large sectors of Britain’s social housing.

See more TMO scandals at Not TMO, and this open letter to the Hackney TMO here.

All images in this article are from the author.

Date: Saturday, June 17, 2017

Time: Noon

Place: West side of the Manitoba Legislative Building, in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

The theme of this year’s Winnipeg Walk for Peace is Solidarity of People Against War. We will meet on the west side of the Manitoba Legislative Building beginning at noon. The march will commence at 12:30.

SPONSORS
Peace Alliance Winnipeg
Council of Canadians (Winnipeg)

BACKGROUND
The world faces a refugee crisis. The scale is unprecedented. Currently, more than 65.3 million people have been forced from their homes by war and persecution. More than half come from three countries: Somalia, Afghanistan and Syria.

While much of the focus has been on the impact asylum seekers are having on Europe, Europe hosts only 6 percent of the world’s refugees. Most find refuge in the Middle Eastern and African countries that, for the most part, lack the resources to shelter them.

While Canada can and should do more to provide direct aid to refugees, we need to focus on root causes. Refugees would not exist without war.

Through its booming arms trade and support for wars in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, Canada has helped create many more refugees than it has assisted. We need to withdraw our support for these conflicts and shut down our weapons industries. Moreover, we need to insist that our allies cease their interference in the affairs of other countries and work within the United Nations to end these conflicts.

The key to overcoming the refugee crisis is to end war. Nothing else will do.

We face many obstacles. A vast international military industrial complex depends on ceaseless war to guarantee its profitability. Politicians play upon the fears and suspicions of their constituents to foment support of militarism and hatred of refugees. This fear and hatred is amplified by mainstream and social media and fanned by religious extremists. To make matters worse, the United States and its allies have become increasingly provocative in their confrontations of Russia, China and North Korea.

More than ever, we need to speak out for peace and disarmament. We need to show compassion for the victims of war and we need to end war. This is why the theme of this year’s Winnipeg Walk for Peace is Solidarity of People Against War. We hope you join us on June 17, 2017.

Global Research strives for peace, and we have but one mandate: to share timely, independent and vital information to readers across the globe. We act as a global platform to let the voices of dissent, protest, and expert witnesses and academics be heard and disseminated internationally.

We need to stand together to continuously question politics, false statements, and the suppression of independent thought.

Stronger together: your donations are crucial to independent, comprehensive news reporting in the ongoing battle against media disinformation. (click image above to donate)

*     *     *

UN Last Hurdle Before Israel Can Rid Itself of the Palestinians

By Jonathan Cook, June 15, 2017

Israeli and US officials are in the process of jointly pre-empting Donald Trump’s supposed “ultimate deal” to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They hope to demote the Palestinian issue to a footnote in international diplomacy.

America’s Forever War Strategy

By Stephen Lendman, June 15, 2017

America is unique among history’s warrior states – prioritizing endless wars, not ending them to achieve a new era of peace and stability.

The notion is anathema to the nation’s military, industrial, and media establishment. Wars are waged for power and profits, no other reasons.

Why Are Humans Enemies?

By Van Robison, June 15, 2017

If you are a paid assassin, why are you? Are you so brainwashed that you don’t have a mind, heart or conscience of your own, but you are controlled like a zombie or robot? If you murder other human beings in war, why do you do so, because you have been brainwashed that other humans are the “enemy”, or that you are “fighting for freedom?” Most likely the other side thinks the same way you do.

‘Without Putin, Syria Would Have Ceased to Exist’: Interview with Flemish Priest Living in Syria

By Fr Daniel Maes and Eric van de Beek, June 15, 2017

‘It is partly thanks to Hezbollah that so many Christians and other Syrians are still alive. They came to our rescue in our darkest hours. And the same goes for the Syrian army and the Russians. If Putin hadn’t come in 2015, Syria certainly would have ceased to exist’

The Russian US Election Hacking Big Lie Got Bigger

By Stephen Lendman, June 15, 2017

Despite months of allegations, insinuations and accusations, not a shred of evidence suggests any Russian hacking of America’s November 2016 election or any other US target.

Claims otherwise are Big Lies. Repeated enough gets most people to believe them.

Featured image: Russia Insider

On Wednesday, Jaysh Maghawir al-Thawra and other groups of the US-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) launched another attack against the Syrian army and its allies in southeastern Syria. According to the FSA, its members attacked government forces at the Zuluf reserve area after killing a number of Syrian troops and destroying some vehicles, including battle tanks. However, the FSA has failed to provide photo or video confirmation of the gains. Pro-government sources denied the claims.

Earlier this week, reports appeared that the US military deployed a High Mobility Artillery Rocket System at its military base in At Tanf and started expanding a military facility at al Zquf.

According to experts, FSA attacks on government forces in southeastern Syria is a common part of the wider US-backed effort aimed to drive the Syrian army and its allies out from the border area with Iraq. The fact that government troops had reached the border with Iraq and linked up with the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units, was a large strategic loss for the US-led coalition. Now, Washington is using its proxies in order to test government defense lines in the area and in the best case to restart attempts to build a militant-held buffer zone between Iraq and Syria.

The Syrian and Iraqi militaries responded to this effort boosting a cooperation in the border area. On June 13, the Chief of Staff of the Iraqi Army General, Osman Al-Ghanmi, met with a high-level delegation from the Syrian Ministry of Defense, headed by the Commander of the Syrian Army Operations Staff. The fight against ISIS, security issues and military coordination were the core of the meeting’s agenda.

In the province of Raqqah, the Syrian Army Tiger Forces liberated the Tawhrah oil fields and the nearby points, pushing towards the village of Resafa. Clashes between government troops and ISIS members were also reported near the Habbari field.

Clashes between Kurdish YPG units and so-called opposition forces continued in northwestern Aleppo. Heavy artillery and mortar shelling were reported in Basoufan and Bashmara near Afrin and an intense fighting near the village of Dara Azza. According to opposition sources, 35 YPG members were killed during the recent escalation. Pro-Kurdish sources claimed that 28 militants of various groups were killed.

Some sources suggest that Ankara may be behind the recent actions of militant groups operating in the area against YPG forces. The goal is to weaken the YPG influence in the area.

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: Medium

Sacked former FBI director Comey said he (unethically and maybe illegally) leaked information about his private conversations with Trump so a special prosecutor would be appointed to investigate possible ties between his team and Russia – besides what Congress does separately.

Special counsel (former FBI director) Robert Mueller expanded the investigation, looking into whether Trump attempted to obstruct justice.

After months of FBI investigations, Comey, in congressional testimony, said no evidence suggests it – telling Trump privately he wasn’t under investigation.

Now he is, Mueller apparently part of the witch-hunt coup d’etat plot to remove him from office.

Law Professor Jonathan Turley explained what’s “most notable” about what’s going on isn’t investigating possible obstruction of justice.

It’s leaks from Comey and “high-ranking members of Trump’s administration.”

DNI Dan Coats, NSA head Mike Rogers, and his former deputy Richard Ledgett agreed to be interviewed by Mueller’s team as part of his investigation.

Leaks are facilitating the anti-Trump witch-hunt. Turley said it’s

“alarming if the special counsel or his staff are engaging in their own self-service leaks.”

Spokesman for Trump’s lawyer Marc Kasowitz said

“(t)he FBI leak of information regarding the president is outrageous, inexcusable and illegal” – indisputably true on the first two points, judicial proceedings to rule on the latter if things go this far.

Professor Turley (image left) advises White House “strategic thinking rather than simple tactical moves.” Mueller is likely to get answers he seeks from administration officials.

If Trump has nothing to hide, likely based on nothing so far suggesting otherwise, administration strategy should feature full cooperation and forthrightness with Mueller.

Whatever comes out in his investigation, “the White House should be the vehicle for the disclosure,” Turley stressed.

While some information revealed might be negative, “the waving of privilege vis-a-vis Congress would undermine claims of obstruction” – Trump’s top priority to combat efforts to remove him from office.

Mueller will likely get whatever information he seeks. It’s in Trump’s interest to disclose it voluntarily. Otherwise it appears he has something to hide, pressuring him more than already.

A Final Comment

On June 13, CNN reported three members of Mueller’s legal team donated to Democrats, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, saying:

“More than half of the more than $56,000 came from just one lawyer, and more than half of it was donated before the 2016 election, but two of the lawyers gave the maximum $2,700 donation to Hillary Clinton last year.”

Because of these donations, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich tweeted

“Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair.”

“Look who (Mueller) is hiring. Check FEC reports. Time to rethink.”

A Mueller spokesman declined to comment on the disclosure, a legitimate cause for concern by Trump and his legal team.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new 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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image: russia.trendolizer.com

An important debate has opened up among the left, both within Venezuela and internationally, as a result of the recent turmoil in the country.

In an attempt to bring the views of grassroots Venezuelan militants to an English-speaking audience, Green Left Weekly’s Federico Fuentes interviewed Stalin Perez Borges.

A life-long union and socialist activist, Perez Borges is today a member of the United League of Chavista Socialists (LUCHAS), a radical current within the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).

LUCHAS was formed by a group of former leaders and activists of Marea Socialista (Socialist Tide), including many of its trade union militants. The decision to form LUCHAS came after Marea Socialista resolved to leave the PSUV and began taking an increasingly hostile approach to the Bolivarian process.

Perez Borges is also on the consultative council of the Bolivarian Socialist Central of Workers (CSBT), Venezuela’s largest trade union confederation.

***

What are the fundamental explanations for the current situation in Venezuela today? Is this the end of the Bolivarian process?

No, I don’t believe that this is the end of the Bolivarian process. We are, however, passing through one of its most difficult moments, as today it seems very likely that the right could return to power.

The popular sectors, as the social subject of the process, have in its immense majority remained faithful and true to the political project that [former president Hugo] Chavez began to build following his eruption onto the Venezuelan political scene. And even in the midst of this crisis, Bolivarian Chavismo continues to have a strong social base.

Much more difficult than the situation we face today were the 48 hours the right was in power, when they carried out a coup in April 2002. That moment had its April 13: the day in which the people came out onto the streets and together with the core of the armed forces toppled the dictatorship and rescued Chavez.

We are faced with the need to find or quickly give birth to another event like April 13, 2002.

On April 11, 2002 the Venezuelan right, with the help of media power, created a tense situation to pit Venezuelans against each other, leading to a coup for 48 hours against President Hugo Chavez. (Source: teleSUR)

We are in a situation of uncertainty, given the multiple problems we face. The impacts of bureaucracy, corruption and improvisation are big. We are feeling the effects of these evils and the fact that after more than 10 years since Chavez declared the government and Bolivarian process to be anti-imperialist and socialist, we have not been able to transcend capitalism.

We are suffering the perverse effects of bureaucracy, corruption, improvisation, all within a framework of capitalism.

And from the actions of those capitalists who never agreed with the Chavista project and that today, like never before, are conspiring to bring down the government of Nicolas Maduro.

The old capitalists are desperate to recuperate control over the state to have control over the distribution of the oil rent; control that they lost with Chavez’s victory in 1998.

The old capitalists have been driven crazy and in these last three years more so, because this rent has been reduced due to the fall in oil prices.

In distributing this rent, the government continues to privilege spending in social programs that were developed when oil prices were much higher. Meanwhile, another slice is lost in corruption and another part goes to the so-called “Bolibourgeoisie” [new capitalists who claim to support the process].

The local capitalists have the support of the rest of the capitalists in the continent, and especially that of US imperialism. The US government, together with other countries that have a special interest in Venezuela, are financing the campaign to bring down the Maduro government.

The US government is obsessed with getting rid of the Maduro government, no matter what it takes.

If they are successful, they will deal a final blow to the process of change that began more than a decade ago in South America and that began to be reversed with the coups in Honduras and Paraguay, the electoral defeat of Cristina Kirchner in Argentina and the parliamentary coup by Michel Temer in Brazil.

Just like its lackey capitalists in Venezuela who want to recover control over the oil rent, the US wants to recover control over its backyard. They are twins when it comes to their shared interest in getting rid of Maduro and will be like Siamese twins in terms of their interests when forming a new government if they hypothetically defeat the Maduro government and Chavista project.

So this explosive cocktail of, on the one hand bureaucracy, corruption, improvisation, capitalism, and on the other, the war being waged by the capitalists who continue to sabotage the economy, explains the discontent that exists within a large section of the population and which the government is paying for, as it is viewed as the sole culprit for the situation.

Right-wing parties are making use of this, together with the discontent created by the violent actions of the fascist gangs they have trained up, and the criminal neighbourhood gangs that they pay to create situations of violence and deaths in certain cities and regions in the country, principally in municipalities where opposition mayors govern.

All this is then greatly magnified through social networks, the endless media outlets (newspapers, TV channels, radio stations) they continue to own and international news agencies.

What position have the trade unions and social organisations that support the Bolivarian process taken in the current situation?

The majority of trade unions and social organisations are in the hands of sympathisers and militants of the left and Chavismo. The workers and popular sectors support these leaderships because in their majority they have been consistent fighters within their specific sector.

But it is a fact that the grassroots have been hit hard by the situation that I have referred to. That is, they are victims of the political, economic and social crisis, a big crisis, that has penetrated into peoples’ morale and that — what for me is the saddest and most dangerous aspect — has become a crisis of perspective.

One senses that among a big portion of worker comrades there is scepticism towards continuing to believe what the government says, and the youth see no immediate future for themselves, which is why a large number of them have emigrated to other countries, to the point where even in Australia there is now a significant number of Venezuelans.

Nevertheless, Chavismo continues to maintain a respectable level of support among workers and popular sectors, which can be seen in the mobilisations it has carried out.

It also counts upon a militia, made up of a very large group of volunteer reservists who maintain their morale.

What is your view on the proposed Constituent Assembly?

I will confess that, prior to May 1, when the president spoke of it as a possible way forward, it did not strike me as a coherent and appropriate proposal for the moment, when the correlation of forces is not so favourable for Chavismo.

However, since May 1, reflecting on the dimension that the crisis has taken, and above all, the escalating spiral of violence, I now see this proposal as something more like a challenge that could help halt the violence that seems to be imposing itself, and open a path to improving the current economic situation.

The reality, which is there for everyone to see, is that the right is not seeking to frighten or pressure the government into negotiations, rather it is fighting on the military terrain, with weapons, snipers and armed gangs, to militarily defeat the government.

That is why we think it is naive that people could be alarmed by the fact that security forces have tried to put an end to the violence generated by these groups.

It is in this context that the proposal for a Constituent Assembly takes shape and could provide a way out of the economic situation the country finds itself in.

Thousands were expected to join the government’s call for march in support of peace and the Constituent Assembly process in Venezuela. (Photo: AVN via teleSUR)

And this is the sentiment I have noticed in many workers’ assemblies, and one that many comrades from various workplaces have relayed to me.

Together with other comrades from LUCHAS, we have put ourselves forward as candidates for the Constituent Assembly. We don’t know if we will be elected.

Once we are confirmed as candidates, we will campaign hard with our proposals for what the Constituent Assembly should do. We will campaign to be elected as new faces, people capable of proposing the changes that the country needs, which we believe need to be democratic, revolutionary and socialist measures.

These are the only measures that can get us out of the crisis.

We hope that it is not the same old faces, those already in positions of power, who end up being elected; otherwise we will just have more of the same.

What position do you think socialist and internationalist organisations should take towards the situation in Venezuela?

Revolutionaries in Venezuela and in all parts of the world have to look at reality and tell the truth to the working people of Venezuela.

And we all have to learn from this process, no matter what happens next. It is a unique process. Books are of little use, it is something that has been built and written in class struggle, in which we always have to be clear on who are our irreconcilable enemies and who we should never fight side by side with.

We also have to know that bureaucracies, sooner or later, are fatal to revolutionary processes. That is why, since the start, we have raised the slogan: Neither capital nor bureaucracy.

We are celebrating the fact that we have been able to draft up a statement together with other organisations across the world, among those, the Socialist Alliance in Australia, which makes it clear that the way out of the crisis that the Venezuelan process finds itself in has to be democratic, revolutionary and socialist.

Featured image: Green Left Weekly

In a context of almost total indifference, marked by outright hostility, representatives of over a hundred of the world’s least powerful countries are currently opening another three-week session of United Nations talks aimed at achieving a legally binding ban on nuclear weapons. Very few people even know this is happening. 

Ban nuclear weapons? Ho hum… Let’s change the subject.

Let’s talk about Russian hacking instead, or the rights of trans-sexuals to use the toilet of their choice, or even about something really important: climate change.

But wait a minute. The damage to human society, and to “the planet”, from the projected rise of a few degrees of global temperature, while commonly described as apocalyptic, would be minor compared to the results of all-out nuclear war. More to the point, the degree of human responsibility in climate change is more disputed among serious scientists than the public is aware, due to the role of such contributing factors as solar variations. But the degree of human responsibility for nuclear weapons is unquestionably total. The nuclear war peril is man-made, and some of the men who made it can even be named, such as James Byrnes, Harry Truman and General Lester Groves.  The United States government consciously and deliberately created this danger to human life on earth. Faced with the United States’ demonstrated capacity and moral readiness to wipe out whole cities with their devices, other countries built their own deadly devices as deterrents. Those deterrents have never been used, which lulls the public into believing the danger is past.

Photograph of President Truman shaking hands with Secretary of State James F. Byrnes after awarding him the Distinguished Service Medal, as General George C. Marshall and General Henry “Hap” Arnold look on. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

But the United States, the only power already guilty of nuclear manslaughter, continues to perfect its nuclear arsenal and to proclaim its “right” to launch a “first strike” whenever it chooses.

The United States naturally calls for boycotting the nuclear arms ban conference.

On the occasion of an earlier such conference last March, President Trump’s gormless U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, wrapped her lame excuse in womanliness:

“As a mom and a daughter there is nothing I want more for my family than a world with no nuclear weapons,” she shamelessly uttered. “But we have to be realistic. Is there anyone that believes that North Korea would agree to a ban on nuclear weapons?”

Well, yes. There are many people who have obviously thought more about this than Nikki Haley and who are well aware that North Korea, surrounded by aggressive U.S. forces for seven decades, considers its little nuclear arsenal to be a deterrent, and would certainly give it up in exchange for a convincing end to the U.S. threat.

North Korea is a very odd country, an heir to the medieval “Hermit Kingdom” with an ideology forged in communist resistance to Japanese imperialism of the previous century. Its highly eccentric leadership is using advanced technology as an imitation Great Wall. An all-Korean peace settlement would solve the issue.

It is absurd to claim that the threat of nuclear war comes from Pyongyang rather than from the Pentagon. Hyping up Pyongyang’s “threat” is a way to pretend that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is “defensive”, when the reality is the other way around.

A legally binding ban on nuclear weapons is an excellent idea, approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations, and it would be fine for experts to work out all the technical and legal details, just in case –in case there is a huge change in the mental outlook that reigns in and around the District of Columbia.

NRA advocates like to defend their cause by proclaiming that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. It is more precise to say that people with guns kill people. Nuclear weapons don’t destroy the world. But people with nuclear weapons could destroy the world. What matters is what is in people’s heads.

During the height of the Cold War, my father, Dr. Paul H. Johnstone, worked for twenty years as senior analyst in the Pentagon’s Weapons Systems Evaluation Group (WSEG), where teams of experts tried to figure out what would happen in a nuclear war between the United States and Russia (the Soviet Union at that time, although they commonly referred to it as “Russia”). In his retirement he wrote a book recounting what he had learned from that experience, which has now been published by Clarity Press with the title From MAD to Madness. He found that apparently normal, even kind and considerate men were able to contemplate initiating general nuclear war and killing millions of fellow humans as a reasonable possibility. Even if some of those millions were fellow Americans.

The result of one high-level study went like this:

“the general consensus has been that while a nuclear exchange would leave the U.S. in a seriously damaged condition, with many millions of casualties and little immediate war supporting capability, the U.S. would continue to exist as an organized and viable nation, and ultimately would prevail, whereas the USSR would not.”

Twenty year later, my father commented:

“This basic situation has not changed. Nuclear weapons are still there and analysts are still analyzing how to use them.”

And still forty years after that, the basic situation has not changed, except possibly for the worse. What is worse is not only the arsenal, which now aims at achieving such accuracy and underground penetration that it could wipe out an adversary’s command structure before it realizes what has happened. What is really much worse is the mentality that goes with those pretensions, notably the rise of a power-hungry clique called the “neoconservatives” that has in the past thirty years won official Washington over to its ambitions of US global supremacy. There is no longer an ideological enemy. There is just somebody else there who feels equally at home on this planet.

The current anti-Russia hysteria is nothing but a symptom of that mentality, which finds any challenge to US world domination to be intolerable.

Plans are surely being made to remove such intolerable challenges. This is not done in open congressional hearings with cameras. It is done in the military planning division of the Pentagon, preparing for any possible contingency.  Plans are surely being made right now to wage nuclear war against Russia and China, not to mention Iran. The executive summary for busy political leaders is apt to conclude optimistically that despite problems, the United States “will prevail”.

The United States with its nuclear arsenal is like a demented maniac with delusions of grandeur. The delusions are institutional rather than individual. Psychologists may be brought to the scene to try to cajole an individual maniac who has taken a schoolroom of children as hostages, but there is no known psychological treatment for such a mass delusion. Ostensibly normal Americans truly believe that their nation is “exceptional”. Their military doctrine does not talk about “defeating” but “destroying”. You may “defeat” an enemy in a war over some issue, but for the Pentagon, the enemy must be destroyed. To eventually serve this death machine, young Americans are being trained by movies and video games to view enemies as extraterrestrials, intruders in our world who can be wiped out, not real humans the way Americans are.

The fundamental reason that United States leaders feel obliged to maintain nuclear supremacy is their belief that “exceptional” America has a right and duty to possess an absolute power of destruction. So long as that mentality rules in Washington, there is no possibility of nuclear disarmament, and every possibility of nuclear war sooner or later. Nuclear disarmament – a totally necessary safety precaution for humanity – will be possible only when leaders in Washington recognize that other peoples also have a right and a will to live.

The real question is how to achieve this psychological transformation.

Ever since August 1945, we have heard it said that “Hiroshima must be a moral awakening”, bringing people together in common concern for humanity. That has not happened. Indeed, today, the moral slumber is deeper than ever.

Diana Johnstone is author of the introduction to her father’s book, From MAD to Madness, by Paul H. Johnstone, Clarity Press, 2017. She can be reached at [email protected].

The U.S. continues to expand military presence in Syria. Nowadays, Washington is setting up a second base at Syria’s Al-Zakf to the northeast, Reuters reported.

Abu al-Atheer, military spokesman for the U.S.-backed Maghawir al-Thawra opposition group, told Reuters U.S. forces had spread from their initial location in Al-Tanf to set up a second base an Al-Zakf, around 60-70 km (40-50 miles) to the northeast. Besides, al-Atheer stressed that the opposition units had already got the U.S.-made weapons. In addition, he said that the U.S. Special Forces frequently patrolled distances of up to 100 km from Al-Tanf.

Muzahem Saloum, a militant official close to Maghawir al-Thawra, also confirmed this. According to him, the second base was expected to be a “first line of defense” against any attack by Iranian-backed Syrian pro-government militias.

Despite of militants’ statements, the Coalition Command is still denying the fact of setting up the new base in Syria. Colonel Ryan Dillon, spokesman for the U.S.-led Coalition in Iraq and Syria, reported that the U.S. conducted patrolling outside the Al-Tanf base to increase the level of protection against sudden attacks.

Against the background of this, recent reports of the U.S. deliveries of High Mobility Artillery Rocket System – HIMARS to the Al-Tanf base are easy to explain. According to a journalist of National Interest, Amitai Etzioni, the U.S. current administration intends to use armed opposition militants to prevent the Syrian Army’s confident advance to the south of the country. That is why the positions of the Syrian Army turned into the targets of militants and the U.S.-led Coalition Air Force.

Taking into account all of the above, it becomes clear that creating the new military base, Washington intends to escalate and influence the situation in Syria. In addition, it will allow the United States to prevent the unification of Syrian government forces with the Iraqi Hashd al-Shaabi.

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

Featured image: credits to the owner

L’Ucraina, di fatto già nella Nato, vuole ora entrarvi ufficialmente. Il parlamento di Kiev, l’8 giugno, ha votato a maggioranza (276 contro 25) un emendamento legislativo che rende prioritario tale obiettivo. La sua ammissione nella Nato non sarebbe solo un atto formale. La Russia viene accusata dalla Nato di aver annesso illegalmente la Crimea e di condurre azioni militari contro l’Ucraina.

Di conseguenza, se l’Ucraina entrasse ufficialmente nella Nato, gli altri 29 membri della Alleanza, in base all’Art. 5, dovrebbero «assistere la parte attaccata intraprendendo l’azione giudicata necessaria, compreso l’uso della forza armata». In altre parole, dovrebbero andare in guerra contro la Russia.

Il merito di aver introdotto nella legislazione ucraina l’obiettivo di entrare nella Nato va al presidente del parlamento Andriy Parubiy. Cofondatore nel 1991 del Partito nazionalsociale ucraino, sul modello del Partito nazionalsocialista di Adolf Hitler; capo delle formazioni paramilitari neonaziste, usate nel 2014 nel putsch di Piazza Maidan, sotto regia Usa/Nato, e nel massacro di Odessa; capo del Consiglio di difesa e sicurezza nazionale che, con il Battaglione Azov e altre unità neonaziste, attacca i civili ucraini di nazionalità russa nella parte orientale del paese ed effettua con apposite squadracce feroci pestaggi di militanti del Partito comunista, devastando le sue sedi e facendo roghi di libri in perfetto stile nazista, mentre lo stesso Partito sta per essere messo ufficialmente fuorilegge. Questo è Andriy Parubiy che, in veste di presidente del parlamento ucraino (carica conferitagli per i suoi meriti democratici nell’aprile 2016), è stato ricevuto il 5 giugno a Montecitorio dalla presidente della Camera, Laura Boldrini. «L’Italia – ha sottolineato la presidente Boldrini – ha sempre condannato l’azione illegale avvenuta ai danni di una parte del territorio ucraino». Ha così avallato la versione Nato secondo cui sarebbe stata la Russia ad annettersi illegalmente la Crimea, ignorando il fatto che la scelta dei russi di Crimea di staccarsi dall’Ucraina e rientrare nella Russia è stata presa per impedire di essere attaccati, come i russi del Donbass, dai battaglioni neonazisti e le altre forze di Kiev.

Il cordiale colloquio si è concluso con la firma di un memorandum d’intesa che «rafforza ulteriormente la cooperazione parlamentare tra le due assemblee, sia sul piano politico che su quello amministrativo».

Si rafforza così la cooperazione tra la Repubblica italiana, nata dalla Resistenza contro il nazi-fascismo, e un regime che ha creato in Ucraina una situazione analoga a quella che portò all’avvento del fascismo negli anni Venti e del nazismo negli anni Trenta. Il battaglione Azov, la cui impronta nazista è rappresentata dall’emblema ricalcato da quello delle SS Das Reich, è stato incorporato nella Guardia nazionale, trasformato in unità militare regolare e promosso allo status di reggimento operazioni speciali.

È stato quindi dotato di mezzi corazzati e pezzi d’artiglieria. Con altre formazioni neonaziste, trasformate in unità regolari, viene addestrato da istruttori Usa della 173a divisione aviotrasportata, trasferiti da Vicenza in Ucraina, affiancati da altri della Nato.

L’Ucraina di Kiev è così divenuta il «vivaio» del rinascente nazismo nel cuore dell’Europa. A Kiev confluiscono neonazisti da da tutta Europa, Italia compresa. Dopo essere stati addestrati e messi alla prova in azioni militari contro i russi di Ucraina nel Donbass, vengono fatti rientrare nei loro paesi. Ormai la Nato deve ringiovanire i ranghi di Gladio.

Manlio Dinucci

 

When last Friday Russian Ministry of Defense announced that Syrian forces had broken through to the Iraqi border and enveloped the US forces in southern Syria this came as a shock to us here at RI.

Not because this was some move nobody could see coming. Anyone who can read a map could see that a Syrian advance to the east of US positions at al-Tanf base would effectively neutralize it. I spelled out as much a week before the Syrian offensive took place:

The obvious play for the Russian-backed Syrians is to neutralize Americans at al-Tanf by giving their base a 55 kilometer-wide berth and punch through to the Iraqi border further east. Such a maneuver would end US dreams of al-Tanf as a staging point for a push into the Euphrates valley and make it into an irrelevant, isolated outpost in the desert.

No, the shocking part was how quickly the Syrians advanced and with how little warning. Without any previous indication that they intend to do so, the Syrian forces covered 184 kilometers of barren desert in a single day.

It took place so unexpectedly and with such speed that the first we heard about it was when it was all already over — the Syrians were already shaking hands with Iraqis on their joint borders and the Americans had been cut off.

A 184 kilometer march executed in a single day would be a feather in the cap of any force, but is particularly impressive in the Syrian context where advances tend to be far, far slower.

Also, there were no prior announcements or social media rumors that such a move was being prepared — for once the Syrians kept their plans and preparations to themselves.

Additionally, it of was of great help that it took place while all eyes (and American bombs) were focused on much smaller forces testing the US-proclaimed 55 kilometer exclusion zone further east — and which may have been diversionary moves.

We have now learned that the US military was no less shocked by the advance than you and I. Testifying before Congress US Defense Secretary Mattis explained:

“As far as the Tanf situation, that was another operating area that we had. I did not anticipate that the Russians would move there. We knew it was a possibility. I did not anticipate it at that time but it was not a surprise to our intelligence people who saw the potential for them to move out in that direction.”

So then, exactly like RI, the Pentagon saw “the potential” for a Syrian move in that direction (everybody did), but was completely taken aback by how suddenly and quickly it developed.

In military parlance the Syrians did not achieve a “strategic surprise” but they did achieve an “operational surprise”.

In all likelihood US brass could only predict a typical haphazard Syrian advance that would give it plenty of time to react against. Instead it was presented with a fait accompli within a day.

Pentagon grossly underestimated the Syrian forces. Indeed, Mattis had by all appearances convinced himself that Russians were not interested in southern Syria, and that a push to the Iraqi border was a solely Iranian-backed operation with which the Russians disagreed.

In fact, that the Russian Ministry of Defence timed its press briefing for almost the very moment (figuratively speaking) when Syrian and allied forces had reached the border would imply just the opposite was the case.

It also likely means that the Russians contributed heavily to the planning for the operation and that this reflected in its swiftness and professionalism. Indeed, Mattis who speaks of “Russians moving there” now seems to believe so.

Actually he should have known better from the start. Here at RI we always wrote about al-Tanf as ultimately being between the Russians and the US. After all if the Syrians want to restore a land border with Iraq and profit from some of the latter’s manpower reserves that is also in the Russian interest in Syria.

All images in this article are from the author.

It’s game on for round two of the nuclear ban negotiations! Delegations from governments, civil society, and international organisations are rallying in New York City at the United Nations to start deliberating over the President’s draft treaty text—and to start crafting one of the most ambitious piece of international law ever attempted. People from around the world are also preparing to rally outside of the UN building, and in their home cities, in two days in support of these talks. The Women’s March to Ban the Bomb will see actions in Australia, Canada, Cameroon, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, and the United States! The world is watching: it’s time to ban the bomb. 

Inside the conference room this week and next, states and others will review the draft treaty text released by Ambassador Elayne Whyte Gómez, the President of the conference, on 22 May. This text is a good basis for negotiations, which we hope will be constructive and ambitious over the next few weeks.

From Reaching Critical Will’s perspective, the text could be improved with the addition of core prohibitions on planning and preparations to use nuclear weapons, and on transit of nuclear weapons. These prohibitions would cover some of the most vital activities necessary to sustain nuclear “deterrence” practices. In October, the US government very clearly spelled out how prohibiting these activities would affect its ability to move its weapons around the world or prepare to use them. Prohibiting “assistance” in the treaty is key, but prohibiting these two things explicitly may be one of the few ways in which non-nuclear-armed states can most effectively impact operational practice related to the unfettered global exercise of “extended nuclear deterrence”.

An explicit prohibition on financing would also help provide clarity and guidance towards treaty implementation, which could include national prohibitions on financial or material support to public and private enterprises involved in any of the activities prohibited by the treaty. This could reduce the incentives for private companies to accept any work related to nuclear weapons. In this regard, this treaty could raise the political and economic costs of maintaining nuclear weapons. It could also help remove the influence of private interests from any decision-making processes related to nuclear weapons production and disarmament. It could also increase the societal stigmatisation of nuclear weapons, including through public divestment programmes.

In articles 2–5, the draft treaty grapples with the various ways that nuclear-armed states could work with states parties to eliminate their nuclear weapons or pursue other “effective measures” for nuclear disarmament, and what kinds of safeguards, verification, and declaratory arrangements would be necessary for this. Consideration of these articles should be taken together. Overall it will be necessary to clearly establish that the treaty is open to all states on an equal basis and that there is an obligation to destroy stockpiles, as this treaty is intended to lead to the elimination of nuclear weapons.

Adjustments will also be need to strengthen the provisions on victim assistance, environmental remediation, and international cooperation and assistance—though the text as written is a good starting point for this work. Issues related to meeting of states parties, institutional support, withdrawal, and the ban treaty’s relationship with other instruments will also need to be solved over the next three weeks, though a lot of common ground was expressed in March and is reflected in the draft.

To help the overall framing of this treaty, the preamble should improve its language on gender—recognising a broader range of impacts than just ionizing radiation on maternal health—and adding a recognition of the disproportionate impact of nuclear weapons on indigenous communities around the world. It should also add or adjust its language on human rights, environment, socioeconomic development, and the immorality of nuclear weapons to help strengthen the stigmatisation of these weapons of mass destruction.

We have explored these issues in greater depth in our response to the draft treaty text, and will be working with the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and other partners to help promote the strongest possible treaty over the next few weeks.

We have the chance to change the world with this instrument. The ban will not magically eliminate these weapons, but it will be a chink in the nuclear armour of those who continue to claim some “security benefit” from these indiscriminate, immoral, genocidal weapons. Nuclear weapons do not provide security. The majority of the world does not have them or need them. It’s time to codify this in international law and set the stage for total elimination.
The world is watching. It’s time to ban the bomb.

Featured image: Antinuclear

Following the shock British election result, the pundits are out in force.

They talk about the youth vote and mention “austerity” as if that were some kind of theorem.

I’m gobsmacked. Not at the election result – that didn’t surprise me at all – but at the spectacle of so many self-styled “experts” so utterly out of touch with reality.

I punch the off button on the radio and return to the iPad.

This appears on my twitter feed:

‘I volunteer at a food bank I work as a welfare rights officer I could tell you about people breaking down suicides and sheer fucking misery.’

I volunteer at a foodbank i work as a welfare rights officer i could tell you about people breaking down suicides and sheer fucking misery

— LaurenMarie (@JOJO774) June 10, 2017

If you want to understand the UK election result, try this for starters: for the past seven years, the British have been living under truly terrible government. Austerity is rife — and real. Rates of homelessness have doubled, wages are so low that people in full-time work are using food banks, the National Health Service (NHS) is in crisis, disability pensions have been slashed, police and emergency services cut by nearly 20%.

And the upshot of all these desperate measures to “rescue” the economy is that the national debt has gone up by £555 billion (AU$956.17 billion), or 53%, since the Tories came to power. So now they want to sell off NHS buildings, cut the winter fuel allowance for pensioners, dispense with safeguards on pension levels and add a further 6% to the interest on student loans. You’d vote for these guys? Seriously?

The second thing you need to understand about the UK election is that the Corbyn-led Labour Party ran a stunningly effective campaign. But you wouldn’t know this from reading any of the major newspapers in Britain, or from watching the BBC. They simply didn’t report it.

What media hid from you: a small flavour of what #JeremyCorbyn rallies looked like. 1000s of supporters#Panorama @jeremycorbyn @UKLabour pic.twitter.com/mxl6lRyraW

— Nusrat Latif (@nusratmedicine) June 12, 2017

If you were not following the election on Twitter across those seven weeks leading up to 8 June, you would have very little chance of seeing what was actually going on. During the course of the campaign, Twitter became the primary means of exchanging news, views and facts — not to mention memes.

And then there were the rallies. Corbyn fronted 90 of them and they grew like wildfire. By the halfway mark in the campaign, it was clear from the Twitter wires that “something was happening”. Scores of photos appeared, taken by those among the crowd: Corbyn addressing the 3,000 people from the balcony above the courtyard at Brudenell Social Club in Leeds on 15 May, the 4,000 who gathered on West Kirby Beach in Merseyside on 20 May, the 5,000 in Hull on 22 May 22.

Dissenting tweeters tried to pour cold water: ‘A Corbyn rally is a real-life manifestation of a social media echo chamber. Complete waste of time‘, ‘Crowds don’t win elections‘. The mainstream media agreed. The BBC gave an average of five seconds to the largest rallies, while devoting extended coverage to May’s desultory staged appearances to small groups of carefully picked supporters.

Corbyn’s final rally in Birmingham on 6 June was graced by the appearance of a rainbow, arching high over the gathering who had braved rain and wind earlier in the day, while on the M6 motorway, a Conservative Party campaign van bearing the slogan “strong and stable” was blown off course and keeled over.

You couldn’t, as they say, invent this stuff and the Twitter feed didn’t miss a trick. Every slogan the Tories came up with backfired and became fuel for the Labour offensive. “Enough is enough”, Theresa May declared after the June 3 terror attack in Southwark — the second to disrupt the campaign. Within an hour, images appeared on Twitter showing police protesting against Theresa May’s cuts in 2012 under the banner ‘Enough is enough‘.

Having warned repeatedly of the dangers of the cuts, the police were heavily behind Corbyn and, in defiance of confident predictions from the pundits, Labour was coming out in front on national security.

Labour also took the ground from under the Conservative’s feet with their economic plan, backed in a public letter from 130 leading economists. Theresa May’s attempt to undermine it with a barb about Corbyn’s “magic money tree” became another own goal, as scores of tweets reported that the tree had been found in Tory tax havens in the Bahamas, the Caymans, Panama.

Oi May, we've found the Magic Money Tree! #bbcqt pic.twitter.com/ROavSgVH2i

— Karen B (@Karen_Broady) June 2, 2017

Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell had costed all Labour’s policies, which included restored police numbers, increased funding for the NHS, raising the minimum wage and a million new homes for low-income families. Just as the Tories started trying to make headway with the “magic money tree” slogan, memes went viral on social media, showing the tree with policies and costings on its branches, together with examples of Tory profligacy that could be pruned.

We all know “it’s the economy, stupid“, but Corbyn Labour finally got across the message that there is nothing to be gained from a stupid economy. Trickle-down economics is a fantasy. Austerity brings no gain or compensation of any kind. It is the cul-de-sac of neoliberalism and, if 40% of the British people didn’t want to vote themselves into it, why should anyone be surprised? The real puzzler is why 42% of them did. If a few interviewers had the wit to ask that question, they might at least provoke some more intelligent and relevant speculation.

The Twitter storm had to cut through a toxic cloud of propaganda and it was making rapid headway. Another couple of weeks, as Macdonnell claims, and Corbyn might have claimed victory. The British public has been subject to decades of brainwashing. From the Thatcher years onwards, the Murdoch press spearheaded a whole culture of distorted perspectives, vilification and news fiction.

Perhaps seven weeks just wasn’t long enough to get the wake-up call across the nation.

Jane Goodall is a freelance writer and Emeritus Professor with the Writing and Society Research Centre at Western Sydney University. You can follow Jane on Twitter @Jayrgoodall.

Featured image: @jeremycorbyn via Independent Australia

The United States will again escalate the war in Afghanistan.

Sixteen years ago the U.S, invaded the country and decided to eliminate the ruling Taliban for something that was planed elsewhere by a different group. Since the invasion the U.S. tried to defeat the Taliban. It has lost that fight. As soon as it leaves Afghanistan the Taliban will be back in power. But no one is willing to pull the plug on the nonsensical military approach.

The Taliban are part of Afghanistan and a significant segment of the population supports them. When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan it put the brutal and utterly corrupt warlords back into power. These were exactly the people the Taliban were created to hold down and the reason why they could take power in the first place. While demanding a strict religious life the Taliban successfully took care of local security and eliminated the lawless and corrupt rule of the warlords.

It is no wonder then that a large part of the population wishes to have them back in power.

The U.S. supported government in Kabul is utterly corrupt. The Afghan military and police the U.S. pays is likewise only motivated by money. It is not willing to fight. It takes high casualties during Taliban attacks and therefore avoids contact with them whenever possible. Some 60% of the country is now more or less back under Taliban control. The government’s say is restricted to the bigger cities.

It is obvious that this trend will continued and sooner or later the Taliban will be back in power. The only sensible strategy is to negotiate with them and to find some solution that allows them to rule while they guaranteeing that no harm will emanate from Afghanistan for the rest of the world.

But no one in the U.S. is willing to take responsibility for that. Who would want to be blamed for “neglecting” Afghanistan when another 9/11 happens – as unlikely as that might be? Therefore additional troops need to be send whenever the Taliban seem to gain the advantage over the puppet government forces.

President Trump has punted on the issue and has given full authority to the Defense Department to continue the war in Afghanistan with as many troops as it sees fit. It is now the generals, not Trump, who will be blamed should things in Afghanistan go wrong. But the military has no idea what to do about Afghanistan.

Yesterday the Secretary of Defense Mattis was asked during a Congress hearing what “winning” in Afghanistan would mean:

The idea, [Mattis] said, would be to drive down the violence to a level that could be managed by Afghan government forces with the help of American and allied troops in training their Afghan counterparts, providing intelligence and delivering what Mr. Mattis called “high-end capability,” an apparent allusion to air power and possibly Special Operations forces.The result, he said, would be an “era of frequent skirmishing,” but not a situation in which the Afghan government no longer faced a mortal threat.

Winning in Afghanistan is an “era of frequent skirmishes” in which the proxy government is continuously endangered? That does, of course, not make any sense. It is a holding strategy that will only work as long as the general framework stays the same. Should the Taliban change their strategy or a new actor come in the “holding” strategy will be finished.

One new actor is already there. An Afghan variant of the “Islamic State” just kicked out the Taliban from the Tora Bora cave complex near the Pakistani border. Tora Bora was once though to be the retreat area of Al-Qaeda’s Osama Bin-Laden and was attacked during the U.S. invasion in 2001/2.

B-1B Lancer from the U.S. Air Force 28th Air Expeditionary Wing bombing in Afghanistan, 2001. (Source: USAF)

But who is behind the Islamic State Khorasan Province’s (ISKP) in Afghanistan? Most of its fighters seem to be former Taliban who either defected in Afghanistan or were kicked out of Pakistan when the Pakistani military put pressure on their home areas. The real question now is who pays them and what do they want?

Officially no one seems to know.

For the warlords in Afghanistan the U.S. occupation has become a huge source of money. The U.S. pays them for protecting the goods shipped in from the states  and elsewhere. It is a protection racket. Should the U.S. not pay, its convoys will be attacked by “Taliban”. As soon as it pays the local warlords, the “Taliban” will be defeated and the area will be clear again for the trucks to pass. The money the Afghan government receives is likewise dependent on a continuation of the U.S. occupation. No one in the ruling class of Afghanistan has an interest in ending that. The government in Kabul will do nearly anything to keep its money source available.

That may well be the reason why ISIS in Afghanistan was created. It was feared in Kabul that sooner or later the U.S. would find a compromise with the Taliban and leave the country. A new reason had to be found to continue the war.

It is therefore not astonishing that the Afghan secret services, the National Directorate for Security (NDS), was the first sponsor of “ISIS” in Afghanistan. The first “ISIS” fighters were refugees of the Pakistani Taliban (TTP) who settled in the eastern province of Nangahar and were put on the NDS payroll:

The most well-known case of these militants finding a welcoming home in Nangarhar is that of the Lashkar-e Islam group led by Mangal Bagh.
…
Hoping to use them against Pakistan, the Afghan government started to woo some of these fighters, according to influential tribal elders involved in helping relation-building from the districts that sheltered the guest militants.
…
[E]fforts by the Afghan intelligence service, the National Directorate of Security (NDS), to woo Pakistani militants in Nangarhar have not been confined to Lashkar-e Islam or to militants from Khyber. Tribal elders and ordinary residents of Achin, Nazian and Kot testify that fighters from Orakzai and Mohmand agencies belonging to different factions of the TTP have been allowed free movement across the province, as well as treatment in government hospitals.
…
It was from these ‘guests’ that the bulk of the Nangarhar-based ISKP foot soldiers emerged, following the official announcement of IS’s expansion to ‘Khorasan Province.’

It is not clear if or to what extend the “ISIS” group in Afghanistan is still controlled by the Afghan government services. Their weapon and ammunition supply is now allegedly coming from Pakistan. But what is clear is that these new participants in the war were first sponsored by the Afghan government and are now a welcome reasons for an extension of the U.S. occupation and the money flows originating from it. Meanwhile the media can reuse its old scary graphics of the Tora Bora complex and sell more advertisement.

The war in Afghanistan has no longer a real purposes. This or that radical group will always exist in Afghanistan. The war helps the U.S. military to claim more budget and to hand out promotions. It helps the Afghan government officials and the warlords to fill their pockets. What it does not do is to better the situation of the general population of Afghanistan or of the United States.

The war has become the proverbial self-licking-ice-cream-cone. It will unfortunately continue to be such under this and probably also the next U.S. presidents.

Featured image: credits to the owner

Earlier this month, multiple reports surfaced of US-led coalition forces in Mosul, Iraq and Raqqa, Syria, using the incendiary chemical weapon, white phosphorus, on civilians. For over a week, the US government and the coalition at large have remained silent on the issue — until now.

“We have utilized white phosphorous to screen areas within West Mosul to get civilians out safely,” McAslan told NPR on Tuesday.

Instead of questioning the horrid nature of the chemical weapons use on civilians, NPR echoed the general’s sentiment and noted that 28,000 civilians have managed to escape. While that may be true, countless others were injured or suffered horrifying deaths.

This is the longer version of Amaq video of White phosphorous used yesterday in Zanjili neighborhood of west Mosul #Iraq pic.twitter.com/9QTQhAlDSw

— Fazel Hawramy (@FazelHawramy) June 4, 2017

White phosphorus is described as an “incendiary and toxic chemical substance used as a filler in a number of different munitions that can be employed for a variety of military purposes.”

The chemical was banned internationally after the 1980 Protocol on Incendiary Weapons restricted the “use of incendiary weapons as a means or method of warfare during armed conflict.”

The use of chemical weapons is clearly prohibited in international armed conflicts. The International Committee of the Red Cross noted that

“employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices is listed in the Statute of the International Criminal Court as a war crime.”

While deploying incendiary weapons against residential areas is banned under Protocol III of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), the two other uses — smoke screens and signals — are not, which allows the hypocritical US, to keep such munitions in their arsenal and use them. It is through this loophole that the US claims the right to deploy these deadly weapons on towns.

On November 30, 2005, General Peter Pace stated that white phosphorus munitions were a “legitimate tool of the military” used to illuminate targets and create smokescreens, saying “It is not a chemical weapon. It is an incendiary.” However, the general is wrong. As soon as white phosphorus is deployed against people, it becomes a chemical weapon.

A chemical weapon can be “any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm.”

White phosphorus remains very dangerous even when not deliberately used to start fires or attack humans. Submunitions can ignite days after deployment and remain a hazard for a city. Injuries caused by the chemical can burn to the bone and are prone to reigniting if a piece of the phosphorus remaining in the wound is exposed to air when a dressing is changed.

“No matter how white phosphorus is used, it poses a high risk of horrific and long-lasting harm in crowded cities like Raqqa and Mosul and any other areas with concentrations of civilians,” said Steve Goose, arms director at Human Rights Watch.

The US claims of using white phosphorus as a smoke screen or signal ring hollow when assessing the damage reported on the ground in Syria and Iraq.

Just as the rights groups warned, civilian casualties were, in fact, a reality from the coalition’s deployment of white phosphorus.

Xinhua News, China’s state press agency, reported last week that

“Tens of civilians were killed on Thursday when the U.S.-led airstrikes targeted Syria’s northern city of Raqqa with white phosphorus,” citing a report from Syria’s Sham FM radio.

Russia’s Riafan.ru reported that

“Coalition forces led by the United States of America shell Raqqa and suburbs of white phosphorus munitions,” citing reports on Twitter, which said the U.S.-backed coalition conducted 20 air raids.

45 civilians killed in #Raqqa #Syria due to #US-led coalition airstrikes that used White Phosphorus! #UNSC and MSM must be busy for that! pic.twitter.com/mEo0C9fZBM

— maytham (@maytham956) June 8, 2017

Although the total number of civilian deaths has not been entirely confirmed, early reports suggest that nearly 50 people were killed.

“Horrific civilian harm from previous use of white phosphorus has generated public outrage and this latest use of white phosphorus underscores the urgent need for states to strengthen international law relating to incendiary weapons,” HRW’s Goose said.

Although NPR happened to have the general admit to them US forces are using white phosphorus, no other mainstream outlet in America has picked up this bombshell story.

Their silence shows their complicit nature in covering up the alleged war crimes of the West.

“US-led forces should take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm when using white phosphorus in Iraq and Syria,” Goose said of the situation.

However, from the reports on the ground, that appears not to be the case.

US-led coalition use of white phosphorus in Syria & Iraq raises serious questions about the protection of civilians https://t.co/QqgHnCbZyI pic.twitter.com/v33z0jPSwG

— Andrew Stroehlein (@astroehlein) June 14, 2017

In the video below, the US-led coalition is dropping white phosphorus bombs on Western Mosul. Watch for yourself and decide whether or not it was being used as a ‘tool’ to allow civilians to escape.

US led coalition dropping white phosphorus bombs on Western Mosul last week. pic.twitter.com/qdXkL2n5Gv

— CJ Werleman (@cjwerleman) June 5, 2017

Featured image: Murica Today

America is unique among history’s warrior states – prioritizing endless wars, not ending them to achieve a new era of peace and stability.

The notion is anathema to the nation’s military, industrial, and media establishment. Wars are waged for power and profits, no other reasons.

All post-WW II US wars were and continue to be acts of naked aggression against nations threatening no one – raping and destroying them, the human cost incalculable, the villainy unprecedented.

Throughout its history, America has been perpetually at war at home and/or abroad, never a time of peace and stability – a shocking indictment of its abhorrent agenda, the nation a democracy in name only.

Its high crimes against humanity continue endlessly in multiple theaters, wars against other targeted nations to be launched at its discretion – unthinkable nuclear war the greatest risk to our survival.

In Tuesday testimony before Senate Armed Services Committee members, Defense Secretary James Mattis said America isn’t winning in Afghanistan – nor anywhere else he failed to explain.

He promised a new Afghan war strategy by mid-July. It’s no different from the old one. Here it is before announced:

Continue endless war. Get Congress to appropriate tens of billions more dollars for a lost cause. Claim slow and steady progress.

Later in the face of continued failure, promise another new course, much more money needed to pursue it.

Joint Chiefs Chairman General Joseph (“fighting Joe”) Dunford lied to Senate Armed Services Committee members, claiming America’s “competitive advantage is eroding…limiting our ability to project power.”

US military spending exceeds what all other NATO members, Russia and China spend combined, with all categories included, including black budgets – more than $1.5 trillion annually, the so-called defense budget one part of it.

The Pentagon and related budgets should be sharply slashed, not increased, America’s empire of bases dismantled, a new era of peace declared – for the first time in US history, swords turned into plowshares.

A polar opposite agenda is pursued. Permanent war is longstanding US policy, bipartisan-supported out-of-control militarism – at the expense of vital homeland needs, social justice and a nation fit to live in, drowning in hubris and arrogance, along with contempt for democratic values and rule of law principles.

No nation caused more harm to more people over a longer duration. None more greatly threatens humanity’s survival.

Endless wars define US policy – waged against invented enemies because real ones don’t exist. The late Gore Vidal’s “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace” explained how America became so reviled.

On America’s Middle East wars, he said

“I don’t see us winning. We have made enemies of one billion Muslims.”

He explained America is

“rotting away at a funereal pace. We’ll have a military dictatorship pretty soon, on the basis that nobody else can hold everything together.”

Peace is a nonstarter. It’s always been this way, notably post-9/11. The vast majority of House and Senate members support America’s imperial war agenda – including self-styled progressive Bernie Sanders.

They glorify them, falsely portraying them as humanitarian intervention and democracy building, ignoring the appalling human toll – genocide by any standard.

If a way isn’t found to end America’s imperial agenda, it’ll end us.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new 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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image: credits to the owner

Oliver Stone interviews the Russian president Vladimir Putin about the divisive issues related to US-Russian relations.

An Oliver Stone Film,

New Element Media Production

Show Time Documentary Films, 2017

(English Subtitles).

.

Featured image: Zero Hedge

The Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) have liberated 360 villages from ISIS terrorists west of Mosul, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, Deputy Commander of the PMU announced on June 10th. He added that PMU fighters “have also managed to kill 2,000 ISIS terrorists west of the northern province of Nineveh,” of which Mosul is the capital.

The PMU commander added that the group is “ready to liberate Tal Afar town,” situated 63km west of Mosul and “are now waiting for the orders of Iraqi Prime Minister and Commander-in-Chief Haider al-Abadi.”

The declaration followed a series of successful PMU operations aimed at reaching the border with Syria and liberating large areas from ISIS in western Nineveh.

On April 25th, the PMU announced the start of the operation Muhammad Rasool Allah to liberate Hatar town located 80km south of Mosul. The town is located in a strategic area that links the provinces of Mosul, Salah al-Din and Al-Anbar. The operation was launched in full coordination with the Iraqi Army and was supported directly by the Iraqi Air Force.

On April 28th, the PMU took full control of Hatar. The PMU revealed that several ISIS headquarters, including the governor of the state and the military force HQ, had been located there. The operation ended with the liberation of 1,500 square kilometers including 22 villages. As a result of the PMU operation, 253 ISIS militants were killed and 38 vehicles and VBIEDs were destroyed.

The PMU launched a similar operation under the name “Muhammad Rasool Allah 2″ on May 12th. The aim of the first phase of the operation was the liberation of al-Qayrawan, 120km west of Mosul. ISIS used al-Qayrawan from which to launch several attacks with the aim of breaking the PMU siege of Tal Afar.

By the fifth day of the operation, the PMU reached the village of Pashuk north of al-Qayrawan, the villages of Tal al-Dalaa’, and Thary al-Karah south of the town, and outflanked the ISIS stronghold.

The first phase of Operation Muhammad Rasool Allah 2 ended on May 23rd, when the PMU launched a night attack on al-Qayrawan and liberated it.

On May 25th, the PMU announced the start of the second phase of the operation “Muhammad Rasool Allah” under the name “Martyrs of Sinjar.” The declared goal of the operation was to capture the strategic town of Al-Baaj and to reach the Iraqi-Syrian border. Al-Baaj was located along the main supply line of ISIS between Syria and Iraq.

On May 29th, the PMU reached the Syrian-Iraqi border after liberating a number of villages in western Nineveh. After that, the PMU began advancing west and southwest of Al-Baaj, encircling terrorists in the area.

On June 4th, the PMU liberated Al-Baaj. The PMU described the town of Al-Baaj as “the secret capital of ISIS organization.” The town was allegedly a rear base for many ISIS commanders, including Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The PMU also liberated dozens of villages near al-Baaj.

ISIS suffered notable losses in this battle and the remaining fighters reportedly withdrew towards the Sainiah desert and the towns of Al-Mayadeen and Al-Bukamal in the Syrian province of Deir Ezzor.

The Iraqi Air Force participated in operations “Muhammad Rasool Allah 1” and “Muhammad Rasool Allah 2”. Iraqi warplanes and attack helicopters played an important role, destroying ISIS positions and fortifications in Hatar, al-Qayrawan, and Al-Baaj, as well as assisting PMU fighters to counter ISIS VBIEDs.

Several PMU sources announced that the Qaim border crossing en route to Deir Ezzor may become the next target of the PMU in the area alongside the border with Syria. At the same time, the group spokesperson said that the PMU will not enter Syria before the full liberation of Iraq and that this move would require authorization by the Iraqi parliament.

However, several PMU units are currently operating in Syria alongside forces loyal to the Damascus government. Members of the Al-Imam Ali Battalions and Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba are among these units.

The PMU advance significantly decreased the ability of ISIS to operate in the Syrian-Iraqi border area and assisted the Syrian Arab Army in reaching the border with Iraq. ISIS units had repeatedly ignored the so-called US-led forces combating ISIS in southeastern Syria. In turn, they were constantly attacking Syrian government forces preventing their operations in the direction of Deir Ezzor and the Iraqi border area.

Now, when the PMU and the Syrian Army have a direct link on the ground in southeastern Syria, it’s expected that Iran, which closely cooperates with the PMU, will soon be able to establish a ground supply line to Syria, boosting assistance to Syrian government forces in the country.

At the same time, the ability of the PMU to control large parts of the border with Syria will boost the role of the group in Iraq.

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: Al Masdar News

What is wrong with the human mind and heart that human beings grind their teeth at one another? The history of mankind is an ocean of blood, death and destruction and why? Virtually no one on planet earth in the world of politics or the world of religion has ever had the answer or solution. Everyone points the finger at others, but never at themselves as problem makers. No one looks in the mirror, but rather makes the claim that they are “fighting terrorism.” Who has military bases by the hundreds the world over and why?

If you are a paid assassin, why are you? Are you so brainwashed that you don’t have a mind, heart or conscience of your own, but you are controlled like a zombie or robot? If you murder other human beings in war, why do you do so, because you have been brainwashed that other humans are the “enemy”, or that you are “fighting for freedom?” Most likely the other side thinks the same way you do.

Are humans really “intelligent?” If so, why do humans kill, torture, rape, mass-murder, lie, deceive, propagandize, steal, lust, tax, enforce, imprison, spy, forge and hate? If that is human intelligence, then the world is ruled by juvenile minded humans who have never matured into adult humanity with wisdom and understanding.

Perhaps the greatest “enemy” of all nations on earth is SELF. Self is always right in its own eyes. Self slanders, self is self-righteous, self is selfish, self is not trustworthy, self is programmed to believe and accept lies and propaganda as truth, self always points the finger at others, but never at itself.

Why are humans enemies? Because religions divide humans into warring camps, because some are aggressors while pretending “defense.” As long as human beings brainwash their children to believe that they are “special” in the eyes of a “God”, no one ever sees, then there is no solution to animosity among humans. As long as the few will do anything on earth to control the world and all of its resources, there is no solution to peace and harmony on earth.

Humans are enemies because those who cause problems on earth are juveniles in mentality. Encyclopedias of information have been penned about the problems of life on earth, but no answers or solutions have ever come forward to make planet earth a utopia of peace, no military, no wars, no mass-death and destruction, no lying, no propaganda, no deceit, no spying, no taxation, no control by the few over the many or life without government control over humans, such as courts, judges and thugs.

Why is love, compassion, mercy, empathy and humility foreign to those who rule and who make decisions in life on earth that impact the whole world?

Someone, somewhere has to start thinking in a radically different manner about life on earth, because the world is sick and tired of being subjected to the diabolical and demonic evils of perpetual violence, war, death and destruction that rulers of nations subject the world to. There has to be an answer and so far in human governments, there never has been.

Is there not some reason for human life besides violence, hate, mass-murder and control by politicians, judges, enforcers and the few who wield power over the many?

Why not rethink virtually every man-made system in life on earth? Government is cause for more pain and suffering in life than almost all other causes of suffering combined. Is government God?

Featured image: Pinterest

In the Globe and Mail this weekend, physicians who are extra-billing patients for services at private clinics justified themselves by complaining that they cannot get operating room time and waits are too long in the public system.

Let’s be honest, these problems do exist. But these problems do not justify double-billing – charging the public healthcare system and patients as well for healthcare. They do not justify breaking Canadian laws that are meant to provide equity and protect patients from user fees when they are sick, elderly and least able to pay. And they do not justify charging two times, three times, five times or even more what the public system pays for healthcare services to seniors and patients when they are sick and in need.

At the Ontario Health Coalition, we have been advocating for 10-years to stop the cuts and reinvest in our public hospitals. We have led this fight, which we know is overwhelmingly supported by the public. But in all these years of advocating to save and improve services in our public hospitals, the private clinic owners that are justifying their extra-billing of patients by complaining about access to operating room time have been nowhere in sight. They have not joined in the fight to save local hospitals from closure, I have not seen them advocating to improve public hospital funding, to build public capacity, nor to ensure that funding goes to care.

Flirting with Privatization

For two decades, pro-privatization pundits, clinic owners and politicians claimed that it doesn’t matter if services are owned and controlled by for-profit entities or public and non-profit hospitals. Private clinics, they promised, would exist under Canada’s public medicare laws without causing harm. They would, on every occasion, avow that private clinics are beneficent and healthcare would not rely on your credit card.

They were not telling the truth. Over the two decades or more in which Canadian provinces have experimented with privatization, the attempt to regulate private clinics has failed. Illegal billing, double-billing and quality problems have become widespread. The clinics are violating the laws of Canada and the provinces as a business model because doing so increases their (already substantial) incomes and profits.

The evidence is indisputable. In 2008, we called every private clinic in Canada. We researched and wrote a report Eroding Public Medicare: Lessons and Consequences of For-Profit Health Care Across Canada. In it, we published the notes from our calls with the private clinics, showing that the vast majority were violating the Canada Health Act. Again in 2014, we called all the private clinics in Ontario, and we found that the clinics continued to break Canada’s medicare laws. If anything, the majority of clinics had become more manipulative and unethical in the information that they were giving to patients to “sell-up” medically unnecessary add ons.

Physicians, nurses and health professionals from Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec have organized themselves to ask governments to stop privatization on behalf of their patients. Almost half-a-million patients in Quebec filed a petition with the federal court to force the Health Minister to uphold Canada’s medicare laws and stop the burgeoning user fees charged at private clinics in that province. Now, we have released our latest surveysof 136 clinics and 400 patients that again proves that the transgressions are not the exception among private clinics… they are the rule and they are causing hardship for patients.

Now that the private clinic owners are caught breaking the laws that they said they would not threaten, they want politicians to legalize their illegal activities and simply regulate extra-billing. So far, the record on regulation is abysmal.

Support Public Hospitals

Private clinics are using failures in public policy as cover for their unethical behaviour. But their critique of what is happening in our public system is not entirely wrong. The solution is not to throw out public medicare and the protections against user fees and financial hardship that it affords to patients. The solution is to open unused capacity in our public operating rooms and diagnostic suites, use sound population planning processes to plan public hospital capacity to meet our communities’ needs, adopt innovations in wait time management and the organization of services to improve access, and roll contracts back in to our local public hospitals.

Privatization is a failure. It’s time to rebuild capacity in our community hospitals that operate on a non-profit basis in the public interest and insist that our governments plan for and resource our public hospitals to provide the services we need.

A special thank you to all of you who answered surveys and distributed them to your contacts. Together, I know that we can protect public healthcare, based on the principles of equity and compassion for all Canadians.

Natalie Mehra is Executive Director of the Ontario Health Coalition.

Featured image: Socialist Project

“The Democrats are not fighting Trump over his assault on health care, his attacks on immigrants, his militaristic bullying around the world, or even his status as a minority president who can claim no mandate after losing the popular vote. Instead, they have chosen to attack Trump, the most right-wing president in US history, from the right, denouncing him as insufficiently committed to a military confrontation with Russia.” — Patrick Martin, “The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming”, World Socialist Web Site

Donald Trump is not the target of an FBI investigation.

Donald Trump has never been the target of an FBI investigation.

The FBI is not investigating Trump for collusion, improper relations with a foreign government, treason or any of the other ridiculous things he’s been falsely accused of in the fake media. In fact, the FBI is not investigating him at all.

Last week, former FBI Director James Comey admitted publicly what he has known all along: that Trump was not a suspect in the Russia hacking probe and never has been. Here’s the story from Politico:

“Comey assured Trump he wasn’t under investigation during their first meeting. He said he discussed with FBI leadership before his meeting with the president-elect whether to disclose that he wasn’t personally under investigation. “That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him,” Comey said.” (Politico)

So, there was no counter-intelligence case on Trump? There was no investigation of collusion with Russia?

But how can that be, after all, Trump has been hectored and harassed by the media from Day 1? His appointments have been blocked, his political agenda has been derailed, and the results of the 2016 elections have been effectively repealed due to the relentless attacks of the media, political elites and high-ranking leaders in the Intelligence Community. Now Comey admits that Trump is not guilty of anything, he’s not even a suspect.

What’s going on here? Why didn’t Comey clear the air earlier so the American people would know that their president wasn’t in bed with a foreign power? Why did he allow this farce to continue when he knew there was no substance to the claims? Did he enjoy seeing Trump twisting in the wind or was there some more sinister “political” motive behind his omission?

Trump repeatedly asked Comey to announce that he wasn’t under investigation. According to Comey, Trump “emphasized the problems this was causing him” and (Trump) said “We need to get that fact out.” But Comey repeatedly refused to publicly acknowledge the truth. Why?

Comey never answered that question to Trump, but he did explain his reasoning to the Senate Intelligence Committee last week. He said he didn’t want to announce that Trump was not part of the Bureau’s Russia probe because “it would create a duty to correct, should that change.”

A “duty to correct”? Are you kidding me? What kind of bullshit answer is that? How many hours of legal brainstorming did it take to come up with that lame-ass excuse?

Let’s state the obvious: Comey wanted to maintain the cloud of suspicion that was hanging over Trump because it helped to feed the perception that Trump was a traitor who collaborated with Russia to win the election. By remaining silent, Comey helped to fuel the public hysteria and reinforce the belief that Trump was guilty of criminal wrongdoing. That is why Comey never spoke out before, it’s because his silence was already achieving the result he sought which was to inflict as much damage as possible on Trump and his administration.

Did you know that Comey was spying on Trump from Day 1?

It’s true, he admitted it himself. Following his first meeting with Trump on January 6, he started recording contents of his private conversations with the president-elect on a secure FBI laptop in his car outside Trump Tower. He didn’t even wait until he got back to the office, he did it in the goddamn parking lot. That’s what you call “eager”. In his testimony he admitted that he kept notes of his private meetings with Trump “from that point forward.”

President Donald Trump shakes hands with James Comey, director of the FBI, during an Inaugural Law Enforcement Officers and First Responders Reception. (ANDREW HARRER / POOL / EPA)

Does that sound like the normal activities of dedicated public servant acting in behalf of the elected government or does it sound like someone who’s on an assignment to dig up as much dirt as possible on the target of a political smear campaign.

Isn’t that what Comey was really up to?

Comey is a man with zero integrity. Did you know that?

He is applauded in the media and by his fellow establishment elites because he is an unprincipled sycophant who slavishly obeys the directives of his deep state paymasters. Take a look at this except from an ACLU report on Comey:

“There’s one very big problem with describing Comey as some sort of civil libertarian: some facts suggest otherwise. While Comey deserves credit for stopping an illegal spying program in dramatic fashion, he also approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration during his time as deputy attorney general. Those included torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention.

On 30 December 2004, a memo addressed to James Comey was issued that superseded the infamous memo that defined torture as pain “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure”. The memo to Comey seemed to renounce torture but did nothing of the sort. The key sentence in the opinion is tucked away in footnote 8. It concludes that the new Comey memo did not change the authorizations of interrogation tactics in any earlier memos.

In short, the memo Comey that approved gave a thumbs-up on waterboarding, wall slams, and other forms of torture – all violations of domestic and international law. …Then, there’s warrantless wiretapping. ….” (“Let’s Check James Comey’s Bush Years Record Before He Becomes FBI Director”, ACLU)

Repeat: “He approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration (including) torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention.”

How does that square with the media’s portrayal of Comey as a man of unshakable integrity and honor?

It doesn’t square at all, does it? The media is obviously lying.

Now ask yourself this: Can a man who rubber-stamped waterboarding be trusted?

No, he can’t be trusted because he’s already proved himself to be inherently immoral.

Would a man like Comey agree to use his position and authority to try to “undo” the damage he did prior to the election when he announced the FBI was reopening its investigation of Hillary Clinton? In other words, was Comey being blackmailed to gather illicit material on Trump?

I think it’s very likely, although entirely unprovable. Even so, Comey has been way too eager to frame Trump for things for which he is not guilty. Why has he been so eager? Was he really just protecting himself as he says or was he gathering information to build a legal case against Trump?

In my mind, Comey tipped his hand when he said that he leaked the memo of his private conversation with Trump to the media in order to precipitate the appointment of a special prosecutor. Think about that for a minute. Here’s what he said:

“My judgment was I needed to get that out into the public square.  So I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. I didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons, but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel, so I asked a close friend of mine to do it.”

Listen to Comey. The man is openly admitting that leaking the memo was all part of a very clearly-defined political strategy to force the appointment of a special prosecutor. That was the political objective from the get go. He doesn’t even try to hide it. He wasn’t trying to protect himself from ‘mean old’ Trump. That’s baloney! He was laying the groundwork for a massive and expansive investigation into anything and anyone even remotely connected to the Trump team, a gigantic fishing expedition aimed at taking down Trump and his closest allies. That’s what Comey’s been up to. Only his plan didn’t work, did it, because the ‘leaked memo’ didn’t lead to the appointment of the special prosecutor. Instead, someone had to whisper in Trump’s ear that he should fire Comey and, ah ha, that’s all it took.  In other words, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had to step in and give Comey his pink slip before the media could cry “obstruction”, creating the perfect opportunity to appoint “hired gun” Robert Mueller as special counsel. Now that the dominoes are in motion, Comey can trundle off to some comfy job at one of the many rightwing Washington think tanks while Mueller gathers together his team of superstar prosecutors to launch their first broadsides on the White House.

Whoever wrote this script deserves an Oscar. This is really first-rate political theater.

Now it’s up to Mueller to prove that Trump tried to obstruct the investigation by asking Comey to go easy on former national security advisor General Michael Flynn. (According to Comey, Trump said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”)  It might sound like obstruction, but there are real problems with this type of prosecution particularly the fact that Trump denies the allegations. Also, Comey has acknowledged that Trump expressed his support for the overall goals of the investigation when he said,

“that if there were some ‘satellite’ associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out.”

Clearly, Trump was not trying to impede the investigation. But even if he was, it is a particularly murky area of the law and difficult to prove. Here’s a short clip from an article by Professor Jonathan Turley at George Washington University who helps to clarify the point:

“The desire for some indictable or impeachable offense by President Trump has distorted the legal analysis to an alarming degree. Analysts seem far too thrilled by the possibility of a crime by Trump. The legal fact is that Comey’s testimony does not establish a prima facie — or even a strong — case for obstruction.

It is certainly true that if Trump made these comments, his conduct is wildly inappropriate. However, talking like Tony Soprano does not make you Tony Soprano….

The crime of obstruction of justice has not been defined as broadly as suggested by commentators……The mere fact that Trump asked to speak to Comey alone would not implicate the president in obstruction. ….

It would be a highly dangerous interpretation to allow obstruction charges at this stage. If prosecutors can charge people at the investigation stage of cases, a wide array of comments or conduct could be criminalized. It is quite common to have such issues arise early in criminal cases. Courts have limited the crime precisely to avoid this type of open-ended crime where prosecutors could threaten potential witnesses with charges unless they cooperated.

We do not indict or impeach people for being boorish or clueless … or simply being Donald Trump.” (“James Comey’s testimony doesn’t make the case for impeachment or obstruction against Donald Trump”, USA Today)

The fact that the obstruction charge won’t stick is not going to stop Mueller from rummaging around and making Trump’s life a living Hell. Heck no. He’s going to dig through his old phone records, bank accounts, tax returns, shaky land deals, ex girl friends, whatever it takes. His prosecutorial tentacles will extend into every nook and cranny of Trump’s private life and affairs until he latches onto some particularly sordid incident or transaction he can use he can use to disgrace, discredit, and demonize Trump to the point that impeachment proceedings seem like a welcome relief. It should be obvious by now, that the deep state elites who launched this coup are not going to be satisfied until Trump is forced from office and the results of the 2016 presidential election are wiped out.

But, why? Why is Trump so hated by these people?

Trump is not being attacked because of his reactionary political agenda, but because he’s been deemed insufficiently hostile to Washington’s sworn enemy, Russia. It’s all about Russia. Trump wanted to “normalize” relations with Moscow which pitted him against the powerful US foreign policy establishment. Now Trump has to be taught a lesson. He must be crushed, humiliated and exiled. And that’s probably the way this will end.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image: Politico

My refusal to believe ongoing Western media reports of “Russian aggression” makes me a “Kremlin troll”. My punishment for not towing the “party line” – simple, effective “shunning” by Western media – has not, however, diminished my ongoing commitment to seeing the other side.

Having previously investigated the Crimean reunification with Russia, this May I turned my attention to the birth of two new government formations in Eastern Ukraine, the Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) and the Lugansk People’s Republic (LNR).  Americans only hear either what Kiev “reports”, or the US propaganda machine puts out – these are puppet regimes born of “Russian aggression” and forcibly kept in place by “occupation”. Not being a brave “war correspondent”, I admittedly undertook my journey with some trepidation – not from fear of “Russian aggression”, but the Kiev regime’s ongoing shelling of civilian targets.

I am eternally grateful to my newfound colleague Konstantin Dolgov for showing me the sad “Alley of Angels” – a deeply touching memorial to children killed to date by Kiev-regime forces. Further, my virtual contact with Patrick Lancaster, an American journalist who now resides there, and Alexander Sladkov, a Russian correspondent who largely lives there, but, more importantly, “run toward the sound of gunfire” have allowed me to counteract the information-war blockade by Western media.

A central street of Donetsk – the Donetsk Palace

As I approached the larger city of Donetsk (previously over 1 million residents, now much smaller due to the initial flood of refugees to Russia (the paradox of people fleeing into the arms of the “aggressor”), I feared I would see a city center damaged by Kiev shelling, and people cowed and deprived of the most basic needs. Contrary to Ukrainian “patriots” on Russian TV, I was relieved to find an active, bustling city, with a very charming downtown, and thrilled to see a populace that, far from being cowed, harbors a firm belief in a better future, one outside the Ukraine.

Despite Kiev’s total blockade, the city of Donetsk proper seems to have a reasonable assortment of goods and foodstuffs. Much of this seems to come from ever growing trade and cooperation with Russia, a bordering neighbor and largest trade partner of the “former”, pre-war Ukraine. In fact, while I was there, a conference on enhancing this cooperation took place, and due to Kiev’s economic blockade, the ruble has displaced the Ukrainian grivna. Western media will no doubt hold this up as further proof of “Russian aggression”.

The open air market at the train station in Donetsk

My most important “resource” during my all too brief stay was Ekaterina Pavlenko, a young, local deputy in the DNR parliament.  Ekaterina herself is certainly no “Russian aggressor” or “occupying force”. Quite the contrary, she is very typical of local residents whose largely Russian-heritage ancestors have lived on these lands for generations. Ekaterina, having previously engaged in “social” issues is not even a “typical politician”. As I became more acquainted with her, her eyes explained it all – they showed the unique combination of a burning desire to further the life of the new, independent republic and an underlying kindness and loving regard for those around her. Ekaterina most eloquently summed up the belief of the new republic – these are the ancestral lands of the actual residents, not some bargaining chip in a larger geopolitical conflict, or “subject” for Kiev domination. This is admittedly hard for the average American to understand given our very transient nature.

I quite accidentally ended up in Donetsk for their “Republic Day” – their 4^th of July. As Ekaterina’s guest, I was invited, without any control or oversight whatsoever, to watch, film, and ultimately join in a massive, celebratory parade of literally tens of thousands representing all aspects of life and all regions of the DNR. Western media will be disappointed to learn there were no machine gun-toting, heavily- armed Russian occupation forces forcing people to participate. In fact, beyond the day of the parade, contrary to Kiev’s “little boy who cried wolf” shrieks of massive Russian invasions, there were no signs of any regular army Russian presence to be seen anywhere.

The Free Donbass Movement – the group Ekaterina belongs to – at the Parade on Independence Day in Donetsk, May 11 2017

For my gullible fellow Americans who might say “they simply hid them from you”, I would simply ask how hides – according to Kiev – 10s of thousands of troops, vast support infrastructure, and heavy weaponry from prying satellite “eyes”, not to mention smart phones in an area the size of Connecticut. The only conclusions one can draw are either there is in fact no Russian dominance (the simplest and most accurate assessment), the Russians have invented startling new “stealth” technology for tanks and troops, or, assuming some Russian presence, the locals are truly grateful for the support and defense it provides. None of which are good for the West…

As I studied local maps, walked and rode public transport (3 rubles…about $.05), street names and numerous monuments spoke further not only of the majority Russian-heritage population whose ancestors lived here for centuries (in 1922, the fledgling Ukrainian Republic grew by 25% in size after Lenin “ceded” it the larger Russian “Novorossiya” – including all of the Donbass, Kharkov, and Odessa), but one which still honors and reveres those who gave their lives to defeat fascism. As is happening throughout the rest of the Ukraine, were Kiev able to somehow regain control, Russian-oriented names of streets would certainly be changed, and any and all monuments would be toppled – especially those relating to the Soviet victory over Hitler. In other words, Kiev’s so-called “decommunization” is clearly “derussification – a sad, largely unreported 21^st century ethnic cleansing.

A Soviet WWII monument in Donetsk – proof of the Russian engagement – against Hitler

Since I was “self-funded”, I had to choose a more “thrifty” hotel than the superior “Donetsk Palace”. When I happened upon the hotel and went in, I found not simply a palace, but Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) observer living quarters. Hard to blame these brave folks for preferring staying put in their rooms vs. doing their job of exposing the ongoing Kiev shelling of civilian targets.

While avoiding front-lines, I nonetheless hopped on a streetcar out to the main rail station shut down by Kiev shelling early on in the war –  quite close to areas currently being shelled. As the car slowly but surely wound its way to the station, I looked around with apprehension, expecting riders to get off well before. Instead, I found folks of my own (mature) age traveling to the very end. After wandering around the now abandoned station and nearby modern shopping complex – still showing signs of shelling— I headed over to what initially appeared to be several smaller kiosks. I was shocked, however, to find these were simply the “front lines” of a huge market with all manner of goods and quite appetizing-looking locally grown produce. When I asked various vendors if they were not afraid to be this close to the front, the very typical Russian stoic nature emerged – “life goes on”, with a wistful, sad sigh of “of course, we wish they (Kiev) would leave us to live in peace and quiet.”

Still at war – no guns, and beware unexploded munitions notice at the gates of a local store in Donetsk

In summary, were the West to send unbiased, knowledgeable correspondents to the DNR, they would indeed find not Russian “occupation” and “aggression”, but Russian-heritage people determined to move ahead to a future based not on hatred and rejection of their Ukrainian “Slavic brothers”, but on positive, life-affirming values such as liberty, justice, and self-determination. Given that the US started off this way centuries ago, it is tragically ironic that today it supports Kiev-regimes efforts to rid itself of “undesirable” Russians.

Stephen Ebert is the American political analyst writing for Russian media.

All images in this article are from the author.

It took little time for political leaders in the European Union to start dangling the carrot in front of a wounded British Prime Minister. Theresa May’s defeated victory in the British general elections had barely sunk it, and the comments, even invitations, were being issued by various European leaders.

This all lies in the interpretation of the British election result. German and French politicians have been spinning it as a vote of scepticism and reserve regarding Brexit. Could it be that the British are getting cold feet, wishing to stay put in the EU?

The French President, Emmanuel Macron, insisted that the door to Europe remained open for Britain should the May government wobble and change course.

“Of course the door remains open, always open until the Brexit negotiations come to an end.”

Similar views were also uttered by German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble, never much of a fan of the democratic vote in matters of finance.

“The British Government has said we will stay with the Brexit. We take the decision as a matter of respect. But if they wanted to change their decision, of course, they would find open doors.”[1]

Neither men have mentioned the stringent outlines set by the European Parliament in a resolution passed earlier this year that effectively shuts the door on an easy revocation of the exit process. The Article 50 notification outlining the intent to withdraw from the EU can only be withdrawn with the full consent of EU members. “A revocation of notification needs to be subject to conditions set out by all EU-27.”[2]

Such a stifling measure was premised on one thing: preventing Britain from revocation only to then resubmit to buy more time to gain a more advantageous position. The revocation of Article 50, as the language of the resolution goes, “cannot be used as a procedural device or abused in an attempt to improve on the current terms of the United Kingdom’s membership.”

The softened sentiment towards Britain has not been voiced by those at the coal face of negotiations eager to get things underway. A sense of dislocation is being felt. Brexit is “nowhere”, a purgatorial place of no specific location for one simple reason: talks haven’t even begun. Nor have there been talks about talks, a sort of endless gurgling chatter that merely passes time.

Arbitrarily designated as a deadline, March 2019 will mark the end point when an agreement must be reached. Flexibility and elasticity, far from being seen as attributes of merit, are deemed matters of vice.

Belgian MEP Guy Verhofstadt, ever the European monomaniac for the EU project, disliked the crippling uncertainty.

“I should welcome a position from the UK. Do they confirm their position from the 29 March letter? Or will they change it?” (Verhofstadt has been a constant figure of angst amongst those on the British side in this debate, with David Davis, the UK Brexit minister, claiming that he would be “peripheral” in negotiations.)

There has been a three month delay since May unleashed the machine of withdrawal in her Article 50 letter. Michel Barnier, the EU’s designated chief Brexit negotiator, has been attempting to calm members in the European Parliament jittery at the prospects of an unravelling edifice. That reassurance has been simple: point the finger at May for having initiated an election to begin with.[3]

Barnier was more diplomatic to the press, taking a conciliatory tone:

“My role is not to make any comment on the political life in member states.”

He had no desire to “make a case against Theresa May.” As it is, the first formal discussion (a so-called sit-down) about Brexit talks, as such, will take place on June 22, though it may simply amount to another round of talks about talks.

In the meantime, a revived, resuscitated Jeremy Corbyn of Labour has promised a campaign of conversion and conviction in roughly 65 conservative marginal seats. His anticipation is simple: a possible fall of the Tory minority government. (The election last Thursday delivered some striking figures in that regard, leaving the home minister, Amber Rudd, with a majority of 346 in Hastings and Rye.)

According to The Guardian, a swing of a mere 1.63 percent would render the Labour party the largest in the Commons, a situation that would necessitate the need for another, rather different minority government.

Europe, however, will remain the big test. Corbyn’s own reservations against the EU may well have flown in the face of the opinions of various youth voters keen to see him in Downing Street. While the form Brexit will take will vary in character, the essence of it from the perspective of EU planners is that it preferably not take place at all. Yet again, a test of popular sovereignty will be had.

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

Notes

[2] http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/experts-believe-exit-from-brexit-would-be-legally-possible-a-1142055.html

[3] http://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-barnier-tries-to-reassure-meps-worried-about-brexit/

Featured image: credits to the owner

In an all too familiar pattern, militants proclaiming ties to the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) have once again found themselves aiding US foreign policy, this time in the Philippines where the Philippine government has been increasingly seeking closer ties with Beijing at the expense of Washington’s longstanding influence in the Southeast Asian state.

Militants have conducted a large scale military operation seizing parts of the southern Philippine city of Marawi where they have carried out a variety of atrocities and hoisted ISIS flags. Located on the southern island of Mindanao, the city is only slightly removed from Al Qaeda affiliate Abu Sayaff’s primary area of operation on nearby Jolo and Basilan islands.

Abu Sayaff and other regional affiliates have received much of their funding and support from one of America’s oldest and closest Mideast allies, Saudi Arabia with whom the US has just recently sealed another unprecedented arms deal.

It is now reported that the US military is aiding Philippine troops in attempts to retake the city, highlighting just how ISIS has been used as a pretext to justify Washington’s continued influence in the nation – and particularly – the presence of US military forces in Southeast Asia.

AFP would report in an article titled, “US troops on the ground in war-ravaged Philippine city: military,” that:

US troops are on the ground helping local soldiers battle Islamist militants in a Philippine city, a Filipino military spokesman said Wednesday, giving the most detailed account of their role.

The small number of US soldiers are providing vital surveillance assistance and, although they do not have a combat role, are allowed to open fire on the militants if attacked first, spokesman Brigadier-General Restituto Padilla said.

AFP also noted that:

The issue of US troops in the Philippines has become extremely sensitive since Rodrigo Duterte became president last year and sought to downgrade his nation’s military alliance with the United States in favour of China.

However, the fact that the militants are funded and supported by US ally Saudi Arabia, and that the Islamic State itself was admittedly a creation of US and Persian Gulf interests, their sudden and spectacular appearance in the Philippines just as US-Philippine ties were at their lowest and impetus to finally remove America’s presence from the nation at its highest, indicate that the recent mayhem is more than convenient coincidence.

US Foreign Policy: Breaking Windows By Night, Repairing Them (For a Price) By Day 

Dwindling geopolitical leverage in Asia Pacific has caused the United States to seek a variety of conflicts to serve as pretexts for its continued presence in the region. This includes tensions in the South China Sea where the US has sought to line up nations against China to challenge Beijing’s claims over territory and islands there.

One of those nations – in fact – included the Philippines which sidelined an elaborate US-led legal charade over China’s claims in the South China Sea in favor of bilateral talks with Beijing directly – excluding the US.

The US has also actively provoked conflict on the Korean Peninsula, threatening North Korea’s government with a potential first strike aimed at “decapitating” its civilian and military leadership. Such meddling and the predictable tensions that result have ensured America’s continued military presence in South Korea as well as years of lucrative defense contracts.

And while Washington’s use of ISIS in the Philippines is the most recent example of how terrorism is being used to justify America’s military presence in the region, it certainly isn’t the first. Militancy in Thailand’s south has been repeatedly used as a pretext for Washington to seek closer ties to Bangkok – ties Bangkok has repeatedly rejected in favor of more diverse military cooperation and acquisitions from China, Russia, Europe, and its own growing domestic industry.

Beyond Asia, the US has used terrorism – including use of ISIS specifically – to justify its military presence everywhere from Libya to Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan.

It was in a leaked 2012 US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) memo that it was revealed the US and its allies sought the creation of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria for the specific purpose of “isolating” the Syrian government.

The 2012 memo (PDF) would state specifically that:

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran). 

The DIA memo would also explain who these “supporting powers” are:

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

Despite Washington’s claims of fighting ISIS in Syria, it wasn’t until Russia’s military intervention in 2015 that saw the terrorist organization’s supply lines from Turkey ravaged and its territory and fighting capacity rolled back.
Prolonging ISIS’ existence is the continued support it receives from America’s closest allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Jordan, and Israel. The US itself has on multiple occasions now directly attacked Syrian forces engaged in combat against ISIS.

Most recently, the US has deployed long-range artillery in southern Syria specifically to target Syrian forces that have overwhelmed ISIS on the Syrian-Iraqi border and threaten to jeopardize Saudi-Jordanian supply lines that have fed the terror organization’s presence in Syria for years.

Considering this, ISIS’ “sudden” appearance in the Philippines, just in time to justify Washington’s otherwise unjustified and unwanted presence and influence in the nation is more than mere coincidence – it is another example of the United States creating crises in order to provide “solutions” that predictably include its continued existence as a regional hegemon.

Not unlike a crooked window repair service that breaks windows at night and repairs them for a price by day, the US is sowing tensions, conflict, murder, and mayhem, then posing as the solution – for a steep geopolitical price.

For nations like the Philippines, turning to its regional neighbors, China, and Russia who have more honest interests in defeating US-sponsored terrorism also targeting them respectively, is the only way to genuinely address immediate security issues and ensure longer-term peace and prosperity. America’s presence in the Philippines and its role in extinguishing geopolitical fires it itself lit only guarantees the Philippines a protracted and costly existence as a proxy and pawn amid America’s Asia Pacific ambitions.

All images in this article are from the author.