Global Research

Riddled with hypocrisy, clichés and absurdities, President Donald Trump’s speech Sunday before an assembly of monarchs and despots in Saudi Arabia spelled out an agenda of escalating US militarism throughout the Middle East and a buildup in particular toward war with Iran.

Hailed by a fawning American media as “presidential”–supposedly eclipsing for the moment the crises and factional struggles engulfing the administration–the speech was reportedly drafted by Stephen Miller, the extreme right-wing ideologue credited with being the chief architect of Trump’s abortive executive order banning people from seven predominantly Muslim nations from entering the US.

Much in Trump’s half-hour address echoed the speech delivered by Barack Obama in Cairo eight years earlier. Both presidents declared their desire to reset US relations with the Middle East, while absurdly posturing as leaders of a pacifist nation seeking only good for the region and offering to head up a united struggle against “violent extremism.”

In what was meant as a rhetorical invocation to action against terrorism, Trump told his audience,

“Drive them out. Drive them out of your places of worship. Drive them out of your communities. Drive them out of your holy land. And drive them out of this earth.”

Like Obama before him, Trump had no interest in dealing with who brought Al Qaeda and similar forces in, as the historical trail leads directly to the CIA in Afghanistan and US imperialism’s longstanding support for right-wing Islamist organizations and terrorist groups as a counterweight to left nationalist and socialist influence in the Arab and Islamic world. Jointly, the US and Saudi Arabia continue to fund and arm such forces in their drive for regime-change in Syria.

Both speeches were laced with flowery tributes to Islamic culture. Trump noted in particular how impressed he was with the “splendor” of Saudi Arabia and the “grandeur” of the palace in which the so-called Arab Islamic American Summit had been convened.

What separated the two addresses were the different shifts in strategy by Washington. While Obama sought to repair the damage done by the Bush administration’s criminal war in Iraq by offering a new face for US imperialism, Trump traveled to Saudi Arabia to make clear his administration’s break with his predecessor’s policy of seeking a rapprochement with Iran based on the 2015 nuclear deal. He adopted an openly confrontational stance toward Tehran.

“Above all, America seeks peace–not war,” Trump proclaimed, in what stood out as the most blatant of the many lies in his brief address.

US Navy

The reality is that US wars in the region have killed millions over the past decade-and-a-half. And the thrust of the US president’s visit to Saudi Arabia, his first stop in a nine-day foreign tour, is the preparation for new and even bloodier conflicts.

This was made plain by the principal agreements forged between Trump and the Saudi monarchy, which included a $110 billion arms deal that incorporates the option to purchase $350 billion worth of weapons over the next 10 years.

The arms agreement “supports the long-term security of Saudi Arabia and the entire Gulf region,” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former ExxonMobil CEO, told reporters in Riyadh, “in particular in the face of the malign Iranian influence and Iranian-related threats which exist on Saudi Arabia’s borders on all sides.”

In his speech, Trump painted Iran as the principal state sponsor of terrorism, accusing Tehran of providing terrorists with “safe harbor, financial backing, and the social standing needed for recruitment,” and fueling “the fires of sectarian conflict and terror,” all charges that could be leveled, with justification, against his Saudi hosts.

He portrayed the US cruise missile attack on Syria last month–followed just last week by the US bombing of a pro-government militia in the southeastern part of the country–as part of a wider struggle against Iranian influence. He went on to call upon “all nations of conscience” to “isolate Iran, deny it funding for terrorism and pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just and righteous government they deserve.” That he was speaking in Saudi Arabia, a brutally repressive absolute monarchy, just two days after more than 70 percent of Iranian voters participated in a sharply contested election, did nothing to blunt Trump’s call for regime-change.

He specifically praised Saudi Arabia and its allies for having “taken strong action against Houthi militants in Yemen.” The near-genocidal Saudi war has killed some 12,000 Yemenis, while destroying basic infrastructure in the Arab world’s poorest country, leaving over 7 million people on the brink of starvation and unleashing a cholera epidemic that threatens a massive death toll.

In March, US Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis issued a memo calling for stepped-up US support for this criminal war, in which the Pentagon is already supplying intelligence and logistical backing to the Saudi bombing campaign.

Part of the weapons deal signed by Trump involves the shipment of precision-guided munitions that had been cut off in a highly limited gesture of disapproval of Saudi tactics in Yemen by the Obama administration, which itself concluded over $100 billion worth of weapons deals with Riyadh. Also included in the new deal are tanks, artillery, helicopters and other weaponry that can be directly funneled into the slaughter in Yemen.

In addition to his speech and the signing of arms and investment deals, Trump participated in a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Saudi-led coalition of Gulf oil sheikdoms. Trump administration officials have raised the objective of using the GCC as the foundation of a Sunni Arab version of NATO directed at military confrontation with Iran.

Beyond the drive to militarily confront Iran, a principal regional rival of US imperialism in the Middle East, and the huge profits that Saudi arms purchases reap for the US military industrial complex, there are broader strategic considerations in the US turn toward a closer alliance with Riyadh.

Some of these issues were outlined on the eve of Trump’s trip in a piece published by the influential Washington think tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies and authored by Anthony Cordesman, a longtime Pentagon adviser. First among them is, according to Cordesman, “the continued level of US dependence on Saudi help in securing the stable flow of Gulf oil.”

While US imports from the Gulf have fallen sharply over the past quarter-century, Cordesman cites “indirect dependence” in terms of the impact a disruption in oil exports would have on global energy prices and the world capitalist economy. In particular, he points to the dependence of Asian economies on Gulf petroleum exports.

If the United States failed in “providing power projection forces and arms” to the region, he writes, its principal global rival, China, might fill the void.

“China may not yet be ready to try to assume the role, but the entire South China Sea crisis would pale to near insignificance if China became the de facto guarantor of Gulf stability.”

Cordesman continues:

“The real-world nature of US influence and power in the Pacific would be cut massively, China’s leverage over other major Asian economies like Japan and South Korea would be sharply increased, and the potential rise in tension between China and India–and cut in India’s relative position–would have a massive impact on the balance of power in South Asia and the Indian Ocean.”

In other words, the turn toward closer relations with Saudi Arabia and the related Gulf oil sheikdoms is bound up with US imperialism’s mounting conflict with China, which it has identified as the principal challenge to the drive for American global hegemony. Washington is determined to dominate Asia, including China, by maintaining the military power to choke off the region’s energy imports.

The fact that the sclerotic House of Saud, one of the world’s last absolute monarchies, has become a lynchpin of Washington’s imperialist strategy, not only in the Middle East but globally, is a measure of the crisis of American and world capitalism.

Oil revenues, which account for fully 90 percent of the kingdom’s export earnings, have been cut nearly in half since 2014. Last month, the government was forced to reverse itself on austerity measures that hit the military and public employees over fear that declining living standards and rising unemployment are creating the conditions for social revolt.

In the predominantly Shia Eastern Province, the center of the kingdom’s oil production, security forces laid siege to the town of Awamiyah, a center of resistance to the regime, during the week preceding Trump’s visit. Combined with the failure of the Saudi bid to topple the Assad regime in Syria by supporting Al Qaeda-linked militias and the regime’s inability to retake Yemen from the Houthi rebels, the deepening domestic crisis is creating the conditions for revolutionary upheavals against Washington’s principal ally in the Arab world.

On Saturday, May 20th, U.S. President Donald Trump and the Saud family inked an all-time record-high $350 billion ten-year arms-deal that not only will cement-in the Saud family’s position as the world’s largest foreign purchasers of U.S.-produced weaponry, but will make the Saud family, and America’s ruling families, become, in effect, one aristocracy over both nations, because neither side will be able to violate the will of the other. As the years roll on, their mutual dependency will deepen, each and every year.

Sixteen years after the Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud (who was nicknamed “Bandar Bush” for his intimacy with the Bush family) served in Washington as Saudi Arabia’s U.S. Ambassador and he and his wife personally paid tens of thousands of dollars to the Sauds’ minders who paid for the apartments and for the pilot-training of 9/11 jihadists, and the U.S. government hid this fact from the U.S. public for fifteen years until it was made public but suppressed by the U.S. press so that Americans still don’t know about it, the U.S. and Saudi aristocracies are now becoming bound together even more strongly than before, because of this record-shattering deal that Trump’s team negotiated with the Sauds.

The U.S. government officially blames Iran for the 9/11 attacks and has fined Iran $10.5 billion for those attacks. The Sauds hate Iran and claim that Iran poses an “existential threat” to them. These new weapons will, the Sauds claim, “protect” them from Iran. Right after Trump won the 2016 election, he staffed the top level of his incoming Administration with people who consider Iran to be the main source of terrorism. In a 5 February 2017 Super Bowl television interview, Trump was asked what his policies would be regarding Iran, and he answered (video here, transcript here):

“They have total disregard for our country. They are the number one terrorist state.”

But he provided no specifics. This ‘defense’ deal is a big specific part of the answer, to that question. The U.S. will now be even more tightly allied with the Sauds (the world’s wealthiest family) than was previously the case.

According to a report in the New York Times on May 18th, President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner participated importantly in these negotiations, when he spoke by phone with the CEO of the biggest American weapons-maker, Lockheed Martin, to request her to discount a crucial radar-system, so that the deal could be accepted by Saudi Prince Muhammed bin Salman al-Saud, and she said yes, which was necessary in order for the entire $350 billion package to be accepted. Unreported, however, about this matter, was whether any concession was made by the Trump Administration to Lockheed Martin, in order to be able to win from them this crucial discount. Whether any such verbal commitments were made, might never become publicly known, but this is the way that deals are made.

The intensifying U.S.-jihadist alliance will be bad news for the governments that have been fighting consistently against jihadists (who are supported by the Sauds), such as Russia in Chechnya and Syria. The Saudi regime will now be able to stand behind the U.S.-backed Al-Qaeda-led forces in Syria that are fighting to overthrow and replace Syria’s existing government, which is backed by Russia.

As I had headlined on May 16th about this gargantuan trade-deal that had already been negotiated but was to be withheld from official announcement until President Trump would meet with Prince Salman on May 20th to sign it, “Trump’s Plan Finally Becomes Clear”, and this plan really is the center-piece for fulfilling Trump’s campaign-promise to restore American manufacturing. Thousands of new American workers will need to be hired in order to make the weapons that will be used to further destroy Syria, Yemen, and other countries where the public resist becoming ruled by fundamentalist Sunnis and Sharia law, such as the Saud family prefers. Russian Television (RT) has reported extensively about this, and on May 19th even reported bombings by the Sauds’ regime against a Shia town inside Saudi Arabia itself, headlining “‘You might get shot any time’: Saudi forces raid Shia town as Riyadh welcomes Trump”. Video was shown there of buildings that had been wrecked by the Sauds’ bombings and mortars. ‘News’media in U.S. and allied countries are not reporting anything of this. The Washington Post (in line with U.S. ’news’media generally) says that Russian Television is not to be trusted because RT provides ‘fake news’. As regards those bombings, perhaps the U.S. government’s view is that no news is good news. Reporting on this would certainly not be good for business — not in the United States, anyway.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Footage emerged on Saturday of Iraqi pro-government fighters using anti-aircraft weaponry to shoot at US coalition jets near the Al-Tanf border crossing in eastern Homs.

The amateur video was published by a fighter of the Badr Movement, an Iraqi contingent which operates alongside the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP), 313 Forces (Syrian militia), Hezbollah (Lebanese paramilitary), Harakat al-Abdal (Iraqi paramilitary), Kata’ib al-Imam Ali (Iraqi paramilitary), Kata’ib Hezbollah (Iraqi paramilitary) along the Damascus-Baghdad highway.

Watch the video here

The Shi’ite fighters from Iraq have controversially been bombed by the US Air Force on two separate occasions; this is explained by their blitz offensive targeted an area controlled by US vetted rebels.

In the weeks to come, the SAA – heavily assisted by foreign fighters – hopes to capture the Al-Tanf border crossing. If succesful, land trade between Damascus and Baghdad will resume for the first time in years.

With more reinforcements arriving on the M2 highway frontier, pro-government forces have now advanced within 30 kilometers of the Al-Tanf border crossing.

Meanwhile, a unit of Norwegian special forces entered the Al-Tanf region to reinforce US and British troops. However, with the SAA and Iraqi volunteers fixated on retaking the border, coalition forces may be forced to abort mission.

Featured image: Al Masdar News

On Al Nakba Day of all days, the Israeli Navy killed another Palestinian fisherman, Muhammad Majid Bakr. The second in this year alone. The Israeli Navy claims Bakr’s fishing trawler responded neither to their calls, nor warning shots, after deviating “from the designated fishing zone in the northern Gaza Strip.”

The boundaries of the fishing zone off Gaza are arbitrarily determined by Israel and enforced by its Navy. These boundaries follow neither international law (12 nautical miles (nm); 22.2 km; 13.8 mi), nor the Oslo Accords that Israel signed (20 nm; 37.0 km; 23.0 mi).  “In the years before 2006, fishermen could go out 10 nm to 12 nm, but from 2006 until 2012 the zone was limited to 3 nm.” In 2012, Israel agreed to increase the zone to 6 nm, but later cut it back. The cease-fire agreement to the 2014 assault on Gaza restored the 6 nm zone.  Since then the zone’s boundaries have changed too.  he difference between 6 nm and 9 nm is significant.  Within the 6 nm zone, the fishing areas are sandy and not conducive to larger fish. The best fishing is found in rocky areas which extend into the 9 nm area.

Since Israel follows neither the international boundaries of territorial waters, nor the boundaries that it agreed to at Oslo, Israel’s Navy is imposing an illegal blockade. This is an act of war. Further, even if the blockade was legal, to fire upon and kill unarmed civilians that pose no threat is a war crime.

This was not the only incident of the day. “In the hours before Bakr was slain, Israeli forces detained six Palestinian fishermen and confiscated two boats.” This is another violation of international law – piracy. As the Electronic Intifada reports,

“the Palestinian Center for Human Rights recorded 126 incidents in which fishing vessels were fired on by Israel [in 2016], and 130 arrests of Palestinians aboard fishing vessels during that period.”

Clearly Israel’s naval blockade, its attacks upon civilians and its piracy are not one-off incidents. They are the implementation of Israeli policy to oppress, injure and kill Gaza’s fishermen.

These unarmed fishermen, who are trying to earn a living to feed their families, and feed the people of Gaza, have no idea when the Israeli Navy will attack. The arbitrary patrols of the Israeli Navy do not even respect their own boundaries at times. Meanwhile the fishermen of Gaza have no recourse against such overwhelming military force and the willingness to use it lethally. Thus the fishermen of Gaza are often deprived of going to the more abundant fishing areas. The resulting lower yielding catches deprive Gaza of much needed food for the 2 million people living in their open air prison created by Israel. Therefore Israel’s implementation of its naval blockade results in yet another war crime – collective punishment against a civilian population.

There is also the specter of Israel’s designs on natural gas fields off the coast of Gaza. Under the Oslo Accords, Gaza was supposed to have control of the territorial waters where natural gas was later found. In 2000, the Palestinians signed “a modest contract to develop . . . confirmed fields” with British Gas (BG). It was at this point that “Prime Minister Ehud Barak [implemented] Israel’s naval control of Gazan coastal waters and nixed the deal with BG.” Israel unlawfully blocked Gaza’s ability to develop its own natural gas field and the associated economic opportunity that went with it. Since Gaza would have benefited from the supply of natural gas, this also constituted another act of collective punishment.  Further, Israel tried to develop natural gas fields in disputed water itself.

Fishermen ride their boat into the waters of the Mediterranean Sea near Gaza City, April 6, 2017. (Source: AP/Adel Hana)

Perhaps most pernicious about these attacks is that they are completely unnecessary. The Gazan boats attacked are typically small, wooden fishing trawlers as shown in the picture above. The Israelis are employing modern, heavily armed and armored naval vessels. There is no physical threat from the trawlers and therefore no need for the Israeli Navy to apply any kind of force, let alone lethal force.

How is it then that the Western Media will report the firing of a defiant, homemade rocket with an insignificant payload, if any, that harms no one, but won’t report persistent Israeli attacks and the murder of unarmed fishermen on the seas off Gaza? The former is the act of a desperate people under a complete siege by Israel. That siege itself is an act of war. The assault on fishermen constitute regular, deliberate and unprovoked attack on civilians from Gaza.

Israel’s routine provocations in Gaza extend far beyond the fishing zone and attacking fishermen. Israeli provocations include:

* shelling by tanks, artillery and naval batteries,

* military border incursions with tanks and heavy equipment,

* bulldozing of fields inside Gaza’s border,

* spraying pesticides on Palestinian crops,

* flooding Palestinian crops,

* shooting unarmed farmers from border walls because they may enter a 300 m perimeter within Gaza,

* restricting Gaza’s main export of produce,

* restricting the import of necessary building supplies and other goods,

* leaving 65,000 people still displaced from the 2014 massacre, and

* using live ammunition against unarmed protestors.

All of this is of course in addition to the complete siege entering its second decade and periodic massacres such as those in 2008-9, 2012 and 2014.

So while the West remains silent, are we really surprised at the rockets of defiance? President Obama famously said the Israeli talking point in 2014, “no country would tolerate rockets being launched into their cities.” He made similar statements prior to that too. This begs the question though, which countries would tolerate these all too frequent Israeli provocations that President Obama failed to acknowledge.

Last worth noting is that since the attacks upon Mr. Bakr and his fellow fishermen targeted civilians, isn’t that a textbook example of terrorism?

Ian Berman is an entrepreneur and former corporate banker at leading global banks in New York City.  He now focuses on renewable energy, financial advisory services and writing about representative government, equitable public policies and ending American militarism and Israel’s continuing colonization of Palestine.  He is the Co-Founder of Palestine 365, the Ongoing Oppression and its predecessor, Palestine 365, on Facebook.

Featured image: EPA/ALI ALI/VIN

On Saturday, Iraqi military commander Shakir Abid said a unit of Norwegian special forces had been allowed to enter Syria through the Al-Waleed border crossing in western Anbar.

The Norwegian unit arrived at the Al-Tanf region on the Syrian side of the border, home to US-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) that have become the target of an ongoing offensive by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) along the Damascus-Baghdad highway.

The Iraqi Army, Iraqi border guards and Iraqi Federal Police notably provided the Norwegian contingent safe passage to link up with US and British forces already deployed inside eastern Homs, despite vocal objections by the government in Damascus.

Shakir Abid also said the Islamic State was present 50 kilometers north of the border crossing area and that fighting continued in that desert region.

According to Washington, US-led coalition forces have been active in the Al-Tanf border region for months alongside vetted FSA fighters originally from Deir Ezzor province.

With the SAA and paramilitary contingents advancing ever closer to the Al-Tanf border crossing as we speak, the United States Air Force has responded with force on two occasions.

Featured image: Al Masdar News

The Canadian shipments of nuclear waste to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site are currently underway. Without effect, the Anishinabek Nation and Iroquois Caucus have asked the Canadian Government to forego transporting the hazardous materials, and to downgrade the nuclear waste at home in Chalk River. This was also suggested by Savannah River Site Watch in South Carolina to spare from the chance of irradiation of people, land, rivers and water between the two sites.

With Department of Energy permission (sic) Indonesia is able to downgrade its nuclear waste at home. An environmental coalition of Savannah River Site Watch, the Sierra Club, Beyond Nuclear, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Lone Tree Council, Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination, Environmentalists Inc., has tried unsuccessfully to stop the transport through court action. American courts remain unable to protect the people from the risks of nuclear energy. Joining the American groups in requests to government were the Canadian groups of Sierra Club Canada Foundation, National Council of Women of Canada, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Durham Nuclear Awareness, whose combined efforts proved equally ineffective.

The transport of the 23,000 litres scheduled is considered hazardous due to the distance, through populated areas, and possibly faulty lead “pigs” (containers). In the first batch delivered to the Savannah River Plant this April a “hot spot” was found in the side of a container. Supposedly the site has facilities to re-process highly enriched uranium. Yet it is also said that the State has no way to dispose of the plutonium waste already on hand at the site, modestly estimated at 13 tons in 2016 (Unofficial estimates of plutonium at SRS run as high as 30 tons). In March 2016 there was public resistance to the shipment of 331Kg of weapons grade plutonium waste from Japan to the Savannah River Site. In 2014 Nights Lantern noted the report of agreement between the German nuclear industry and U.S. Department of Energy to store German nuclear waste. See also “Nuclear Notes: the Savannah River Watershed”.

Historical note: as South Carolina becomes an irrecoverable holding area and dumping ground for nuclear waste, scarred since the 1950’s by radiation from uranium processing, overburdening the Savannah River Site is likely to further endanger the habitat of Georgia and South Carolina. Families of all races are victim. Both white and Black Racism and the hatreds of historically separated groups work against the South cohering in a unified resistance. Actions such as the Georgia Prison Strike or the Free Alabama Movement suggest there is unity when the oppression becomes terminal. The region’s people need to be informed. Background.

Partial sources online:

“South Carolina governor urges U.S. to divert plutonium from Japan,” Aaron Sheldrick & Megan Cassella, Mar 24, 2016, Reuters;

“Highly Radioactive Liquid Shipments Have Begun – But Can Still be Stopped,” Gordon Edwards, May 14 2017, Eaglewatch;

“2016/03/18 NGO Joint Statement Against Secret Plutonium Shipment in Tokai-mura,” March 18, 2016, Greenpeace;

“First shipment of radioactive liquid waste from Canada received at Savannah River, hotspot detected,” Virginia Daffron, May 15, 2017, Mountain Xpress;

“Liquid Nuclear Waste Convoys A Threat to the Waters of the Great Lakes,” Press release, Oct. 3, 2016, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.

Featured image: Mic Smith/postandcourier.com

Is NATO in a tailspin or is Trump going to rejuvenate it in Afghanistan? US generals believe a summer war with the Taliban is just what he needs. But who will call the shots?

These days there is no strategy to win any war. The US generals in NATO are just talking about making sure that the Americans don’t lose any more ground. There is no macho game plan with any bold title. The current initiative is entirely illogical, as now the Taliban have so much control, and the current 13,000 ISAF coalition has only proportioned something like 2,000 to actually fight the group – the rest are there training the Afghanis. Despite one small victory in Kunduz province against the Taliban, in reality, it is taking longer than anyone could have imagined. Afghanistan is the fourth most corrupt country in the world and graft plays a huge role in Taliban gains.

Trump’s generals have also got the numbers wrong and can’t be planning a major turn around but small, bite-sized victories. They are in a hurry because the weather has changed and the fighting season has started. But their furor has clouded their judgment.

An extra 15,000 over the entire country might make some small waves (if these are all fighting), but it will, in the long run, only fan the flames of the insurgency and give the Taliban the oxygen it needs to fight to the end. To make things even more complicated, not only would US forces have to fight against much higher numbers of Taliban, but now ISIL and Al-Qaeda are also there as well. Although ideologically array, these three groups will inevitably form an unwritten pact to pool their resources against American soldiers.

Expect US body bags, more US journalists using ‘graveyard of empire’ in their copy and endless references to Tom Hanks in the ‘Charlie Wilson’ Hollywood movie. It’s going to be a hot summer.

Martin Jay is an award winning British journalist now based in Beirut who works on a freelance basis for a number of respected British newspapers as well as previously Al Jazeera and Deutsche Welle TV. Before Lebanon, he has worked in Africa and Europe for CNN, Euronews, CNBC, BBC, Sunday Times and Reuters. Follow him on Twitter @MartinRJay.

Featured image: Abdul Malik / Reuters

US President Donald Trump has directly accused Iran in supporting terrorists and spreading instability in the Middle East during his speech at the Arab Islamic American Summit in Saudi Arabia.

But no discussion of stamping out this threat would be complete without mentioning the government that gives terrorists all three—safe harbor, financial backing, and the social standing needed for recruitment. It is a regime that is responsible for so much instability in the region. I am speaking of course of Iran.

From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds, arms, and trains terrorists, militias, and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region. For decades, Iran has fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror.

It is a government that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing the destruction of Israel, death to America, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this room.

Among Iran’s most tragic and destabilizing interventions have been in Syria. Bolstered by Iran, Assad has committed unspeakable crimes, and the United States has taken firm action in response to the use of banned chemical weapons by the Assad Regime—launching 59 tomahawk missiles at the Syrian air base from where that murderous attack originated.

Responsible nations must work together to end the humanitarian crisis in Syria, eradicate ISIS, and restore stability to the region. The Iranian regime’s longest-suffering victims are its own people. Iran has a rich history and culture, but the people of Iran have endured hardship and despair under their leaders’ reckless pursuit of conflict and terror.

Until the Iranian regime is willing to be a partner for peace, all nations of conscience must work together to isolate Iran, deny it funding for terrorism, and pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just and righteous government they deserve. 

Some people see a controversy in Trump’s claims.

Trump support of Saudi Arabia-a brutal theocracy & biggest sponsor of terrorism & the Wahhabi Salafi ideology fueling it-is a HUGE betrayal

— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) May 21, 2017

Pics from a Saudi “counter-terrorism” center could be seen below. One of the center’s tasks is to combat the so-called online extremism. Considering that a big monitor behind Trump allows to see a video and a pic with Syrian government forces operating in the Palmyra countryside (most likely) and in a desert area east of Suweida, it’s easy to suggest what kind of “counter-terrorism” actions the Saudi center conducts.

Featured image: Jornal O Globo

High levels of radioactive cesium remain in the soil near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and these radionuclides have migrated at least 5 centimeters down into the ground at several areas since the nuclear accident five years ago, according to preliminary results of a massive sampling project being presented at the JpGU-AGU joint meeting in Chiba, Japan.

In 2016, a team of more than 170 researchers from the Japanese Geoscience Union and the Japan Society of Nuclear and Radiochemical Sciences conducted a large-scale soil sampling project to determine the contamination status and transition process of radioactive cesium five years after a major earthquake and tsunami caused a nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

The team collected soil samples at 105 locations up to 40 kilometers (25 miles) northwest of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in the “difficult-to-return” zone where entry is prohibited. The project seeks to understand the chemical and physical forms of radionuclides in the soil and their horizontal and vertical distribution.

The Japanese government has monitored the state of radioactive contamination in the area near the plant since the 2011 accident by measuring the air dose rate, but scientists can only determine the actual state of contamination in the soil and its chemical and physical forms by direct soil sampling, said Kazuyuki Kita, a professor at Ibaraki University in Japan, who is one of the leaders of the soil sampling effort.

Understanding the radionuclides’ chemical and physical forms helps scientists understand how long they could stay in the soil and the risk they pose to humans, plants and animals, Kita said. The new information could help in assessing the long-term risk of the radionuclides in the soil, and inform decontamination efforts in heavily contaminated areas, according to Kita, one of several researchers will present the team’s preliminary results at the JpGU-AGU joint meeting next week.

Preliminary results show high levels radioactive cesium are still present in the soil near the plant. The levels of radiation are more than 90 percent, on average, of what was found immediately following the accident, according to Kita.

Most of the radiocesium in the soil was found near the surface, down to about 2 centimeters, immediately following the 2011 accident. Five years later, at several sampling points, one-third to one-half of the radiocesium has migrated deeper into the soil, according to Kita. Preliminary results show the radiocesium moved about 0.3 centimeters per year, on average, deeper into the soil and soil samples show the radiocesium has penetrated at least 5 centimeters into the ground at several areas, according to Kita.

The team plans to analyze samples taken at greater depths to see if the radiocesium has migrated even further, he said.

“Most of the radioactive cesium remains after five years, but some parts of the radioactive cesium went from the surface to deeper soil,” he said.

Knowing how much radioactive contamination has stayed on the surface and how deep it has penetrated into the soil helps estimate the risk of the contaminants and determine how much soil should be removed for decontamination. The preliminary results suggest decontamination efforts should remove at least the top 6 to 8 centimeters of soil, Kita said.

The preliminary data also show there are insoluble particles with very high levels of radioactivity on the surface of the soil. Debris from the explosion fused with radiocesium to form small glass particles a few microns to 100 microns in diameter that remain on the ground, according to Kita. The team is currently trying to determine how many of these radiocesium glass particles exist in areas near the nuclear plant, he said.

“We are afraid that if such high radioactive balls remain on the surface, that could be a risk for the environment,” Kita said. “If the radioactivity goes deep into the soil, the risk for people in the area decreases but we are afraid the high radioactive balls remain on the surface.”

Nanci Bompey is the manager of AGU’s public information office. This research is being presented Thursday, May 25 at the JpGU-AGU joint meeting in Chiba, Japan. 

Featured image: Environmental ScienceBites

No country reflects the condition and fate of EMEs (Emerging Market Economies) better perhaps than Brazil. It’s both a major commodity and manufactured goods exporting EME. It’s also recently become a player in the oil commodity production ranks of EMEs. Its biggest trading partner is China, to which it sells commodities of all types—soybeans, iron ore, beef, oil and more. Its exports to China grew five-fold from 2002 to 2014. It is part of the five nation ‘BRICS’ group with significant south-south trading with South Africa, India, Russia, as well as China. It also trades in significant volume with Europe, as well as the US. It is an agricultural powerhouse, a resource and commodity producer of major global weight, and it receives large sums of money capital inflows from AEs.

In 2010, as the EMEs boomed, Brazil’s growth in GDP terms expanded at a 7.6% annual rate. It had a trade surplus of exports over imports of $20 billion. China may have been the source of much of Brazil’s demand, but US and EU central banks’ massive liquidity injections financed the investment and expansion of production that made possible Brazil’s increased output that it sold to China and other economies. It was China demand but US credit and Brazil debt-financed expansion as well. As in the case of virtually all the major EMEs, that began to shift around 2013-14. Both China demand began to slow and US-UK money inflows declined and began to reverse. In 2014 Brazil’s GDP had already declined to a mere 0.1%, compared to the average of 4% for the preceding four years.

In 2015 Brazil entered a recession, with GDP falling -0.7% in the first quarter and -1.9% in the second. The second half of 2015 will undoubtedly prove much worse, resulting in what the Brazilian press is already calling ‘the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s’.

Capital flight has been continuing through the first seven months of 2015, averaging $5-$6 billion a month in outflow from the country. In the second half of 2014 it was even higher. The slowing of the capital outflow has been the result of Brazil sharply raising its domestic interest rates—one of the few EMEs so far having taken that drastic action—in order to attract capital or prevent its fleeing. Brazilian domestic interest rates have risen to 14.25%, among the highest of the EMEs. That choice to give priority to attract foreign investment has come at a major price, however, thrusting Brazil’s economy quickly into a deep recession.

The choice did not stop the capital outflow, just slowed it. But it did bring Brazil’s economy to a virtual halt. The outcome is a clear warning to EMEs that solutions that target soliciting foreign money capital are likely to prove disastrous. The forces pulling money capital out of the EMEs are just too large in the current situation. The liquidity is going to flow back to the AEs and there’s no stopping it. Raising rates, as Brazil has, will only deliver a solution that’s worse than the problem.

Source: CNBC

Nor did that choice to raise rates to try to slow capital outflow stop the decline in Brazil’s currency, the Real, which has fallen 37% in the past year. The currency decline of that dimension should, in theory, stimulate a country’s exports. But it hasn’t, for the various reasons previously noted: in current conditions a currency decline’s positive effects on export growth is more than offset by other negative effects associated with currency volatility and capital flight.

What the Real’s freefall of 37% has done, however, is to sharply raise import goods inflation and the general inflation rate. Brazil’s inflation remained more or less steady in the 6%-6.5% range for much of 2013 and even fell to 5.9% in January 2015, but it has accelerated in 2015 to 9.6% at last estimate.

With nearly 10% inflation thus far in 2015 and with unemployment almost doubling, from a January 4.4% to 8.3% at latest estimate for July, Brazil has become mired in a swamp of stagflation—i.e. rising unemployment and rising inflation. With more than 500,000 workers laid off in just the first half of 2015, it is not surprising that social and political unrest has been rising fast in Brazil.

The near future may be even more unstable. Like many EMEs, Brazil during the boom period borrowed the liquidity offered by the AEs bankers and investors (made available by AE central banks to their bankers at virtually zero interest) to finance the expansion. That’s both government and private sector borrowing and thus debt. Brazil’s government debt as a percent of GDP surged in just 18 months from 53% to 63%. More important, private sector debt is now 70% of GDP, up from 30% in 2003. Much of that debt is ‘junk bond’ or ‘high yield’ debt borrowed at high interest rates and is dollar denominated. That means borrowed from US investors and their shadow banks and commercial banks and therefore payable back in dollars—dollars obtainable from export sales to US customers which are slowing. An idea of the poor quality of this debt is indicated by the fact that monthly interest payments for Brazilian private sector companies is already estimated to absorb 31% of their income.

With falling income from exports, with money capital fleeing the country and becoming inaccessible, and with ever higher interest necessary to refinance the debt when it comes due—Brazil’s private sector is extremely ‘financial fragile’. How fragile may soon be determined. Reportedly Brazil’s nonfinancial corporations’ have $50 billion in bonds that need to be refinanced just next year, 2016. And with export and income declining, foreign capital increasingly unavailable, and interest rates as 14.25%–it will be interesting to see just how Brazil will get that $50 billion refinanced? If the private sector cannot roll over those debts successfully, then far worse is yet to come in 2016 as companies default on their private sector debt.

Brazil’s monetary policy response to the EME crisis of collapsing demand and exports, falling currency values, capital flight, and domestic inflation and unemployment has been to raise interest rates. Brazil’s fiscal policy response has been no less counter-productive. Its fiscal response has been to cut government spending and budgets by $25 billion—i.e. to institute an austerity policy. Like its monetary policy response of raising rates, its fiscal policy response of austerity will only slow its real economy even further.

The lessons of Brazil are the lessons of the EMEs in general, as they face a deepening crisis, a crisis that originated not in the EMEs but first in the AEs and then in China. But attempting to stop the capital flight train that has already left the station and won’t be coming back’ (to use a metaphor) will fail. So too will fail competing for exports in a race to the bottom with the AEs. Japan and Europe are intent on driving down their currencies in order to obtain a slightly higher share of the shrinking global trade pie. The EMEs do not have the currency reserves or other resources to outlast them in a tit-for-tat currency war. Instead of trying to rely on somehow reversing AE money capital flows or on exports to AE markets as the way to recovery and growth, EMEs will have to try to find a way to mutually expand their economic relationships and forge new institutions among and between themselves as a ‘new model’ of EME growth. They did not ‘break the old EME model’; it was broken for them. And they cannot restore it since the AEs have decided to abandon it.

Featured image: The Information Company

When all other sources of economic growth appear tapped out, there is always the military-industrial complex coming to the rescue of US GDP with the sale of arms and equipment to the world’s biggest purchaser of weapons: Saudi Arabia. Because when one looks beyond the pageantry, pomp and circumstance of Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia, the main purpose behind the president’s visit is precisely that: selling weapons, some $350 billion over the next decade, according to estimates.

To be sure, Trump arrival in Saudi Arabia on Saturday was quite a spectacle, with the Saudi king throwing the president’s family arrival at the Royal Diwan a “welcome fit for a king.”

Source: AP

Source: AFP/Getty Images

Source: AP

Watch the video here

However, it is what was announced on Saturday that is the highlight of the various meetings between the Trump delegation and his Saudi hosts, who have promised to invest billions of dollars in the U.S. as well and make other decisions aimed at pleasing Trump.

According to a statement just issued by the White House, Trump “has just completed largest single arms deal in US history, negotiating a package totaling more than $109.7 billion” which will boost Saudi Arabia’s defense capabilities, bolstering equipment and services in the face of extreme terrorist groups and Iran.  The White House added that the deal will create defense jobs while also reaffirming America’s commitment to Saudi Arabia.

“This package of defense equipment and services support the long-term security of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region in the face of Iranian threats, while also bolstering the Kingdom’s ability to contribute to counter terrorism operations across the region,” the White House said in a statement on Saturday, as quoted by CNBC News.

US President Donald Trump, along with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson who is accompanying him on the trip, will attend the signing of a memorandum of intent on the package, Reuters reports, citing a White House official.

“This package demonstrates, in the clearest terms possible, the United States’ commitment to our partnership with Saudi Arabia and our Gulf partners, while also expanding opportunities for American companies in the region,” the statement reads, according to Reuters.

Source: Zero Hedge

The deal will provide Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest importer of weapons (for the breakdown of the world’s weapons trade, see “Visualizing The Global Weapons Trade“), with top-tier equipment and services including missiles, bombs, armored personnel carriers, Littoral Combat Ships, THAAD missile defense systems, and munitions.

Source: World Development Indicators/Bloomberg

According to estimates cited by The Independent, including restocking and future commitments over the next ten years, the deal could balloons to $350 billion worth of arms, over a third of a trillion dollars.

Gary Cohn, Trump’s chief economic advisor, said Saudi Arabia is “going to hire US companies” as a result of the defense deal.

The goal of the deal is “to invest a lot of money in the U.S. and have a lot of U.S. companies invest and build things over here,” Cohn said, according to a White House press pool report.

The vast funds which will boost the US defense sector will be spent to “address Saudi Arabia’s defense needs while scaling back U.S. military involvement in specific operations” the Hill reported.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman began negotiations on this deal shortly after the 2016 US election when he sent a delegation to Trump Tower to meet with the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who is serving as a senior advisor of sorts to Mr Trump.

The deal will be what the Washington Post said is a “cornerstone” of the proposal encouraging the Gulf states to form its own alliance like the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) military alliance, dubbed “Arab Nato.”

It’s not just weapons, however.

According to Bloomberg, Saudi Aramco will sign initial accords and joint-venture agreements valued at about $50 billion with companies including General Electric Co., Schlumberger Ltd. and Halliburton Co., Chief Executive Officer Amin Nasser told reporters in Riyadh.

These companies are “trying to expand their footprint in the kingdom by expanding trade between the two sides,” he said.

“Many of us sitting on the table are overseeing substantial investments in the United States,” Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih said. “Sabic has a big platform with the acquisition of GE Plastics which they continue to build on.” Other deals will be announced today, he said.

Saudi Aramco also plans to sign accords with Baker Hughes Inc., KBR Inc., Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., Nabors Industries Ltd., Weatherford International Plc, McDermott International Inc. and Rowan Companies Plc, two people familiar with the matter said earlier this week.

And so, with industrial and manufacturing spending in the US having declined over the past two years following the collapse in commodity prices, mothballing much of US capital spending, US GDP is about to get a fresh boost courtesy of what has become the world’s most prolific arms dealer.

With that, both the neo-cons in D.C., as well as the all-powerful American Military-Industrial complex can declare a truly unprecedented victory.

Featured image: AFP

Ana Belén Montes gave classified information to Cuba for 17 years before her arrest in 2001 for espionage. Pleading guilty, she avoided conviction for treason, which carries the death sentence. She is called “the most dangerous spy you’ve never heard of.” 1 She deserves to be known now. 

Her story shows the personal cost of some truths. I don’t mean suffering endured in prison, predictable result of breaking US law. I mean the cost of believing, as US citizen and government employee, truths about US state terror, supported by evidence. The truths are well-known, or at least readily available. But they’re not easily believed, even when known to be true.

By the time Montes began spying for the Cubans, the US had been carrying out a ruthless “war against subversion” across Latin America for decades. The targets were anyone who resisted, or might resist, US hegemony in the region. Operation Condor, formed in the early seventies, enabled multinational death squads to carry out state-sponsored cross-border political repression.

Unionists, peasant leaders, party activists, students, teachers, priests, nuns – indeed, whole social sectors – were targets. The CIA provided new forms of torture. In Uruguay, for example, a “parallel apparatus” used homeless beggars for torture training. In a soundproof room, instructors demonstrated the effects on the body of electric voltage and chemical substances. The test subjects died. 2.

Image on the right is Fidel Castro attending an anti-terrorism conference in Havana, Cuba, on June 6, 2005.

In 2005, a special conference was organized in Havana on terrorism. Speakers from Latin America, the US and Europe presented research, often drawing upon declassified US documents, about CIA-inspired terror tactics of Operation Condor. The recurring theme, in presentation after presentation, was impunity: The data piles up. It is widely diffused. Yet somehow, in the public mind, it doesn’t matter.

The occasion for the conference was the entrance into the US of Louis Posada Carriles, was arrested and jailed in Venezuela (he escaped) for master-minding the shooting down of a Cuban plane, killing all aboard (1976).  Posada confessed his responsibility to Ann Louise Bardach (New York Times). He walks free in the US despite the evidence. He celebrates his birthdays on camera, before the media.

In John Pilger’s documentary, War on Democracy, Pilger interviews Sister Diana Ortiz, a US citizen raped and beaten by US servicemen protecting the dictatorship in El Salvador. Ortiz says,

“When I hear people express surprise about Abhu Graib [site of US torture in Iraq], I ask myself ‘What planet are they living on? Don’t they know the history of our country?’”

It’s not that they don’t know the history. It is that they possess the facts, know they are true, and don’t assimilate them. They want to think the US is “leader of the free world”. It is not hard to see – thanks to books, documentaries, declassified documents, journal articles, and conferences – that US foreign policy has nothing to do with freedom and democracy. However, we have to care to know.

Ana Belén Montes says she doesn’t want to be treated as a hero. True, she shouldn’t have to be a hero. What she did was believe the obvious. She told the sentencing judge,

“I engaged in the activity that brought me before you because I obeyed my conscience”.

In 1960, apolitical Beat poet, Leroi Jones (image on the left, source: BK Nation), went to Cuba “determined not to be ‘taken’”. Returning to the US, in his famous “Cuba Libre”, he denounced the “thin crust of lie that we cannot even detect in our own thinking”.

Jones detected that “crust of lie” because of what he felt, in Cuba. He expected Cubans to be indoctrinated, even evil. Instead, he experienced them as happy, interesting and smart. He describes a feeling, a human connection. It contradicted his beliefs. He gave up the beliefs.

Jones could have dismissed his feelings as crazy, and maintained his web of beliefs. That would have been more comfortable, even praiseworthy. Instead, Jones returned to the US radicalized. The “thin crust of lie” was just that: a thin crust. There was more. Jones didn’t want to be living the entire hidden iceberg of lies.

The “thin crust of lie”, undetectable, explains a slogan of the anti-war movement: “There are no innocents”. It means that a comfortable white life was collusion in the slaughter in Vietnam. Lifestyles generate and nurture values and beliefs. They support myths making it easy to explain away truths, even obvious ones. We offer our daily consent, quietly, comfortably.

Ana Belén Montes could have dismissed what she knew to be true about the US war on democracy. She is, in the end, a hero just because of what she believed, because she has believed it, and because she continues to do so.

Fidel Castro said about Che Guevara after his death that Guevara insisted on the power of example. There’s a philosophical point here: We are interdependent creatures, always giving to and receiving from the beings, human and non-human, with whom we interact. It was Marx’s naturalistic vision of who we are as human beings: part of nature, dependent upon others even for thinking.

Such naturalism is expressed also by smart, sensitive thinkers across the ages. The Buddha was one, as was José Martí, leader of Cuba’s last independence war against Spain. It is simply a scientific fact that how we think depends, in ways we often do not know, on the people and stories we surround ourselves with. They speak to us silently, continually, at myriad levels. We don’t think alone, contrary to the liberal/libertarian myth that we live “from within”, hearing an “inner voice”.

That “inner voice” is always the voice of others, indeed whole histories of others.

It’s why certain examples matter so much and why they’re worth working for. They may be all we have to see through the lies, well-known lies that they are. The hidden histories matter to what can be imagined, morally. It’s no surprise we haven’t heard about Ana Belén Montes. Such a significant example is hidden deliberately. The press, without evidence, suggests she was mentally ill.

Ana Belén Montes must no longer be hidden.

Speaking truth to power is relatively easy. Believing it is more challenging. Murdered Honduran activist Berta Cáceres said North Americans are too attached to our comfort. It affects moral imagination. For those of us who benefit from the US Empire, it is not possible to believe what is clearly true about that Empire without personal cost. It’s just the nature of reason and its dependence on surroundings.

The “thin crust of lie” gets ever thicker. We need the example of Ana Belen Montes more than ever.3.

1. Jim Popkin The Washington Post  http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/feature/wp/2013/04/18/ana-montes-did-much-harm-spying-for-cuba-chances-are-you-havent-heard-of-her/?utm_term=.d3e99f7d9503
2. J. Patrice McSherry, “Death squads as parallel forces: Uruguay, Operation Condor, and the United States”Journal of Third World Studies. 24.1 (Spring 2007): 23
3. Useful sites:

http://www.workers.org/2016/10/28/free-ana-belen-montes-now/#.WSFpxevyvIU https://thesaker.is/tag/ana-belen-montes/

http://www.cuba-solidarity.org.uk/news/article/3336/ana-belen-montes-will-spend-her-60th-birthday-in-us-jail-with-another-10-years-to-serve http://www.communistpartyofireland.ie/sv2016-09/08-ana.html;

Susan Babbitt is author of Humanism and Embodiment (Bloomsbury 2014) and José Martí, Ernesto “Che” Guevara and Global Development Ethics (Palgrave MacMillan 2014).

Featured image: Havana Times.org

The role – again – of marketing companies in selling wars

Few wars have been so thoroughly media-managed and marketing-loaded as that on Syria. No wonder arms deals are too – otherwise citizens around the world would protest loudly that their tax money is spent on destruction and more destruction and all the promises of the past that this – or that – arms deal will increase security and peace in the world have turned out to be fake information – disinformation – and an integral part of what can only be termed “fearology” by governments against their own people.

One must therefore welcome Russia Today’s excellent research by Alexey Yaroshevsky also on this dimension.

This report is high-speed but listen carefully to it as it points out two US companies associated with this deal and US-Saudi relations with questionable image – a report that also highlight to some extent the roles of both Bill and Hillary Clinton in all this: the Qorvis MSLGroup and Burson-Marsteller.

In passing one cannot but deplore that it is Russia Today, not its Western peers, that does the research on the role of PR and marketing firms.

NATO in Gulf with Denmark as a liaison?

Back to NATO in Kuwait and what it may mean.

Here is what the United Arab Emirates’ daily The National reported on January 24, 2017. Interestingly, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE are members of ICI – the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative – while Saudi Arabia and Oman plan to join. This is exactly the coalition we have mentioned above.

Three days later the same sources quotes the Danish ambassador in the UAE:

“Nato officials are expected to visit in coming months after the Danish embassy in Abu Dhabi becomes the country’s go-between with the bloc, said Merete Juhl, the Danish ambassador.

“Nato and Europeans really need a reliable and capable partner in the Middle East, like the UAE, to better understand how to deal effectively with challenges internationally but also at home, with refugees and newcomers that represent a new security threat,” she said.

“So these types of partnerships are something we are prioritising because it’s what we need in today’s world.”

So NATO member Denmark is appointed as the go-between – the UAE being the second largest military spender after Saudi Arabia. The article also explains how the UAE has contributed to NATO operations in Afghanistan and Libya.

In spring 2016, then US Secretary of State, John Kerry had talked about a much closer cooperation:

“Ahead of last year’s Camp David summit, Gulf officials had hoped for a Nato-like binding security pact with Washington, but such an agreement was always highly unlikely. Now, the US is willing to discuss increasing cooperation between Nato and the GCC, though officials gave no further details on what was being considered.

Mr Kerry said Washington had agreed with GCC foreign ministers to “begin the process of evaluating whether or not the concept of a GCC-Nato partnership in specific terms is something that would contribute significantly to the security and stability of the region”. [GCC = Gulf Cooperation Council].

It’s worth noting the term GCC-NATO partnership and what is then stated in the report:

“Much of Mr Kerry’s meetings in Bahrain centred on Iran’s role in the region. Most GCC countries consider Tehran to be their gravest security threat, and are concerned about US intentions towards Iran in the wake of the nuclear deal and as Iran appears to be increasing its involvement in the Middle East.

Despite the Obama administration’s hope that the nuclear deal will empower moderates within Iran, Tehran has provocatively carried out a number of ballistic missile launches and continued or increased its involvement in the wars in Syria and Yemen.

Recent remarks by Mr Obama have only reinforced fears that the US intends to play a more neutral role in the region and do less to contain Iran. Gulf countries and Iran must “find an effective way to share the neighbourhood”, the US president said in a recent interview with The Atlantic magazine.”

One must assume that President Trump is eager, during his meetings with high-level people from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, to emphasize how much he loathes Iran and the nuclear deal.

US foreign policy aims, or so one must conclude, at deepening the Sunni-Shia divide – a divide that does have historic roots but has taken on a “hardness” since the catastrophic US post-occupation misadministration of Iraq that lead directly to the creation of ISIS.

Another dimension – a macro perspective

Of course there can be other interpretations of Saudi Arabia’s militarization than the one advanced here. But none of this could possibly lead to a new, wiser Western relationship to the Middle East than we’ve seen the last good 100 years. There is not a shred of evidence that the US has learned any lesson from those 100 years or, in particular, since 10/7 – the commencement of the war on Afghanistan and the wars that followed.

And for Syria and Iran, there can be nothing positive in any of the above – while there certainly is for both ISIS and Israel – the latter supporting terrorism in various ways and places and being allied with Sunni rather than Shia.

If you are in doubt, read the statement by a Israeli minister about the desirability to kill Bashar al-Assad and continue with the destruction of Iran. Since this minister has not been fired by Netanyahu it must be perceived as official Israeli policy.

So for genuine peace, the post-Obama rapproachment between the US and Saudi Arabia/Gulf States is a bad omen in that it still builds on divide-et-impera, confrontation and military dominance rather than diplomacy and mutually beneficial cooperation in the long term.

US/NATO and their allies in the region have learned no lessons from failed wars, destroyed countries and cultures, millions upon millions of dead and suffering people, the growth of terrorism thanks to Western policies and the now 16 year old War on Terror – and therefore there is nothing new, constructive or hope-inducing in any of this.

Future generations in the Middle East and in the West will pay a huge prize.

And even though much of what has been described above may seem to signal strength, every bit of it points in one direction: the dissolution of the US Empire and in its wake, the more slow disintegration of NATO and the EU.

The West works vertically on short-sighted and continued destruction and therefore employs military means above all others – permanent confrontation and exceptionalism.

The Rest works horizontally with constructive visions – such as the Silk Road and Silk Belt that sends much more attractive, inclusive signal also to the Middle East – with civilian means such as infrastructure, education, cultural exchange and mutual economic benefits.

In future history books, the Middle East could well turn out to have been a major crossroads in more than one sense of the emerging, much better, cooperative world order that will come when the last Empire has finished itself.

Until that happens: How many more tragedies and how much more human suffering shall the world witness and endure?

So what did you think a U.S.-styled “soft coup” would look like? What we’re seeing regarding the intended removal of President Trump is not that much different from what has happened in dozens of other countries, whether Iran in 1953 or Ukraine in 2014 or Brazil in 2016. This one just has a few extra American touches.

Like other coups, there are often vague and unproven accusations leveled against the target and his or her entourage. Even though hard evidence is usually lacking, “process crimes,” such as making misstatements to prosecutors or obstructing justice, are developed as a substitute under the popular saying: “the cover-up is worse than the crime.” Whatever the case, a complicit media then trumpets alleged wrongdoing into grave and impeachable offenses.

And, if you had any doubts about what is looming, you should read Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr.’s op-ed, entitled in print editions “A quick end would be better,” which states:

“There is really only one issue in American politics at this moment: Will we accelerate our way to the end of the Trump story, or will our government remain mired in scandal, misdirection and paralysis for many more months — or even years? …

President Donald Trump delivering his inaugural address on Jan. 20, 2017. (Screen shot from Whitehouse.gov)

“Nothing could be worse than slow-walking the Trump inquiries. The evidence is already overwhelming that he is temperamentally and intellectually incapable of doing the job he holds. He is indifferent to acquiring the knowledge the presidency demands and apparently of the belief that he can improvise hour to hour. He will violate norms whenever it suits him and cross ethical lines whenever he feels like it.”

The History of Coups

As this American coup against Trump progresses, one commonality of coups around the world – whether “hard coups” of military tanks or “soft coups” of “constitutional” removals – is that the coup’s target is not some perfect human being. He or she has likely made political mistakes or cut some corners or had associates who lined their pockets.

But the difference between those misdeeds being treated as politics as usual or becoming the stuff of “scandal” has more to do with the interests of powerful interests – a domestic “deep state” or an outside “superpower” – than any evenhanded pursuit of justice.

To say that Trump is an imperfect messenger for whatever populist message he thinks he’s carrying stretches beyond the breaking point any normal definition of the word “imperfect.” Indeed, Trump may be the perfectly imperfect messenger.

Yet, what’s really at stake in any coup is power and the direction that a country will take. In the case of Donald Trump, there appear to be several factors at play: he is regarded by many establishment figures as too incompetent and uncouth to serve as America’s President; he also defies the neoconservative orthodoxy over U.S. foreign policy; and perhaps most significantly, he doesn’t believe in the New Cold War, which will assure the Military-Industrial Complex years of expensive new weapons systems by making Russia the new/old “enemy.”

There is, of course, some truth to all these concerns. Trump is an egotistical buffoon who doesn’t seem to know what he doesn’t know. Often his brain doesn’t connect to his tongue – or his Twitter fingers. He is more a Kardashian “reality star,” saying stuff to get attention and to attract eyeballs, than a sober leader who holds his cards close and chooses his words carefully.

Though many Americans voted for him because they viewed him as a no-nonsense businessman, he was actually someone who ran what amounted to a family business without the kind of accountability that often comes with managing a large public corporation.

Puffing up his own importance, Trump even has bragged about his impunity. During the 2016 campaign, he was revealed as the kind of jerk who boasts about grabbing women by the “pussy” and getting away with it because of his star status and personal power.

So, yes, Trump is both incompetent and uncouth. But he is hardly the first president to bring unseemly personal baggage or an inadequate skill set into the Oval Office. Bill Clinton was known as an insatiable hound dog preying on vulnerable women, and George W. Bush was shockingly unqualified for the demands of the presidency.

While Barack Obama had the intellectual skills and behaved commendably in his personal conduct, he had little experience in managing a complex organization – and it showed in some of his disastrous personnel decisions, such as appointing the hawkish Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and keeping Bush loyalist Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense.

In other words, Trump’s skill limitations were not by themselves disqualifying. With the proper advice and a modicum of self-control, Trump could have performed acceptably as Chief Executive. But he failed to recruit wise advisers and couldn’t discipline either his tongue or his Twitter fingers.

Even staunch Trump supporters whom I’ve spoken with wish he could have parked his large but fragile ego at the White House gate rather than bringing it into the Oval Office.

Foreign Policy Dissent

Still, Trump’s larger vulnerability was his failure to accept the foreign policy parameters prescribed by the neocon-dominated Establishment. He started out insulting powerful neocons by challenging their self-exculpatory narrative of the Iraq War – that it was a great idea sabotaged by poor execution but then salvaged by the “surge” before being betrayed by Obama.

Trump also belittled some of the neocon champions, such as old-lion Sen. John “No Hero” McCain and rising star Sen. Marco “Little Marco” Rubio. It would have been a neocon dream to have the 2016 campaign a match-up between Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton, but the former fell to Trump in the primaries and the latter lost to Trump in the general election.

But Trump’s greatest sin was his refusal to buy into Official Washington’s big-ticket Russia-bashing, the goal of making Moscow an implacable enemy that then required massive new spending on both propaganda (supposedly to combat Russian “propaganda”) and military projects (including NATO expansion up to Russia’s borders and new weapons systems to deter Russian “aggression”).

Despite his simple-mindedness (or perhaps because of it), Trump couldn’t understand why the United States had to demonize Russia when he saw many areas of possible cooperation (such as the fight against terrorism).

Trump and a few of his advisers were so out-of-step on the “Russia thing” that Official Washington developed a new groupthink that the only possible explanation was that Trump and his team must be somehow on the Kremlin’s payroll. Any alleged “connection” to Russia – no matter how tenuous or seemingly innocuous – became front-page news.

For instance, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s speakers bureau negotiated a relatively modest speaking fee of $45,386 for him to address the tenth anniversary of RT, the Russian network, in December 2015, with RT even whittling down his fee – and that speech became a major cause celebre.

On Dec. 29, 2016, after the election and as the national security adviser-designate, Flynn took a phone call from Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak while Flynn was on vacation in the Dominican Republic, and Flynn later offered an incomplete account of the conversation, which the National Security Agency knew because it had intercepted the phone call.

Instead of people shrugging their shoulders and giving Flynn the benefit of the doubt, Obama’s holdovers in the Justice Department literally made a federal case out of it, invoking the archaic and virtually-never-used 1799 Logan Act (which bars private citizens from negotiating with foreigners) and then advancing the absurd argument that somehow the discrepancies in Flynn’s recollection made him vulnerable to Russian blackmail to get Trump to fire Flynn.

Then, Trump’s alleged suggestion to then-FBI Director James Comey that Flynn was a good guy who had served his country and had suffered enough – and that it might be best to “let it go” – has now become the latest argument for impeaching Trump.

In Deep Water

Whether he knows it or not, Trump is now in very deep water and has no idea how to dog-paddle back to the shore. His aides seem to think that a nine-day foreign trip will do him good, but it is more likely to make him grovel before Saudi King Salman and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, knowing that any offense that those leaders might take would simply expedite Trump’s political doom.

Trump is surely in no position to tell the Saudis to cut out their covert funding for Al Qaeda and other Sunni terrorist groups – or to insist that they stop bombing Yemen, the poorest country in the Middle East. Nor could Trump dare challenge Netanyahu on the Israeli abuse of the Palestinians, the Prime Minister’s obstruction of the peace process, and his blatant efforts to manipulate U.S. politics in favor of bloody neocon interventions across the region. Trump will be the desperate supplicant hoping for a reassuring pat on the head.

There is one – and perhaps only one – winning move that Trump has left. He could authorize CIA Director Mike Pompeo to prepare for release U.S. intelligence information regarding turning-point moments in recent years, such as the truth about the 2013 sarin incident in Syria and the 2014 Malaysia Airlines shoot-down in eastern Ukraine. [See here and here.]

If – as I’m told – the Obama administration systematically misrepresented the intelligence on those catastrophes to register propaganda gains (against the Syrian government in 2013 and Russia in 2014), the U.S. government’s internal information could shift those key narratives in more peaceful directions.

But whatever the truth is, Trump could shift his own image from a compulsive liar who disdains facts into a champion for transparency and honesty in government. He could turn the tables on The New York Times (which has set itself up as the great hero for Truth) and The Washington Post (which has fashioned a new melodramatic slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness”). He could point out their hypocritical lack of aggressiveness in challenging the Obama administration’s excessive secrecy.

Trump would also give his dispirited supporters something to rally around. Many blue-collar voters backed Trump because they thought he was at least addressing their economic fears of lost work and lost status, while Hillary Clinton – in their view – treated them with disregard and disdain, even calling many of them “deplorables.”

But Trump’s promises of recovered jobs were largely hollow. Whatever improvement Americans might be feeling in their pocketbooks, it is more the result of Obama’s careful economic management and the normal recovery from Bush’s Wall Street crash and the Great Recession than anything Trump can or will do.

So, revealing hidden truths – where the American people may have been misled – would not only be the right thing to do for democracy, it also could be the smart thing to do. When the Establishment coup-makers come for Trump – as they now almost certainly will – he can at least say that he tried to do something to return the U.S. government to the American people.

That might not save his presidency but it would at least elevate his purpose and possibly create some positive legacy to attach to the Trump name. As the situation stands now, Trump appears headed for a humiliating exit that won’t just strip him of the presidency but would strip away any luster for the Trump brand.

In other words, his impulsive foray into politics might not just make him one of the most reviled U.S. presidents in history but take down the Trump businesses, too.

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

The war in Syria, mainstream media tell us, is a simple story, with a brutal dictator on one side and freedom-loving rebels on the other. Into this mix, the Islamic State has inserted itself, while the benevolent United States must intervene to rescue the Syrian people. U.S. involvement in Syria, motivated by altruism, the story goes, arose in direct response to events in 2011.

This view is as fanciful as it is notable for its myopic self-regard.

In Washington’s Long War on Syria, Stephen Gowans dismantles the official story, myth by myth, and provides the context without which it would be impossible to understand events.

Gowans relates the history of armed Islamist opposition to the secular government, reaching back decades. U.S. meddling in Syrian affairs also has a long history, as the author thoroughly covers.

Gowans quotes U.S. government documents that reveal a growing consensus on the desire to topple the Syrian government, which officials regarded as an impediment “to the achievement of U.S. goals in the region,” which included the spread of free market economies. The George W. Bush administration imposed a series of sanctions on Syria, which crippled the economy and wrought widespread suffering. “Sanctions of mass destruction” were visited on Syria “with grim humanitarian consequences,” Gowans writes.

By 2006, the U.S. began meeting with and providing support to Islamist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood-led National Salvation Front. Islamic extremists received funding to establish a satellite television station to broadcast anti-government programs into Syria. Millions of dollars were funneled to Islamist anti-government forces. Direct action was also mulled, and Bush Administration officials seriously considered the option of invading Syria.

The 2011 uprising in Syria is portrayed in mainstream media as entirely peaceful and dedicated to democratic ideals. Quoting from Western sources, Gowans shows that opposition groups in Daraa attacked police and burned down government buildings. In the weeks following the violence in Daraa, demonstrations throughout Syria typically numbered in the hundreds, far below levels seen elsewhere in the Arab world at that time. Contrary to Washington’s claims, protests in Syria tended to be led by the Muslim Brotherhood. The opposition quickly took up arms, and in a matter of months, had progressed from burning down buildings to waging armed guerrilla warfare.

Sensing opportunity in the armed uprising, Washington painted a very different picture of events so as to win public support for intervention. “When it became evident that the most prominent of the armed rebel groups were dyed-in-the-wool, head-chopping jihadists…U.S. propagandists created the concept of the ‘moderate’ rebel to assuage concerns that Washington was backing al-Qaeda and its clones,” Gowans reports.

Until its collapse, the opposition Syrian National Council was dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood and received $40 million a month from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. Gowans observes: “Weren’t all these states presided over by princes, emirs, and kings, who preferred to govern by decree, eschewing any form of democratic input? What a curious set of allies for a so-called pro-democracy movement.”

The Free Syrian Army (FSA), much touted in the West, is hardly the moderate force of popular imagination, and Gowans thoroughly debunks such claims, showing how the FSA collaborates so closely with Al-Nusra that the two organizations share arms and ammunition and often fight side-by-side, in coordination with each other. CIA arms sent to the FSA can be expected to find their way to Al-Nusra.

In one of the book’s many examples demonstrating the ideology of the Free Syrian Army, the words of an FSA commander are referenced. “Those whose intentions are not for God had better stay home, whereas if your intention is for God, then you go for jihad and you gain an afterlife and heaven.” Gowans drily comments: “This was hardly the exhortation of a secularist.”

And who are the moderates of whom we hear so much? Gowans refers to the words of former director of national intelligence James Clapper: “Moderate these days is increasingly becoming anyone who’s not affiliated with Islamic State.” Gowans points out that “as far as Washington is concerned, every non-Islamic State armed group was moderate, including Al-Nusra, even though the al-Qaeda affiliate had been designated a terrorist organization by the United States itself.” In page after page, and with devastating logic, Gowans thoroughly demonstrates the absurdity of Washington’s claims to be aiding moderate forces.

Gowans demolishes the U.S. argument that its intervention in Syria is motivated by humanitarian concerns by contrasting it with U.S. silence on Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Bahrain to violently crush opposition. While Washington’s aid to Islamist rebels in Syria approached $1 billion a year, military and political support to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia continued unabated. Nor has Saudi intervention in Yemen proven an impediment to U.S. largesse. Recently, the Trump administration signed an agreement to provide Saudi Arabia with a staggering $110 billion in arms. The deal also called for as much as $350 billion to be added over the next decade.

“The Arab Spring had two components: its reality and its rhetoric,” Gowans explains.

“The Arab Gulf monarchies embraced the discourse of the Arab Spring in Libya and Syria, but crushed its reality at home. The monarchs’ patrons, officials of the United States, and the broader Western world, did the same.”

Washington’s Long War on Syria is a well-researched and deeply considered analysis of the tragedy that has befallen Syria. Stephen Gowans reveals the political and economic interests that are motivating Washington’s intervention in Syria. No praise is too high for this much-needed corrective to Western propaganda. This fascinating book is a must-read for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the war in Syria.

To order:

Washington’s Long War on Syria 

Gregory Elich is on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute and the Advisory Board of the Korea Policy Institute.

He is a member of the Solidarity Committee for Democracy and Peace in Korea, a columnist for Voice of the People, and one of the co-authors of Killing Democracy: CIA and Pentagon Operations in the Post-Soviet Period, published in the Russian language.

He is also a member of the Task Force to Stop THAAD in Korea and Militarism in Asia and the Pacific.

His website is https://gregoryelich.org

Follow him on Twitter at @GregoryElich

 

 

 

 

 

An international assault on computer users provides a illuminating vehicle for interpreting the dubious political and economic constructs, presented by corporate news media as unambiguously real. In this instance closer consideration of the event’s reportage and context suggest an intent to undermine and confuse public interest in the burgeoning cryptocurrency space. The WannaCry cyberattack follows a decade of commodity price manipulation by central bankers necessary to support the value of fiat currencies amidst profligate money creation.

The recent price explosion across a wide swath of virtual currencies is the exact opposite of the stagnation experienced in precious metals–specifically gold and silver–the traditional measures of fiat currencies’ true worth. This sharp contrast augments theories of central bank manipulation of the metals markets that seek to preserve the US dollar especially against the accelerated inflationary policies instituted over the past decade.

“Quantitative Easing is a threat to the dollar’s exchange value,” Paul Craig Roberts and David Kranzler write in a key 2014 article. “The Federal Reserve, fearful that the falling value of the dollar in terms of gold would spread into the currency markets and depreciate the dollar, decided to employ more extreme methods of gold price manipulation.” As the authors explain alongside a compelling array of data,

The Fed’s gold manipulation operation involves exerting forceful downward pressure on the price of gold by selling a massive amount of Comex gold futures, which are dropped like bombs either on the Comex floor during NY trading hours or via the Globex system. A recent example of this occurred on Monday, January 6, 2014. After rallying over $15 in the Asian and European markets, the price of gold suddenly plunged $35 at 10:14 a.m. In a space of less than 60 seconds, more than 12,000 contracts traded – equal to more than 10% of the day’s entire volume during the 23 hour trading period in which which gold futures trade.

There was no apparent news or market event that would have triggered the sudden massive increase in Comex futures selling which caused the sudden steep drop in the price of gold. At the same time, no other securities market (other than silver) experienced any unusual price or volume movement. 12,000 contracts represents 1.2 million ounces of gold, an amount that exceeds by a factor of three the total amount of gold in Comex vaults that could be delivered to the buyers of these contracts.

The absence of derivatives in most cryptocurrency markets makes these digital assets (and the perpetual computational power necessary to affirm their blockchain presence) impervious to price suppression via futures contracts used by central bankers and their agents.

With the above in mind, there is indeed a distinct possibility that WannaCry’s deployment and far-reaching publicity constitute a desperate attempt to undermine public interest in the rapidly-expanding crypto space.

On May 12 hundreds of thousands of computers utilizing Microsoft’s operating system were struck with a “ransomware” virus encrypting users’ data and offering to unlock it in exchange for $300 USD. The apparent pandemonium is related by major financial news publications, including the Wall Street Journal.

The cyberattack that spread around the globe over the weekend, hitting business, hospitals and government agencies in at least 150 countries, is likely to keep growing as people around the world return to work, law enforcement authorities warned.

The identical software vulnerability the WannaCry culprits employed was, perhaps not coincidentally, secretly developed by the US National Security Agency and leaked online by an anonymous entity calling itself Shadow Brokers. While Microsoft promptly issued a remedy, countless computers lacking the “patch” remained vulnerable.

At the core of this narrative is the fact that WannaCry attackers demanded the $300 ransom in Bitcoin, the most well-known and highly valued of the cryptocurrencies, oft-identified by prominent financial spokespersons and news outlets with drug smuggling and terrorism. “The Justice Department has successfully prosecuted online criminal operations that used bitcoin,” the Washington Post instructed in a piece reminding its readers of Bitcoin’s nefarious history. “In 2013, the government arrested Ross Ulbricht, the founder of a major underground drug market, and seized more than $3.5 million worth of bitcoin.”

Here's what a London GP sees when trying to connect to the NHS network pic.twitter.com/lV8zXarAXS

— Rory Cellan-Jones (@ruskin147) May 12, 2017

When an event transpires and quickly gains traction via abundant and sensational news coverage, while tending to convey a certain uniform impression, there is a strong possibility of deep state agendas and objectives at play. As the late journalist and author Udo Ulfkotte observed, today more than ever intelligence agencies exert direct influence over what is proffered as “responsible” reportage and opinion. Much as Soviet citizens resorted to detecting truth between the lines of reports from a party-controlled press, so it has become necessary to place contemporary phenomena in a broader context.

Along these lines news outlets serving the cryptocurrency enthusiasts quickly found contradictions in the mainstream account built around WannaCry, noting how the incident was likely intended to serve Western financial elites by implicating Bitcoin in the cyberattack, thereby causing retail investors to vacate their positions. Indeed, in the event’s immediate prelude  the fiat valuation of the entire crypto space more than doubled, from $25.5 billion on April 15 to $53.65 billion on May 11.

“One has to suspect this is a big ploy by the US government led by the [Securities and Exchange Commission] and other concerned parties to discredit Bitcoin, by association,” CoinTelegraph argued.

It is overwhelmingly a ploy especially given the SEC’s position as they are those who are pushing the [European Union] and [European Central Bank] to begin blocking users of cryptocurrency, in a vague attempt to regulate it, to control it, to scare people off.

If WannaCry is in fact an attempt to keep the public from using Bitcoin and its crypto peers, as is suggested by broad media attention, it appears to have been a colossal failure. As of this writing the valuation of all cryptocurrencies is approaching $70 billion USD. The week of May 15 has seen new records set by not only Bitcoin, but several of its peers, including Ethereum, Dash, Ripple, NEM and Monero.

In light of 9/11 and the continuum of often suspicious terror incidents punctuating the West’s “War on Terror” mainstream news media persist in matter-0f-factly accepting and promoting dubious events at face value, shorn of almost any historical, political, or economic context.

Is Israel and its infamous Wall of Separation representative of a modern evolving democratic state, based upon Biblical principles and teachings, as applied towards the original indigenous Palestinian peoples of Palestine, or is it an example of yet another ethnic-cleansing, apartheid state, possessive of the same genocidal-racist tendencies as those 19^th century colonial-imperialistic powers – like the United States, Canada, Australia and South Africa – who also once invaded and committed wholesale destruction of other ancient indigenous peoples entire ways of life; sweeping their survivors aside onto reservations, reserves and Bantustan-type compounds to be ultimately ignored and forgotten?

Professor Ilan Pappe (picture below), one of Israel’s most radical dissident historians, who now teaches and writes in exile, amply answers these questions in his latest book Ten Myths About Israel. A mere 148 pages long, this historical masterpiece reads more like a voluminous epic that eloquently offers up a clear, concise, arguably-undisputable, record of the true indigenous history of Palestine, the Palestinians and their ethnic-cleansing at the hands of the Jews ever since the Nakbah in 1948. The Nakbah a time when: 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were violently expelled; 400 to 600 of their villages sacked and destroyed; with eleven of their twelve major towns destroyed that virtually extinguished the urban life of Palestine. To the Israeli people it is celebrated as the time of their Declaration of Independence. But to the Palestinian Arabs it is simply known as the Time of the Catastrophe; which, 50 years later, in 2008, ultimately led to the Gaza War and Israel’s Operation Cast Lead that killed a further 1,400 Palestinians, 926 of which were unarmed civilians, and then again, in 2012, during Israel’s Operation Pillar of Cloud, when another 174 Palestinian’s were killed, 107 of which were innocent civilians; later to be followed by Israel’s Operation Protective Edge that further killed another 2300 Gazans, 1492 of them civilians, 551 of which were children and 209 woman, with the wounded numbering over 10,000, among which were 3,371 children, which also destroyed some 17,000 homes and partially destroyed another 30,000 homes.

Such facts and figures to be gleaned from Pappe’s writings, and what caused them, affords the world with a seminal platform for the 21^st century from which to simultaneously look backwards and forwards towards the true historical origins and identity of not only Israel and Zionism towards the indigenous Arab peoples of modern Eretz Israel, but also the similar contemporary state of many other longer-standing colonial-imperialistic powers in the world and their own treatment of the indigenous peoples in their midst, whose ancient homelands and natural resources continue to be coveted by these world powers for their own empire-building pursuits.

Avi Shlaim of the Guardian declares Ilan Pappe to be “one of the few Israeli students of the conflict in Palestine who writes about the Palestinian side of the story with real knowledge and empathy”; while the New Statesman deems Pappe to be, “Along with Edward Said, the most eloquent writer of Palestinian history” John Pilger, the acclaimed Australian writer-journalist further calls Pappe, “Israel’s bravest, most principled, most incisive historian.”; while this writer sees Professor Pappe as more like Israel’s own I.F. Stone or Howard Zinn, who dares to expose and elucidate upon the dark underbelly of Israel’s sordid history that few others ever dare to touch upon.”

To this end, whatever one’s take, Ten Myths About Israel goes a long way to dispel all the disinformation, misinformation and mythology that daily is propagated by the corporate media’s spin doctors who would have the world’s masses continue to forever adhere to such false beliefs as: “Palestine Was An Empty Land”; The Jews Were a People Without a Land”;”Zionism is Judaism”; Zionism Is Not Colonialism”; “The Palestinians Voluntarily Left Their Homelands in 1948”; “The June 1967 War Was a War of No Choice”; “Israel is the Only Democracy in the Middle East”; “The Oslo Accord of 1993 Was/Is a Genuine Peace Process”; “The Palestinians Second Intifada of the 1980’s Began a Terrorist Movement Against Israel”, and finally: “The Victory of Hamas in the election of 2006 Began a Terrorist Movement Against Israel”.

Students of Western Civilization, knowledgeable of the similar genocidal policies and mythologies perpetrated in countries like the United States, Canada, Britain Australia and South Africa against their own indigenous peoples – who have also borne the brunt of Western imperialism and suffered the same loss of self-determination, nationhood independence and the “Right To Return & Reclaim Their Ancestral Heritage” – will at once recognize in Pappe’s writings the same cultural patterns that repeat themselves in modern-day Israel.

Long after the point of fact when whatever indigenous peoples have finally been conquered and stripped of most if not all of their former homelands and natural resources, whomever the invader-aggressor may be always finally gets around to making the same predictable response. No matter how much wholesale destruction, rape, murder, assassinations and massacres may have been committed against the indigenous peoples in question, once all the mayhem has settled and the issue an all but moot point, the perpetrators in their magnanimity find it in themselves to speak out in favor of “acts of reconciliation”, public declarations of “I’m Sorry”, and calls for “Reparations”. Yet too often, though even well-intended, to many on the receiving end such words have the hollow ring of tokenism to them. Yet even here, by the many unresolved issues that Pappe raises about the Israeli government’s racist attitudes towards Palestinian Arabs and denial of any culpability for their woeful plight, even such words of apology still seem a very long way from ever happening.

But as Pappe clearly points out, the bright side is that the existing Civil Society among both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples unabatedly do speak out about what their political leadership too often continues to deny, ignore or neglect to place at the center of their national agenda. They know, too, that in spite of whatever reticence exists among many to ever speak out, the majority of Jews in Israel and Arabs in Palestine already know exactly what has been happening every day on the ground for many decades since 1948. They are not, as Pappe pointedly declares, “deaf to all the cries, pain and devastation of those killed, raped or wounded throughout 1948.…arrested and imprisoned in the 1950’s….massacred in the village of Kafir Qasim in 1956…..or when citizens of the state were murdered by the army just because they were Palestinians….They know about the war crimes committed throughout the 1967 War and callous bombings of refugee camps in 1982….They have not forgotten the physical abuse meted out to Palestinian youth in the occupied territories in the 1980’s and afterwards….Israel Jews are not deaf and can still today hear the voices of the military officers ordering the execution of innocent people and the laughter of the soldiers standing by and watching….They are also not blind. They have seen the remains of the 531 destroyed villages and the ruined neighborhoods…… They see what every Israeli can see but for the most part chooses not to…..the remnants of villages under the houses of the Kibbutzim and beneath the pine trees of the JNF (Jewish National Fund) forests….They have not forgotten what happened even when the rest of their society has…..Perhaps because of that they understand fully the connection between the 1948 ethnic-cleansing and the events that followed to the present….They also refuse to ignore the obvious connection between the building of the wall and the wider policy of ethnic-cleansing….The expulsions of 1948 and the imprisonments of people within walls today are the inevitable consequences of the same racist ethnic ideology…..Inside and outside Israel, Palestinian NGO’s such as BADIC, ADRID and Al-Awada are coordinating their struggles to preserve the memory of 1948 and explain why it is crucial to engage with the events of that year for the sake of the future.

Ilan Pappe’s tiny book that speaks to the Ten Myths About Isreal is a blockbuster must-read for every human being in the world who considers themselves to be a member of their own country’s Civil Society. Even more so, it’s an even more important must-read for every human being who still does not.

Jerome Irwin is a freelance writer and author of “The Wild Gentle Ones; A Turtle Island Odyssey” (www.turtle-island-odyssey.com), a three volume account of his travels as a spiritual sojourner, during the 1960’s, 70’s & 80’s among Native Americans & First Nations in North America. It encompasses the Spiritual Renaissance & Liberation Movements among native peoples throughout North America during the Civil Rights era. More recently, Irwin authored a series of articles on the “NODAPL/KEYSTONE XL/CLIMATDE CHANGE protests against the United States government. Irwin also is the publisher of The Wild Gentle Press.

A curious op-ed appeared in The National Interest, penned by Hans Binnendijk and David Gompert, adjunct senior fellows at the RAND Corporation. Titled, “NATO’s Role in post-Caliphate Stability Operations,” it attempts to make a case for NATO involvement everywhere from Libya to Syria and Iraq in fostering stability in the wake of a yet-to-be defeated Islamic State.

The authors propose that NATO step in to fill what it calls an impending “vacuum left as the caliphate collapses,” heading off alternatives including “chaos or Iran, backed by Russia, filling the void, with great harm to U.S. and allied interests in either case.” The op-ed never explains why Iran, neighboring Syria and Iraq, is less qualified to influence the region than the United States which exists literally oceans away and shares nothing in terms of history, culture, language or shared interests in stability and peace.

The op-ed would literally claim:

NATO is the only security organization with the skills and breadth to take on this task. The U.S.-led anti-Islamic State coalition of 68 partners is ill equipped to engage in this complex task. A more cohesive organization such as NATO should lead, but in ways that allow continued Arab participation. A creative version of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) coalition could provide the answer.

It was an interesting choice by the authors to showcase one of NATO’s most stupendous and continuing failures in Afghanistan with mention of the ISAF, a force that not only has failed to bring stability to the Central Asia nation in over a decade and a half of occupation, but has presided over the emergence of the Islamic State there where previously it had no presence.

The reality of what NATO is versus what The National Interest op-ed attempts to pass it off as, resembles more of a sales pitch for a shoddy product than a genuine attempt at geopolitical analysis or problem solving. But the truth goes deeper still.

NATO is a Global Wrecking Ball, It Cannot Create Stability

The op-ed focuses primarily on proposing NATO roles for a post-Islamic State Libya, Iraq and Syria.

Libya is perhaps the most tragic of the three, with NATO having used direct military force in 2011 to topple the government of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in support of known extremists passed off at the time by both NATO spokespeople and the US-European media as “moderate rebels.”

The predictable fallout from this military campaign was the collapse of Libya as a relatively stable and unified nation-state into warring factions. The instability became fertile grounds for extremism, with many of the groups backed by NATO evolving into what is now the “Islamic State.”

The National Interest op-ed also makes mention of “Arab participation.” It should be remembered that the most extreme factions fighting in Libya were not only aided by direct NATO military intervention, but were armed and funded by Persian Gulf dictatorships as well, including Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

A similar pattern of sowing instability has unfolded in Syria, leading to, not averting the rise of the Islamic State.

And Iraq’s instability is a direct and lasting consequence of the US military invasion and occupation of 2003.

If nothing else, this exposes NATO and its members as a collective, global wrecking ball. Just as a wrecking ball cannot be used to construct a building on a vacant lot, NATO cannot be used to construct the conditions for stability across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

Really Stopping the Islamic State Means Really Stopping Support for It 

Ultimately, what the op-ed calls for is the permanent occupation of the three nations by NATO forces ranging from special forces in Libya to the formal occupation of Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq.

Interestingly, the op-ed suggests that the NATO occupation force in Syria should not only be used to combat the Islamic State, but to also deter “Syrian military thrusts,” referring to the armed forces of the actual and only legitimate government in Syria.

This last point exposes fully what NATO is really interested in, and what this sales pitch is really advertising. NATO is not in MENA to defeat the Islamic State, it is merely using the Islamic State as a pretext to project Western hegemony across the region.

The closing paragraph states:

This NATO strategy cannot, and should not be expected to, settle the Syrian civil war, bring ethnic and sectarian harmony to Iraq, or create an effective Libyan state. What it could do is create conditions of stability in which lasting solutions at least have a chance. It can do so only if the U.S. is ready to call upon NATO to join it in filling the post-ISIS void and for the European allies to answer that call.

Certainly, NATO’s presence in Syria, Iraq or Libya will not bring any sort of stability. NATO has proven its absolute inability to achieve this in its 16 year occupation of Afghanistan. Claiming NATO occupation will “create conditions of stability in which lasting solutions at least have a chance” is merely NATO’s way of ensuring no matter how the chaos it itself has created across MENA, it will hold a stake in the outcome if for no other reason because it has literally taken and occupies territory within the post-war region.

It is interesting that the Islamic State rose in the wake of US-led, NATO-backed violence stretching from North Africa to Central Asia and only began to suffer setbacks upon greater and more direct Russian and Iranian intervention.

The bombing of Islamic State and Jabhat Al Nusra logistical lines emanating from NATO-member Turkey’s borders by Russian warplanes, for example, inevitably led to huge gains by the Syrian Arab Army including the eventual liberation of Aleppo, the containment of Idlib and a significant retraction of Islamic State-held territory in eastern Syria.

The torrent of supplies feeding Islamic State and other fronts of extremist militancy flowing from Turkey is the admitted result of Persian Gulf sponsorship, which in turn, serves as an intermediary for US and NATO support for what the US Defense Intelligence Agency called in 2012 (.pdf) a “Salafist principality.”

The specific purpose of this “Salafist principality,” admittedly backed by Persian Gulf dictatorships, Turkey and what the US DIA refers to as “the West,” was to “isolate the Syrian regime.”  Clearly then, were NATO genuinely interested in defeating the Islamic State and undoing the damage it has done, it would begin by withdrawing it and its allies’ own support of the terrorist organization in the first place.

In short, if NATO truly wants to create stability across MENA, it merely needs to stop intentionally sowing instability.

Of course, a unilateral military bloc intentionally sowing chaos across an entire region of the planet is doing so for a very specific purpose. It is the same purpose all hegemons throughout human history have sought to divide and destroy regions they cannot outright conquer. A destroyed competitor may not be as favorable as a conquered, controlled and exploited competitor, but is certainly preferable to a free and independent competitor contributing to a greater multipolar world order. NATO, by embedding itself amid the chaos it itself has created, as it has proven in Afghanistan, only ensures further chaos.

Within this chaos, NATO can ensure if its own membership cannot derive benefit from the region, no one else will. A call like that featured in The National Interest for NATO to bring “stability” to the MENA region stands in stark contrast to the reality that everywhere NATO goes, chaos not only follows, it stays indefinitely until NATO leaves.

The best thing NATO can do for stability across MENA is to leave.

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

According to reports, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies continued their advance on Al-Tanaf and managed to take positions in about 20 km away from the town controlled by US-led forces on the Syrian-Iraqi border.

The SAA also captured the Khabrat Zarkaa area south of the Damascus-Baghdad road. Kharbat Zarrkkaa is located about 50 km from the al-Tanf border crossing. According to pro-government sources, Russian Su-30 fighters escorted government forces in the area.

A rough map of the situation:

According to some opposition sources, the US informed Jaish al-Thawrah in Al-Tanf two days ago that it will be transferred to a another area in order to avoid conflict with the SAA.

According to pro-government sources, there was a US-Russian agreement on the deployment of Syrian forces 15 km from Al-Tanf which would be handed over to the SAA after negotiations.

There are reports that the US may establish a base south of Deir Ezzor and transfer Jaish al-Thawrah to it. By this the SAA will be able to open the Damascus – Baghdad road.

At the same time the US-led coalition and the Syrian Free Army can continue the military operation towards the town of Al Bukamal in the Deir Ezzor countryside.

Some of these reports look questionable and can be confirmed only by developments on the ground.

Only days after being labeled the “hidden soldiers of the revolution” by the leader of Tahrir al-Sham (al-Qaeda in Syria), Abu Jaber, the White Helmets have now been exposed as having accepted an award from the terrorist group in Idlib after Hayat Tahrir al-Sham organized a ceremony in their honor.

Indeed, a video has been published that is reportedly a video of the ceremony.

The video, which is in Arabic, is accompanied by English subtitles. The video begins with a voice over which says,

“With the Syrian revolution going into it’s 7th year, Hay’at Tahreer al-Sham (Nusra) finds that it is its duty to honor the hidden soldiers who spent their days and nights serving their people so it organized an honorary ceremony to give some gratitude to those with the White Helmets.”

The video then shows a “dramatization” of the chemical attack and the “heroism” of the White Helmets.

The video claims to show the Idlib director of the White Helmets embracing and kissing Abu-Jaber and Abdallah Al-Muhaysni, both terrorist leaders with HTS (al-Qaeda).

“I would like to thank my brothers in Hay’at Tahreer Al-Sham (Nusra) for this honoring ceremony and all those who participated in organizing this event,” says the individual accepting the award.

Watch the video here

A similar video was recently discovered which was made by the leader of Tahrir al-Sham (al-Qaeda in Syria), Abu Jaber, on March 16, 2017, is making the rounds on social media, showing Jaber praising the White Helmets as the “hidden soldiers of the revolution” and thanking them for what they do.

Watch the video here

“Second, a message of thanks and gratitude to the hidden soldiers of our revolution,” Jaber said. “On top of the list are the parents of the martyrs and the men of the White Helmets.”

The question then becomes,

“If the White Helmets are so unbiased, why does Tahrir al-Sham consider them to be heroes of the ‘revolution?’”

Certainly, al-Qaeda would not consider any organization who assist civilians instead of solely the bearded soldiers of God as heroes of their movement. The answer, of course, is simple. The White Helmets are nothing more than a propaganda wing of al-Qaeda itself, funded by Western governments and NGOs for the purpose of creating false narratives and shock videos designed to manipulate the Western public.

Thursday late night, 18 May 2017, the Greek Parliament voted to accept another round of devastating troika (EC, IMF, ECB) conditions for an additional debt package of close to 5 billion euros. All of the 153 delegates of Alexis Tsipras’ Syriza-Anel coalition voted ‘en bloc’ for the suicide package, all 128 opposition members against. Nineteen didn’t show up. Perhaps they were too afraid to vote for the opposition. Just as a reminder, PM Tsipras, a socialist, is leading Syriza, Greece’s prominent left-wing party, that for reasons of majority decided to align with the extreme right-wing party ‘Anel’ which currently holds a mere 10 seats in Parliament.

And another reminder- Alexis Tsipras, for the last two and a half years, since 26 January 2015, to be precise, has been selling his soul (if he has one), and more importantly, the country that trusted him, to the western crime oligarchs, i.e. the IMF, the European Commission, akin to the European (non-) Union and the Goldman Sachs-run European Central Bank – and Germany. James Petras calls him the Traitor of the year. This may be an understatement.

This new hateful and odious debt – Tsipras and his clan know that its fraud – this new debt will pave the way for more ‘rescue’ packages (a neoliberal term for legal robbery) that will help servicing (pay back) the odious debt – meaning the illegally acquired and imposed debt. Odious Debt, according to all international standards and laws, is illegal debt and may be defaulted on, or canceled at any time by the debtor nation.

This new debt is supposed to alleviate the already monumental and monstrous burden of debt, close to 200% of GDP. Repayment ever is impossible, even by the words of the IMF. Not a penny of the new loan benefit the poor and the destitute, those that have lost everything – those 30-plus percent that are already under the poverty line, of which 1.5 million live in extreme poverty, about 13% of the 11 million Greek population. They stagnate along, many as beggars as a last resort, without jobs, no income, no pensions – all gone, by the troikas criminal imposition of debt and austerity.

The new 5 billion-euro debt comes with even more austerity strings attached, more cuts in pensions, salary reductions, of the remaining meagre social services, privatization of what’s left of social capital and infrastructure – in total cuts of about 4.9 billion euros until 2020. These cuts will further increase poverty, misery, famine, child mortality diseases without cure, no medications, no hospitals, desperation, the suicide rate – and the economy that collapsed by 25% since 2011, will further shrink – beyond the point of no return.

How can anybody in his clear mind think or pretend that this will help Greece out of its strangulation? – It is sheer Suicide that you, Mr. Tsipras and your spineless fellow Members of Parliament are driving your country to commit; slow and hurtful hara-kiri. Not you, of course, Mr. Tsipras. You will be rubbing elbows with the elite that destroys your country. Have you given your people a rational justification, why they should continue to suffer? Why are you still reluctant, even unwilling to talk about exiting this horrendously corrupt construct, called the European Union with is fraudulent, dollar-based and totally unsustainable currency, the euro?

You can take that decision any time. You could have prepared for it – so transition would be smooth. And if you haven’t, it’s never too late. Just give your people hope they can count on. You could gain back your country’s pride and sovereignty – a country and a people that is the symbol of western civilization in more ways than one.

Why do you think you are so important, that your staunch egocentricity is ranked higher than the well-being and the recovery of the people who love their country and who have elected you, believing in you? – Why do you betray your people, Mr. Tsipras?

Where is your love for your country, for your countrymen who have given you a mandate to lead them out of their predicament? Just think for a moment what love could do for them and for your own Peace of Mind.

Are these dark forces behind the money cartels threatening you? Your family? – If you don’t obey, you may be ‘wasted’, in the jargon of western secret services. It has happened before and keeps happening. As a Statesman, step up and tell the world, while saving Greece.

To the people of Greece – why do you accept this humiliation, this betrayal, this usurpation of your resources, robbery of your social capital – your beautiful country – destruction and humiliation of your rich culture, philosophy, mathematics your forefathers created and that have spread around the globe? – Why do you allow this crime being perpetrated upon you – your children and children’s children? –This colossal crime will put future generations in peril

Step out from this straight-jacket of debt and misery, default on your illegal debt, bring back your own currency, the drachma, and start afresh as a new sovereign country. More than half the world is in solidarity with you. Even in the west. Many countries would like to support you, Greece. The diabolical western Brotherhood’s fist in their neck prevents them from doing so. In the East, there is no fear. They will stand by you. The East is the future. Be aware: The East Is The Future.

President, Mr. Xi Jinping’s massive “Economy for Peace” ingenuity, the OBOR – One Belt One Road, now also called the Belt and Road Initiative – BRI, is China’s response to the western world’s economic collapse from greed and aggression. It’s the largest economic platform in the world, encompassing already now more than a dozen countries, more than half of the globe’s population and at least one third of the world’s GDP. The BRI promotes economic development, transportation, infrastructure, energy, education and research – in dimensions unseen in the past.

The idea is to connect all nations and people from Vladivostok to Lisbon and from Shanghai to Hamburg. All are invited, not forced to join. Greece – open your minds, eyes and hearts to OBOR / BRI and you will see a bright future, a quick recovery from your current state of demise. Be courageous. Enough is enough!

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, The 4th Media (China), TeleSUR, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

A ghost of the past was the real winner of the French presidential election. Emmanuel Macron won only because a majority felt they had to vote against the ghost of “fascism” allegedly embodied by his opponent, Marine Le Pen.  Whether out of panic or out of the need to feel respectable, the French voted two to one in favor of a man whose program most of them either ignored or disliked.  Now they are stuck with him for five years.

If people had voted on the issues, the majority would never have elected a man representing the trans-Atlantic elite totally committed to “globalization”, using whatever is left of the power of national governments to weaken them still further, turning over decision-making to “the markets” – that is, to international capital, managed by the major banks and financial institutions, notably those located in the United States, such as Goldman-Sachs.

The significance of this election is so widely misrepresented that clarification requires a fairly thorough explanation, not only of the Macron project, but also of what the (impossible) election of Marine Le Pen would have meant.

From a Two Party to a Single Party System

Despite the multiparty nature of French elections, for the past generation France has been essentially ruled by a two-party system, with government power alternating between the Socialist Party, roughly the equivalent of the U.S. Democratic Party, and a party inherited from the Gaullist tradition which has gone through various name changes before recently settling on calling itself Les Républicains (LR),in obvious imitation of the United States.  For decades, there has been nothing “socialist” about the Socialist Party and nothing Gaullist about The Republicans.  In reality, both have adopted neoliberal economic policies, or more precisely, they have followed European Union directives requiring member states to adopt neoliberal economic policies. Especially since the adoption of the common currency, the euro, a little over fifteen years ago, those economic policies have become tangibly harmful to France, hastening its deindustrialization, the ruin of its farmers and the growing indebtedness of the State to private banks.

This has had inevitable political repercussions. The simplest reaction has been widespread reaction against both parties for continuing to pursue the same unpopular policies. The most thoughtful reaction has been to start realizing that it is the European Union itself that imposes this unpopular economic conformism.

To quell growing criticism of the European Union, the well-oiled Macron machine, labeled “En Marche!” has exploited the popular reaction against both governing parties.  It has broken and absorbed large parts of both, in an obvious move to turn En Marche! into a single catch-all party loyal to Macron.

The destruction of the Socialist Party was easy. Since the “Socialist” government was so unpopular that it could not hope to win, it was easy to lure prominent members of that party to jump the sinking ship and rally to Macron, who had been economics minister in that unpopular government, but who was advertised by all the media as “new” and “anti-system”.

Weakening the Republicans was trickier. Thanks to the deep unpopularity of the outgoing Socialist government, the Republican candidate, François Fillon, looked like a shoo-in.  But despite his pro-business economic policies, Fillon still cared about preserving France, and favored an independent foreign policy including good relations with Russia.  It is unknown who dug into old records to come up with information about the allegedly fake jobs Fillon gave to his wife and children in past years, and how they were passed on the weekly Canard Enchainé to be revealed at a critical moment in the campaign. The uproar drowned out the issues. To an electorate already wary of “establishment politicians”, these revelations were fatal.  The impression that “politicians are all corrupt” played into the hands of Emmanuel Macron, too young to have done anything worse than make a few quick millions during his passage through the Rothschild Bank, and there’s nothing illegal about that.

In France, the presidential election is followed by parliamentary elections, which normally give a majority to the party of the newly elected president. But Macron had no party, so he is creating one for the occasion, made up of defectors from the major defeated parties as well as his own innovation, candidates from “civil society”, with no political experience, but loyal to him personally.  These “civil society” newcomers tend to be successful individuals, winners in the game of globalized competition, who will have no trouble voting for anti-labor measures. Macron is thus confirming Marine Le Pen’s longstanding assertion that the two main parties were really one big single party, whose rhetorical differences masked their political convergence.

The Macron victory demoralized Republicans. Weakening them further, Macron named a Republican, Edouard Philippe, as his Prime Minister, in a government with four Socialist and two Republican, alongside his own selections from “civil society”.

Transforming France

Macron won in part because older voters in particular were frightened by his opponents’ hints at leaving the European Union, which they have been indoctrinated to consider necessary to prevent renewal of Europe’s old wars.  But only the hysterical anti-fascist scare can explain why self-styled leftist “revolutionaries” such as François Ruffin, known for his successful anti-capitalist movie “Merci Patron”, could join the stampede to vote for Macron – promising to “oppose him later”. But how?

Later, after five years of Macron, opposition may be harder than ever.  In recent decades, as manufacturing moves to low wage countries, including EU members such as Poland and Rumania, France has lost 40% of its industry.  Loss of industry means loss of jobs and fewer workers. When industry is no longer essential, workers have lost their key power: striking to shut down industry. Currently the desperate workers in a failing auto-works factory in central France are threatening to blow it up unless the government takes measures to save their jobs.  But violence is powerless when it has no price tag.

Emmanuel Macron has said that he wants to spend only a short time in political life, before getting back to business. He has a mission, and he is in a hurry. If he gains an absolute majority in the June parliamentary elections, he has a free hand to govern for five years. He means to use this period not to “reform” the country, as his predecessors put it, but to “transform” France into a different sort of country. If he has his way, in five years France will no longer be a sovereign nation, but a reliable region in a federalized European Union, following a rigorous economic policy made in Germany by bankers and a bellicose foreign policy made in Washington by neocons.

As usual, the newly elected French president’s first move was to rush to Berlin to assert loyalty to the increasingly lopsided “Franco-German partnership”. He was most warmly welcomed by Chancellor Angela Merkel, thanks to his clear determination to force through the austerity measures demanded by the Frankfurt budget masters. Macron hopes that his fiscal obedience will be rewarded by German consent to a European investment fund for stimulating economic growth, but this implies a degree of federalism that the pfennig-pinching Germans show little sign of accepting.

First of all, he has promised to complete the dismantling of the French labor code, which offers various protections to workers. This should save money for employers and the government. For Macron, the ruin of French industry and French farming seem to be welcome steps toward an economy of individual initiative, symbolized by startups.

The Macron program amounts to a profound ideological transformation of the French ideal of égalité, equality, from a horizontal concept, meaning equal benefits for all, to the vertical ideal of “equality of opportunity”, meaning the theoretical chance of every individual to rise above the others. This is an ideal easily accepted in the United States with its longstanding myth of the self-made man. The French have traditionally been logical enough to understand that everyone can’t rise above the others.

Horizontal equality in France has primarily meant institutional redistribution of wealth via universal access to benefits such as health care, pensions, communications and transportation facilities, allocations for families raising children, unemployment insurance, free education at all levels. These are the benefits that are under threat from the European Union in various ways.  One way is the imposition of “competition” rules that impose privatization and favor foreign takeovers that transform public services into profit-seekers. Another is the imposition of public budget restrictions, along with the obligation of the State to seek private loans, increasing its debt, and the loss of tax revenue that all end up up making the State too poor to continue providing such services.

Very few French people would want to give up such horizontal equality for the privilege of hoping to become a billionaire.

Macron is sufficiently Americanized, or, to be more precise, globalized, to have declared that “there is no such thing as French culture”. From this viewpoint, France is just a place open to diverse cultures, as well as to immigrants and of course foreign capital.  He has clearly signaled his rejection of French independence in the foreign policy field.  Unlike his leading rivals, who all called for improved relations with Russia, Macron echoes the Russophobic line of the neocons. He broke tradition on his inauguration by riding down the Champs-Elysées in a military vehicle. A change of tone is indicated by his cabinet nominations. The title of the new foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, who served as defense minister in the Hollande government, is “Minister of Europe and of Foreign Affairs”, clearly giving Europe preference in the matter. Sylvie Goulard, an ardent Europeist who has remarked that “she does not feel French”, has been named Minister of Armies and Minister of Defense. Clearly national defense is an afterthought, when the main idea is to deploy the armed forces in various joint Western interventions.

The Divided Opposition

Unless the June parliamentary elections produce stunning surprises, the opposition to Macron’s catch-all governance party appears weak and fatally divided. The Socialist Party is almost wiped out. The Republicans are profoundly destabilized. Genuine opposition to the Macron regime can only be based on defense of French interests against EU economic dictates, starting with the euro, which prevents the country from pursuing an independent economic and foreign policy. In short, the genuine opposition must be “souverainiste”, concerned with preserving French sovereignty.

Two strong personalities emerged from the presidential election as potential leaders of that opposition: Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Marine Le Pen. But they are drastically divided.

Mélenchonran a spectacularly popular campaign, leaving the Socialist Party far behind (the party he personally left behind years ago).  Initially, as he seemed to be taking votes away from Le Pen as well as from the Socialists, he got friendly media coverage, but as he came closer to making it to the decisive second round, the tone started to change.  Just as Le Pen was finally knocked out as a “fascist”, there is little doubt that had Mélenchon been Macron’s challenger, he would have been increasingly denounced as “communist”.

Mélenchon is intelligent enough to have realized that the social policies he advocates cannot be achieved unless France recovers control of its currency.  He therefore took a stand against both NATO and the euro. So did Marine Le Pen. Mélenchon was embarrassed by the resemblance between their two programs, and contrary to other eliminated candidates, refrained from endorsing Macron, instead calling on his movement, La France Insoumise, to choose between Macron and abstention. Finally, 25% of Mélenchon voters abstained in the second round, but 62% voted for Macron– almost exclusively motivated by the alleged need to “stop fascism”. That compares with the final total results of 66% for Macron and 34 % for Le Pen.

That vote confirmed the impossibility of forming a unified souverainiste opposition and allows Marine Le Pen to strengthen her claim to be the leader of a genuine opposition to Macron. She has admitted her own mistakes in the campaign, particularly in her debate with Macron, who beat her hands down with his arrogant performance as the economic expert. But despite her mere 34%, she retains the most loyal base of supporters in a changing scene.  The problem for Mélenchon is that his electorate is more versatile.

Despite his loud appeal to “youth”, Macron was elected by France’s huge population of old people.  Among voters over 65, he won 80% against 20% for Le Pen. Marine Le Pen did best with the youngest age group, 18 to 24, winning 44% against Macron’s 56%[i].

The differences were also significant between socio-professional categories.  Macron won a whopping 83% of the votes coming from the “superior socio-professional categories” –categories where the “winners” in competitive society are largely ensconced.   But in what are described as “categories populaires”, a French term for ordinary folk, with less education, the vote was 53% in favor of Le Pen.  And she confirmed her position as favorite candidate of the working class, winning 63% of workers’ votes.

Note that the “superior socio-professional categories” are where the significance of these results will be defined.  Individuals from that category – journalists, commentators and show business personalities –are all in a position to spread the word that this vote indicates that the workers must be “racist”, and therefore that we have narrowly escaped being taken over by “fascism”.

One of the many odd things about the latest French presidential election is the rejoicing among foreign “leftists” over the fact that the candidate of the rich roundly defeated the candidate of the poor.  It used to be the other way around, but that was long ago.  These days, the winners in the competitive game comfort themselves that they morally deserve their success, because they are in favor of diversity and against racism, whereas the less fortunate, the rural people and the working class, don’t deserve much of anything, because they must be “racist” to be wary of globalization.

The fact that Paris voted 90% for Macron is natural, considering that real estate prices have pushed the working class out of the capital, whose population is now overwhelmingly what is called “bobo” – the bohemian bourgeoisie, many of whom are employed in various branches of the dominant human rights ideology fabrication business: journalists, professors, teachers, consultants, the entertainment industry.  In these milieux, hardly anyone would even dare speak a positive word about Marine Le Pen.

What if Marine Le Pen had won?

Since politics is largely fantasy, we may as well try to imagine the unimaginable: what if Marine Le Pen had won the election? This was never a realistic possibility, but it is worth imagining.

It could have had one, perhaps only one, extremely positive result: it could have freed France from its paralyzing obsession with the nonexistent “fascist threat”. The ghost would be exorcised. If the word has any meaning, “fascism” implies single party rule, whereas Marine Le Pen made clear her desire to govern by coalition, and selected the leader of a small Gaullist party, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, as her prospective prime minister. Poof! No fascism. That would have been an immeasurable benefit for political debate in France. At last genuine issues might matter. Real threats could be confronted.

Another advantage would have been the demise of the National Front. Since Marine Le Pen took over the notorious party founded by her reactionary father, it has kept a precarious balance between two opposing wings. There is the right wing in the southeast, along the Riviera, the bastion of the party’s founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen, a region represented in the outgoing parliament by his conservative granddaughter Marion Maréchal Le Pen.  In the old industrial northeast region, between Arras and Lille, Marine Le Pen has built her own bastion,as champion of ordinary working people, where she won a majority of votes in the presidential election.

This is not the only time in history when an heiress has gone away with the heritage to join someone of whom her father disapproves. All those who want to cling to their comforting hatred of the left’s official Satan have trouble believing that Marine Le Pen broke with her reactionary father to go her own way (just as U.S. hawks couldn’t believe in Gorbachev).This change owes everything to her encounter with Florian Philippot, an intellectual who gave up on the ability of the Socialists to face the real issues. Marine has the personal qualities of a leader, and Philippot provided the intellectual substance she needed.  Marine has decisively chosen Philippot as her advisor and co-leader, despite grumblings by Jean-Marie that she has been led astray by a gay Marxist. Had Marine won, her left wing would have been strengthened enough to enable her and Philippot to scrap the National Front and found a new “Patriot Party”. However, by scoring below 40%, she has weakened her authority and must try to hold the troublesome party together in order to win seats in the new parliament – which will not be easy.

Marine Le Pen would have tried to enact measures to save French industry and the jobs it provides, provide various benefits for low-income people, withdraw from NATO, and even promote a peaceful world, starting with friendly relations with Russia. She would even have begun to prepare her compatriots for escape from the euro.

But not to worry, none of this “fascist” program would ever have come to pass. If she had won, bands of protesting “antifascists” would have invaded the streets, smashing windows and attacking police. The outgoing Socialist government was preparing to use the resulting chaos as a pretext to stay in power long enough to manage the parliamentary elections[2], ensuring that President Marine Le Pen would be held in check. A “color revolution” was ready to be stirred up.The deep state is vigilant in NATOland.

Diana Johnstone is co-author of “From MAD to Madness: Inside Pentagon Nuclear War Planning”, by Paul H. Johnstone, her father. (published by ClarityPress).

click link or front cover of book to order directly from Clarity Press:

 

Notes

[1] According to poll of 7,752 representativevoters by Le Figaro/LCI, http://opinionlab.opinion-way.com/dokumenty/OpinionWay-SondageJourduVote-Tour2Presidentielle20177Mai2017.pdf

[2] “Si Le Pen avaitétéélue… le plan secret pour ‘protéger la République’”, Le NouvelObservateur, May 17, 2017 http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/presidentielle-2017/20170516.OBS9474/si-le-pen-avait-ete-elue-le-plan-secret-pour-proteger-la-republique.html

On Friday, within minutes of President Donald Trump taking off on Air Force One for Saudi Arabia, the first leg of an nine-day overseas trip, new allegations published by the Washington Post and the New York Times added further fuel to the political warfare in Washington.

The conflict is a struggle between two factions of the ruling class and the state apparatus, both deeply reactionary, militaristic and anti-working class. It centers on differences over US imperialist foreign policy. The Democrats have chosen to base their opposition to Trump, who embodies the criminality of the financial oligarchy, on the charge that he is a dupe of Russian President Vladimir Putin. This, in turn, is based on entirely unsubstantiated charges that the Russian government hacked and leaked Democratic emails to tip the 2016 campaign to Trump.

The Democrats express the outlook of forces within the intelligence establishment who believe Trump cannot be trusted to continue and escalate the Obama administration’s confrontation with Russia in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. They have virtually nothing to say about the ongoing attacks by Trump on health care, education and the environment, or the war against immigrants.

In Friday’s article, the Post reported that the FBI investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, now headed by special counsel Robert Mueller (picture on the right), has identified a current senior administration official as a “person of interest.” The report is the first indication that the investigation is looking not only at former Trump aides, such as one-time campaign manager Paul Manafort and former national security adviser Michael Flynn, but is, in the words of the Post, “reaching into the highest levels of government.”

The newspaper cited “people familiar with the matter,” who would not further identify the Trump official under scrutiny, but said the person is “someone close to the president.” Current Trump administration officials who have acknowledged contacts with Russian officials include Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and White House adviser Jared Kushner, a multi-millionaire real estate investor and son-in-law to Trump.

The only response by the White House to the Post article was a pro-forma statement by press secretary Sean Spicer:

“As the president has stated before, a thorough investigation will confirm that there was no collusion between the campaign and any foreign entity.”

The Post noted that the White House has acknowledged a Kushner meeting with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States, in late November. It added that Kushner himself has acknowledged he met with the head of a Russian development bank, Vnesheconombank, which has been targeted for US sanctions since July 2014.

The probe is accelerating, according to the newspaper’s sources, with a grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia issuing subpoenas and various individuals being interviewed by investigators. The grand jury has issued subpoenas for records from Flynn, who was forced to resign as national security adviser last February for allegedly lying to Vice President Mike Pence about discussions he held with Ambassador Kislyak about Obama administration sanctions against Russia.

The special counsel and FBI are demanding records of Flynn’s business, the Flynn Intel Group, which was reportedly paid over $500,000 by a firm owned by a Turkish-American businessman with close ties to the Turkish government. The firm was paid to do research on the US-based émigré cleric Fethullah Gulen, repeatedly denounced by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as a CIA asset involved in the a failed coup against his government last summer. Istanbul has called on the US to extradite Gulen.

Almost simultaneous with the appearance of the Washington Post article, the New York Times reported that in his Oval Office meeting with Russian Foreign Secretary Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador Kislyak on May 10, the day after he fired FBI Director James Comey, President Trump called Comey “a real nut job” and said of his decision to dismiss him:

“I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

The sudden firing of Comey, who was heading up the FBI investigation into allegations of Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign emails and possible collusion by the Trump campaign, immediately raised charges of obstruction of justice, an impeachable offense. Trump himself seemed to substantiate the charge that he acted in order to stall or shut down the probe when, in a TV interview two days after the firing, he associated the decision with the Russia investigation.

Friday’s Times article appears to provide further evidence that Comey’s firing was motivated by a desire to impede the investigation. According to the newspaper, the quote by Trump was included in a document based on notes taken from inside the Oval office and circulated as the official account of the meeting.

White House spokesman Spicer did not contradict the report. Instead, he said that Comey’s “grandstanding and politicizing” of the investigation had obstructed “our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia.” He went on to denounce the leaking of classified information.

Senate Intelligence Committee leaders announced Friday night that Comey had agreed to testify in public session on a date to be set after Memorial Day (May 29).

Earlier on Friday, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who named former FBI Director Mueller as special counsel on Wednesday, briefed the entire House of Representatives in closed door meeting. This followed a similar meeting with the full Senate the previous day.

Rosenstein acknowledged he had been told that Trump had decided to fire Comey the day before he submitted a memorandum to the president sharply critical of Comey’s handling of the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state. Trump dismissed Comey the same day as Rosenstein’s memo, May 9, but the White House initially issued a false story that the initiative for the move had come from the deputy attorney general.

Frustrated senators and congressmen, mostly Democrats, complained, however, that Rosenstein refused to give any further details on the firing, using the appointment of Mueller as an all-purpose justification for remaining silent. Nor did the Justice Department official answer questions about the ability of various House and Senate committees investigating the Russia issue to obtain access to witnesses and documents now that Mueller has been empowered.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (Republican of Iowa) wrote in a statement:

“I would not be surprised if the new Special Counsel Mueller stops Comey from testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee even though Comey is willing.”

Defense Secretary James Mattis announced at a press briefing on Friday that President Donald Trump had approved a new Pentagon plan that would escalate the war for US domination of the Middle East and North Africa.

Mattis told reporters that the plan would aim to militarily encircle strongholds of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to “annihilate” the Islamist militia, which still controls significant portions of Syria and Iraq.

The immediate target is the ISIS capital of Raqqa in northern Syria, where a major offensive is being prepared by the US in coordination with the various Kurdish and Arab Syrian militias it has built up during the five-year conflict. The civil war has been stoked by the US and its regional allies with the aim of unseating Syrian President Bashar al Assad.

Mattis also reported that Trump had delegated the ability to authorize military operations to him and to commanders on the ground to speed up operations.

“We’ve accelerated the campaign,” Mattis said, indicating that commanders were already taking advantage of their new-found authority.

The Obama administration used the emergence of ISIS in Iraq and Syria in 2014 to justify redeploying thousands of US troops to Iraq and deploying hundreds of troops to Syria, while opening a campaign of airstrikes across both countries.

The bloody campaigns by US and Iraqi forces to retake cities seized by ISIS, including Fallujah and Mosul, have resulted in the complete destruction of entire neighborhoods and have displaced hundreds of thousands of people. US airstrikes have killed thousands of civilians, with a significant uptick in casualties since Trump took office in January.

ISIS developed out of the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, in which the US stoked sectarian divisions between Shiites and Sunnis to assert its control, and the war for regime change in Syria beginning in 2011, in which the CIA and Pentagon supported Sunni Islamist militias, elements of which formed ISIS.

According to the Pentagon, ISIS now maintains branches and affiliates in multiple countries, all of which will require US military intervention across a broad swath of territory from Central Asia to West Africa.

The decision by Trump heralds a dramatic escalation of conflicts that have killed more than a million people and displaced tens of millions from their homes over the last 16 years under the guise of the so-called “war on terror.” In the eyes of military planners, the turn by the United States to use military force to offset its relative economic decline and assert its dominance over the entire globe is just in its beginning stages.

Military operations waged against ISIS and other Islamist militias are underway in Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, the US recently dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb ever used in combat on a network of caves allegedly being used by the ISIS Khorasan affiliate.

The ever-expanding use of military force is not limited to the United States. At Friday’s press conference, Mattis singled out the deployment of 4,000 French troops to the Lake Chad region of West Africa. France has been fighting Islamist insurgents there since 2014, including Boko Haram militants who have pledged their allegiance to ISIS.

The announcement of the Pentagon’s wide-ranging war strategy came just one day after American war planes launched airstrikes on Shiite militias loyal to the Assad government near Syria’s borders with Jordan and Iraq. It was the first attack by the Trump administration on forces aligned with Assad since the April 6 cruise missile strike on al-Shayrat airbase.

The pro-Assad paramilitary group that came under attack had allegedly come within 18 miles of a military base where American and British Special Forces are training Sunni militants.

Mattis noted the airstrike at the press conference on Friday, blaming the attack on the intervention of Iran in Syria.

“It [the strike] was necessitated by offensive movement with offensive capability of what we believe was Iranian-directed forces inside an established and agreed upon deconfliction zone,” he claimed.

Both Russia and Iran have intervened militarily to prop up their ally Assad. While the US military intervention in Syria, illegal under international law, is couched as an effort to defeat ISIS and eliminate the threat of terrorism, it is ultimately aimed at the ouster of Assad. This has created the conditions for a direct clash between the US and Russian and Iranian-backed forces that could quickly spiral out of control, precipitating a much larger conflict.

The announcement of the Pentagon’s new strategy came as Trump left Washington for his first foreign trip in office. The first stop will be Saudi Arabia, where the president is expected to announce a record $110 billion arms deal with the Saudi monarchy. The deal reportedly includes precision guided bombs that had been withheld by the Obama administration while it funneled billions of dollars of other weaponry.

The brutal Saudi onslaught against Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world, aims to re-impose a Saudi- and US-backed puppet government. The war, which began in 2015, has killed thousands of civilians and pushed millions to the brink of famine. The latest weapons deal will further escalate the carnage.

Saudi Arabia has been using US weapons and support to wage an unrelenting air war and naval blockade against Yemen, creating a humanitarian crisis. Hundreds of thousands are now threatened by a deadly outbreak of cholera.

The US support for Saudi Arabia, which is one of the main funders of Sunni Islamist militias along with the other Gulf monarchies, belies the narrative that the US is waging a war to defeat these groups. These outfits serve as convenient props for American imperialism, used as proxy forces against those that stand in the way of American dominance and trotted out as an excuse for the deployment the US military to every corner of the globe.

“We have now the ability to manipulate public opinion on a level we have never seen before. And the current framework is weak and helpless.”  -Damian Tambini, director of the media policy project at the London School of Economics [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

The first round of elections in France took place April 23rd. None of the candidates received more than 50% of the vote, and so by convention, a run-off was called.

During that run-off, Emmanuel Macron faced Marine Le Pen. Macron is a former banker, Economy Minister, and self-described centrist committed to keeping France within the European Union. [2]Marine Le Pen of the National Front ran on a campaign of safeguarding the national interest, the banning of GMOs and shale gas exploration and the holding a referendum on EU membership.[3] Le Pen made international headlines with remarks she made tapping voter concerns about Islamist terrorism, security and immigration.[4][5]

Macron emerged triumphant, however just before voters went to the polls, news of a cyber-attack on his campaign began to circulate. With a campaign black-out going into effect, neither campaign had an opportunity to comment before the election. [6]

With M. Macron now having officially assumed the office of the President of France, we examine evidence of manipulation during the campaign and what this means for the future of France. Our guest for the first half hour is Diana Johnstone.

On the other side of the English Channel, Theresa May surprised observers with a snap election call on April 18th. This election comes only two years into her government’s mandate. [7]

The Prime Minister had promised for months that she would not call an early election however, she claimed when she made the announcement on the steps of 10 Downing Street that she needed a decisive victory against the opposition in order to prevent them from derailing her Brexit plan as she enters negotiations with the EU. [8]

Graham Vanbergen is convinced that there is more at stake than Brexit in this election. In fact, he sees the same ‘dark money’ forces at work in the campaign as those which affected the outcomes of the US Presidential campaign and the Brexit referendum. [9]He joins the Global Research News Hour in the second half to share his thoughts about these dynamics, what it all means for democracy in Great Britain, and the future of the EU and NATO.

Diana Johnstone is an American political writer based in Paris. Best known for her book, Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions, Johnstone is also the author of Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton. She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Graham Vanbergen is the contributing editor of TruePublica.Org. – an Independent research media organisation whose aims are to publish news, analysis, commentary and research on public affairs and of public interest. His work is also published at Global Research.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

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

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

1. Carole Cadwalladr (April 1, 2017) “‘Dark money’ is threat to integrity of UK elections, say leading academics”, The Guardian; https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/01/dark-money-threat-to-uk-elections-integrity
2. Michael Birnbaum and James McAuley (April 23, 2017) “Right-wing Le Pen claims victory alongside centrist Macron for French presidential runoff, with E.U. future at stake”, Washington Post; https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/french-citizens-vote-in-an-uncertain-race-that-could-determine-europes-future/2017/04/23/fd3759ce-1fa4-11e7-bb59-a74ccaf1d02f_story.html?utm_term=.3602202e17da
3. Helene Fouquet (February 4, 2017) “France’s Marine Le Pen Unveils Presidential Platform Measures”, Bloomberg;https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-04/france-s-marine-le-pen-unveils-presidential-platform-measures
4. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-lepen-idUSKBN17Q0TW
5. Adam Nossiter (April 20, 2017) “Marine Le Pen Leads Far-Right Fight to Make France ‘More French’”, The New York Times;https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/20/world/europe/france-election-marine-le-pen.html
6. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/06/527154146/french-candidate-emmanuel-macron-says-campaign-has-been-hacked-hours-before-elec
7. Joe Watts (APril 18, 2017) “Theresa May shocks Brexit Britain with snap election she said she’d never call for”, Independent; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-election-2017-uk-pm-shocks-nation-with-promise-breaking-vote-a7689911.html
8. ibid
9. http://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/link-brexit-us-election-mi6-fake-news-dark-money/

The US military forces committed a classical example of aggression on a sovereign and independent state on April 6^th, 2017 by bombing the territory of Syrian Arab Republic with 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles killing civilians who are proclaimed as “collateral damage”.

A formal excuse for the aggression was based as many times before (from Vietnam, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya… cases) on traditional political false flags and mainstream media fake news used by the US propaganda machine to sanction the Pentagon’s hegemonic policy of the Pax Americana.

The Fundamental Dilemma

The fundamental question is why the Obama and Trump administrations  supporting various Islamic fundamentalist jihadist organizations in Syria and the Mideast, labelled by the White House as “moderate rebels”?

The terrorist is simply the terrorist and there is no any difference between “moderate” or “hardcore” terrorist if the first term can exist at all for both logical and moral reasons.

It is already known that all of these terrorists in Syria, including primarily the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL/DAESH), are armed and sponsored by the US (and Israel) and their regional quisling states (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar…).

The terrorists’ original warfare of partisan strategy [i], like by the Muslim Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army in 1995−1999, was based only on direct provoking of the legal and legitimate Syrian state security forces to respond by attacking the terrorists’ posts. Later, well armed and equipped terrorists occupied immense portion of Syria and establishing full scale of ideological and religious terror against the civilians that simply forced a regular Syrian security forces to launch large scale military actions in order to stop the jihadist terror and liberate the country from the criminals but as it is expected with unavoidable number of civilian casualties.

However, these civilian victims are not understood by the White House as a “collateral damage” but rather as the victims of deliberate ethnic cleansing and war crimes committed by the legitimate Syrian Government. Nevertheless, all civilian victims of the US bombing of Syria are (and will be in the future) presented by the US administration exactly as a “collateral damage” of the American “Just War”[ii] against the “oppressive” regime in Damascus.

The Principles of a “Just War” and the American Aggression on Syria

Here we will present the basic (academic) principles of a “Just War”:

1. Last resort – All diplomatic options are exhausted before the force is used.
2. Just cause – The ultimate purpose of use of force is to self-defend its own territory or people from military attack by the others.
3. Legitimate authority – To imply the legitimate constituted Government of a sovereign state, but not by some private (individual) or group (organization).
4. Right intention – The use of force, or war, had to be prosecuted on the morally acceptable reasons, but not based on revenge or the intention to inflict the damage.
5. Reasonable prospect of success – The use of force should not be activated in some hopeless cause, in which the human lives are exposed for no real benefits.
6. Proportionality – The military intervention has to have more benefits than loses.
7. Discrimination – The use of force must be directed only at the purely military targets as the civilians are considered to be innocent.
8. Proportionality – The used force has to be no greater than it is needed to achieve morally acceptable aims and must not be greater than the provoking cause.
9. Humanity – The use of force can not be directed ever against the enemy personnel if they are captured (the prisoners of war) or wounded.[iii]

Nevertheless, if we analyze the last US (but probably not and the final) military campaign in regard to above presented basic (academic) principles of a “Just War”, the fundamental conclusions are:

1. The US administration did not use any real diplomatic effort to settle the Syrian crisis as Washington simply gave the political-military ultimatum only to one side (the Syrian Government) to either accept or not in full required blackmails.
2. This principle was absolutely misused by Washington as the USA was never attacked or occupied by Syria. The legal Syrian Government is waging a classic anti-terroristic war against the illegal military movements sponsored by the Mideast America’s quisling regimes and the US administration itself. In other words, the second principle of a “Just War” can be only applied to the anti-terroristic operations waged by the state authorities of Syria against the jihad militants and other terrorists rather than to the US military intervention against Syria.
3. The Legitimate authority principle in the Syrian conflict case can be applied only to Syria and her legitimate state institutions and authority which are recognized as legitimate by the international community and above all by the UN.
4. The morally acceptable reasons officially used by Washington to justify its own military action against Syria are quite unclear and above all unproved and misused for the very political and geostrategic purposes in the coming future. It was the same case with the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 but today we know that the NATO military campaign was not based on the morally proved claims to stop a mass expulsion of the ethnic Albanians from their homes in Kosovo as a mass number of refugees appeared during the NATO military intervention but not before. If Washington with its Western quislings was lying in the 1999 Kosovo case, it is logically quite expected to lie and today in the case of Syria.
5. The consequences of the fifth principle are selectively applied as only the terrorists will benefit from both short and long term perspectives by the US military engagement in Syria if somebody will not stop further American (in fact Israeli) imperialism in the Mideast.
6. The sixth principle is also practically applied only to the jihad terrorists in Syria, especially to the Islamic State, what is in fact and the ultimate task of the US policy in the Syrian conflict from its very beginning in 2013. In other words, the benefits of the American military intervention in Syria are overwhelmingly single-sided. From the long-term geostrategic, political as well as economic aspects, the intervention is considered to be very profitable with minimum loses for the US military during the further aggression on Syria.
7. The practical consequences of the seventh principle is and it is going to be mostly criticized as the US obviously did not make any difference between the military and civilian targets similarly as it was in the case of the aggression on Serbia and Montenegro by the NATO in 1999 when it was even deliberately bombed much more civilian objects and non-combat citizens than the military objects and personnel – something what Syria can expect if Washington will continue with its aggression on the country. In this case, all civilian victims of the bombing of all nationalities will be simply presented by Washington as an unavoidable “collateral damage”, but in fact it is already and probably it will be a clear violation of the international law and one of the basic principles of the concept of a “Just War”.
8. The eighth principle of a “Just War” surely was not respected by Washington on April 6^th, 2017, and it is not going to be respected in the future, as the used force was much higher as needed to achieve proclaimed tasks and above all was much stronger that the opposite side had. However, the morally acceptable aims of the American policymakers are based on the wrong and deliberately misused “fact” in regard to the use of the chemical weapons (ChW) against civilians by the regular Syrian army. In this context, we have to remind ourselves that Washington used the same false flag strategy against Serbia and Montenegro in 1999 when the “brutal massacre of forty-five civilians in the Kosovo village of Račak in January 1999”[iv] by the Serbian security forces became a formal pretext for the NATO aggression. Nevertheless, it is known today that those Albanian “brutally massacred civilians” were in fact the members of the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army killed during the regular fight but not executed as the civilians as it was deliberately presented by the neocon warmongers in Washington.[v]
9. Only the last principle of a “Just War” is respected by the US in the case of the American recent aggression on Syria but for the very reason that there are no captured soldiers from the opponent side. The same case was and concerning the NATO aggression on Serbia and Montenegro in 1999 when the Serbian authorities respected this principle as all (two) NATO captured pilots were treated as the prisoners of war according to the international standards and even were free very soon after the imprisonment.[vi]

Make America a Global Empire Again!

The US post-WWII imperialistic foreign policy of global hegemony is obviously not to be changed by a new 45^th US President who only after three months obliterated all his pre-electoral campaign promises to keep hands off from Syria and to finally stop with the American practice of interventionist policies across the world.

Unfortunately, the unlimited US imperialism is going to be on agenda and of the 45^th American President whose motto “Make America Great Again” is nothing else but only the intention to restore the US role of the post-Cold War global policemen “for behalf of the American people” as it is written on his presidential Twitter account (@POTUS). Therefore, Donald Trump (Einstein) as international law breaker and another war criminal in the Oval Office is going to be a good American President like his predecessor Barack Obama the Bomber who created the civil war in Syria by direct sponsoring the jihad Mideast terrorists.

Notes

[i] The “partisan” or “guerrilla” war is fought by irregular troops using mainly tactics that are fitting to the geographical features of the terrain. The crucial characteristic of the tactics of the partisan war is that it uses mobility and surprise but not direct frontal battles with the enemy. Usually, the civilians are paying the highest price in the course of the partisan war. In the other words, it is “war conducted by irregulars or guerrillas, usually against regular, uniformed forces, employing hit-and-run, ambush, and other tactics that allow smaller numbers of guerrillas to win battles against numerically superior, often heavily-armed regular forces” [P. R. Viotti, M. V. Kauppi, International Relations and World Politics: Secularity, Economy, Identity, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2009, 544]. With regard to the Kosovo War in 1998−1999 the reconstruction of the Albanian guerrilla strategy is as following:

“…a police patrol is passing a village, when a sudden fire is open and some policemen killed and wounded. The police return the fire and the further development depends on the strength of the rebellious unit engaged. If the village appears well protected and risky to attack by the ordinary units, the latter stops fighting and calls for additional support. It arrives usually as a paramilitary unit, which launches a fierce onslaught” [P. V. Grujić, Kosovo Knot, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: RoseDog Books, 2014, 193].     

[ii]A “Just War” is considered to be a war that has a purpose to satisfy certain ethical standards, and therefore is (allegedly) morally justified. 

[iii] A. Heywood, Global Politics, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, 257.

[iv] R. J. Art, K. N. Waltz (eds.), The Use of Force: Military Power and International Politics, Lanham−Boulder−New York−Toronto−Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2004, 257.

[v] В. Б. Сотировић, Огледи из југославологије, Виљнус: приватно издање, 2013, 19−29.

[vi] On the NATO “humanitarian” intervention in the FRY in 1999, see more in [G. Szamuely, Bombs for Peace: NATO’s Humanitarian War on Yugoslavia, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013].

Julian Assange has been vindicated because the Swedish case against him was corrupt. The prosecutor, Marianne Ny, obstructed justice and should be prosecuted. Her obsession with Assange not only embarrassed her colleagues and the judiciary but exposed the Swedish state’s collusion with the United States in its crimes of war and “rendition”.

Had Assange not sought refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, he would have been on his way to the kind of American torture pit Chelsea Manning had to endure.

This prospect was obscured by the grim farce played out in Sweden.

“It’s a laughing stock,” said James Catlin, one of Assange’s Australian lawyers. “It is as if they make it up as they go along”.

It may have seemed that way, but there was always serious purpose. In 2008, a secret Pentagon document prepared by the “Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch” foretold a detailed plan to discredit WikiLeaks and smear Assange personally.

The “mission” was to destroy the “trust” that was WikiLeaks’ “centre of gravity”. This would be achieved with threats of “exposure [and] criminal prosecution”. Silencing and criminalising such an unpredictable source of truth-telling was the aim.

Perhaps this was understandable. WikiLeaks has exposed the way America dominates much of human affairs, including its epic crimes, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq: the wholesale, often homicidal killing of civilians and the contempt for sovereignty and international law.

These disclosures are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama, a professor of constitutional law, lauded whistle blowers as “part of a healthy democracy [and they] must be protected from reprisal”.

In 2012, the Obama campaign boasted on its website that Obama had prosecuted more whistle blowers in his first term than all other US presidents combined. Before Chelsea Manning had even received a trial, Obama had publicly pronounced her guilty.

Few serious observers doubt that should the US get their hands on Assange, a similar fate awaits him. According to documents released by Edward Snowden, he is on a “Manhunt target list”. Threats of his kidnapping and assassination became almost political and media currency in the US following then Vice-President Joe Biden‘s preposterous slur that the WikiLeaks founder was a “cyber-terrorist”.

Hillary Clinton, the destroyer of Libya and, as WikiLeaks revealed last year, the secret supporter and personal beneficiary of forces underwriting ISIS, proposed her own expedient solution: “Can’t we just drone this guy.”

According to Australian diplomatic cables, Washington’s bid to get Assange is “unprecedented in scale and nature”. In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury has sought for almost seven years to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. This is not easy.

The First Amendment protects publishers, journalists and whistle blowers, whether it is the editor of the New York Times or the editor of WikiLeaks. The very notion of free speech is described as America’s “ founding virtue” or, as Thomas Jefferson called it, “our currency”.

Faced with this hurdle, the US Justice Department has contrived charges of “espionage”, “conspiracy to commit espionage”, “conversion” (theft of government property), “computer fraud and abuse” (computer hacking) and general “conspiracy”. The favoured Espionage Act, which was meant to deter pacifists and conscientious objectors during World War One, has provisions for life imprisonment and the death penalty.

Assange’s ability to defend himself in such a Kafkaesque world has been severely limited by the US declaring his case a state secret. In 2015, a federal court in Washington blocked the release of all information about the “national security” investigation against WikiLeaks, because it was “active and ongoing” and would harm the “pending prosecution” of Assange. The judge, Barbara J. Rothstein, said it was necessary to show “appropriate deference to the executive in matters of national security”. This is a kangaroo court.

For Assange, his trial has been trial by media. On August 20, 2010, when the Swedish police opened a “rape investigation”, they coordinated it, unlawfully, with the Stockholm tabloids. The front pages said Assange had been accused of the “rape of two women”. The word “rape” can have a very different legal meaning in Sweden than in Britain; a pernicious false reality became the news that went round the world.

Less than 24 hours later, the Stockholm Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne, took over the investigation. She wasted no time in cancelling the arrest warrant, saying,

“I don’t believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape.” Four days later, she dismissed the rape investigation altogether, saying, “There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever.”

Enter Claes Borgstrom, a highly contentious figure in the Social Democratic Party then standing as a candidate in Sweden’s imminent general election. Within days of the chief prosecutor’s dismissal of the case, Borgstrom, a lawyer, announced to the media that he was representing the two women and had sought a different prosecutor in Gothenberg. This was Marianne Ny, whom Borgstrom knew well, personally and politically.

On 30 August, Assange attended a police station in Stockholm voluntarily and answered the questions put to him. He understood that was the end of the matter. Two days later, Ny announced she was re-opening the case.

At a press conference, Borgstrom was asked by a Swedish reporter why the case was proceeding when it had already been dismissed. The reporter cited one of the women as saying she had not been raped. He replied, “Ah, but she is not a lawyer.”

On the day that Marianne Ny reactivated the case, the head of Sweden’s military intelligence service – which has the acronym MUST — publicly denounced WikiLeaks in an article entitled “WikiLeaks [is] a threat to our soldiers [under US command in Afghanistan]”.

Both the Swedish prime minister and foreign minister attacked Assange, who had been charged with no crime. Assange was warned that the Swedish intelligence service, SAPO, had been told by its US counterparts that US-Sweden intelligence-sharing arrangements would be “cut off” if Sweden sheltered him.

For five weeks, Assange waited in Sweden for the renewed “rape investigation” to take its course. The Guardian was then on the brink of publishing the Iraq “War Logs”, based on WikiLeaks’ disclosures, which Assange was to oversee in London.

Finally, he was allowed him to leave. As soon as he had left, Marianne Ny issued a European Arrest Warrant and an Interpol “red alert” normally used for terrorists and dangerous criminals.

Assange attended a police station in London, was duly arrested and spent ten days in Wandsworth Prison, in solitary confinement. Released on £340,000 bail, he was electronically tagged, required to report to police daily and placed under virtual house arrest while his case began its long journey to the Supreme Court.

He still had not been charged with any offence. His lawyers repeated his offer to be questioned in London, by video or personally, pointing out that Marianne Ny had given him permission to leave Sweden. They suggested a special facility at Scotland Yard commonly used by the Swedish and other European authorities for that purpose. She refused.

For almost seven years, while Sweden has questioned forty-four people in the UK in connection with police investigations, Ny refused to question Assange and so advance her case.

Writing in the Swedish press, a former Swedish prosecutor, Rolf Hillegren, accused Ny of losing all impartiality. He described her personal investment in the case as “abnormal” and demanded she be replaced.

Assange asked the Swedish authorities for a guarantee that he would not be “rendered” to the US if he was extradited to Sweden. This was refused. In December 2010, The Independent revealed that the two governments had discussed his onward extradition to the US.

Contrary to its reputation as a bastion of liberal enlightenment, Sweden has drawn so close to Washington that it has allowed secret CIA “renditions” – including the illegal deportation of refugees. The rendition and subsequent torture of two Egyptian political refugees in 2001 was condemned by the UN Committee against Torture, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch; the complicity and duplicity of the Swedish state are documented in successful civil litigation and in WikiLeaks cables.

“Documents released by WikiLeaks since Assange moved to England,” wrote Al Burke, editor of the online Nordic News Network, an authority on the multiple twists and dangers that faced Assange, “clearly indicate that Sweden has consistently submitted to pressure from the United States in matters relating to civil rights. There is every reason for concern that if Assange were to be taken into custody by Swedish authorities, he could be turned over to the United States without due consideration of his legal rights.”

The war on Assange now intensified. Marianne Ny refused to allow his Swedish lawyers, and the Swedish courts, access to hundreds of SMS messages that the police had extracted from the phone of one of the two women involved in the “rape” allegations.

Ny said she was not legally required to reveal this critical evidence until a formal charge was laid and she had questioned him. Then, why wouldn’t she question him? Catch-22.

When she announced last week that she was dropping the Assange case, she made no mention of the evidence that would destroy it. One of the SMS messages makes clear that one of the women did not want any charges brought against Assange, “but the police were keen on getting a hold on him”. She was “shocked” when they arrested him because she only “wanted him to take [an HIV] test”. She “did not want to accuse JA of anything” and “it was the police who made up the charges”. In a witness statement, she is quoted as saying that she had been “railroaded by police and others around her”.

Neither woman claimed she had been raped. Indeed, both denied they were raped and one of them has since tweeted, “I have not been raped.” The women were manipulated by police – whatever their lawyers might say now. Certainly, they, too, are the victims of this sinister saga.

Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape wrote:

“The allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction… The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will. [Assange] has made it clear he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step in their investigation? What are they afraid of?”

Assange’s choice was stark: extradition to a country that had refused to say whether or not it would send him on to the US, or to seek what seemed his last opportunity for refuge and safety.

Supported by most of Latin America, the government of tiny Ecuador granted him refugee status on the basis of documented evidence that he faced the prospect of cruel and unusual punishment in the US; that this threat violated his basic human rights; and that his own government in Australia had abandoned him and colluded with Washington.

The Labor government of the then prime minister, Julia Gillard, had even threatened to take away his Australian passport – until it was pointed out to her that this would be unlawful.

The renowned human rights lawyer, Gareth Peirce, who represents Assange in London, wrote to the then Australian foreign minister, Kevin Rudd:

“Given the extent of the public discussion, frequently on the basis of entirely false assumptions… it is very hard to attempt to preserve for him any presumption of innocence. Mr. Assange has now hanging over him not one but two Damocles swords, of potential extradition to two different jurisdictions in turn for two different alleged crimes, neither of which are crimes in his own country, and that his personal safety has become at risk in circumstances that are highly politically charged.”

It was not until she contacted the Australian High Commission in London that Peirce received a response, which answered none of the pressing points she raised. In a meeting I attended with her, the Australian Consul-General, Ken Pascoe, made the astonishing claim that he knew “only what I read in the newspapers” about the details of the case.

In 2011, in Sydney, I spent several hours with a conservative Member of Australia’s Federal Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull. We discussed the threats to Assange and their wider implications for freedom of speech and justice, and why Australia was obliged to stand by him. Turnbull then had a reputation as a free speech advocate. He is now the Prime Minister of Australia.

I gave him Gareth Peirce’s letter about the threat to Assange’s rights and life. He said the situation was clearly appalling and promised to take it up with the Gillard government. Only his silence followed.

For almost seven years, this epic miscarriage of justice has been drowned in a vituperative campaign against the WikiLeaks founder. There are few precedents. Deeply personal, petty, vicious and inhuman attacks have been aimed at a man not charged with any crime yet subjected to treatment not even meted out to a defendant facing extradition on a charge of murdering his wife. That the US threat to Assange was a threat to all journalists, and to the principle of free speech, was lost in the sordid and the ambitious. I would call it anti-journalism.

Books were published, movie deals struck and media careers launched or kick-started on the back of WikiLeaks and an assumption that attacking Assange was fair game and he was too poor to sue. People have made money, often big money, while WikiLeaks has struggled to survive.

The previous editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, called the WikiLeaks disclosures, which his newspaper published, “one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years”. Yet no attempt was made to protect the Guardian’s provider and source. Instead, the “scoop” became part of a marketing plan to raise the newspaper’s cover price.

With not a penny going to Assange or to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie. The book’s authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously described Assange as a “damaged personality” and “callous”. They also revealed the secret password he had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables. With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, standing among the police outside, gloated on his blog that “Scotland Yard may get the last laugh”.

Journalism students might well study this period to understand the most ubiquitous source of “fake news” — as from within a media self-ordained with a false respectability and as an extension of the authority and power it courts and protects.

The presumption of innocence was not a consideration in Kirsty Wark’s memorable live-on-air interrogation in 2010.

“Why don’t you just apologise to the women?” she demanded of Assange, followed by: “Do we have your word of honour that you won’t abscond?”

On the BBC’s Today programme, John Humphrys bellowed:

“Are you a sexual predator?”

Assange replied that the suggestion was ridiculous, to which Humphrys demanded to know how many women he had slept with.

“Would even Fox News have descended to that level?” wondered the American historian William Blum. “I wish Assange had been raised in the streets of Brooklyn, as I was. He then would have known precisely how to reply to such a question: ‘You mean including your mother?’”

Last week, on BBC World News, on the day Sweden announced it was dropping the case, I was interviewed by Greta Guru-Murthy, who seemed to have little knowledge of the Assange case. She persisted in referring to the “charges” against him. She accused him of putting Trump in the White House; and she drew my attention to the “fact” that “leaders around the world” had condemned him. Among these “leaders” she included Trump’s CIA director. I asked her, “Are you a journalist?”.

The injustice meted out to Assange is one of the reasons Parliament reformed the Extradition Act in 2014.

“His case has been won lock, stock and barrel,” Gareth Peirce told me, “these changes in the law mean that the UK now recognises as correct everything that was argued in his case. Yet he does not benefit.”

In other words, he would have won his case in the British courts and would not have been forced to take refuge.

Ecuador’s decision to protect Assange in 2012 was immensely brave. Even though the granting of asylum is a humanitarian act, and the power to do so is enjoyed by all states under international law, both Sweden and the United Kingdom refused to recognise the legitimacy of Ecuador’s decision.

Ecuador’s embassy in London was placed under police siege and its government abused. When William Hague’s Foreign Office threatened to violate the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, warning that it would remove the diplomatic inviolability of the embassy and send the police in to get Assange, outrage across the world forced the government to back down.

During one night, police appeared at the windows of the embassy in an obvious attempt to intimidate Assange and his protectors.

Since then, Assange has been confined to a small room without sunlight. He has been ill from time to time and refused safe passage to the diagnostic facilities of hospital. Yet, his resilience and dark humour remain quite remarkable in the circumstances. When asked how he put up with the confinement, he replied, “Sure beats a supermax.”

It is not over, but it is unravelling. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention – the tribunal that adjudicates and decides whether governments comply with their human rights obligations – last year ruled that Assange had been detained unlawfully by Britain and Sweden. This
is international law at its apex.

Both Britain and Sweden participated in the 16-month long UN investigation and submitted evidence and defended their position before the tribunal. In previous cases ruled upon by the Working Group – Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Burma, imprisoned opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia, detained Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian in Iran – both Britain and Sweden gave full support to the tribunal. The difference now is that Assange’s persecution endures in the heart of London.

The Metropolitan Police say they still intend to arrest Assange for bail infringement should he leave the embassy. What then? A few months in prison while the US delivers its extradition request to the British courts?

If the British Government allows this to happen it will, in the eyes of the world, be shamed comprehensively and historically as an accessory to the crime of a war waged by rampant power against justice and freedom, and all of us.

“Well, the totally imaginary interior of Saydnaya now – according to US State Dept – has a totally imaginary “crematorium” added to it in which to dispose of all the totally theoretical corpses being generated by the completely unsubstantiated mass-murders. Here is the impressive and plausible Stuart Jones telling us all about it.” (Catte, OffGuardian)

“While painting a picture of torture, neglect, and even mass executions, Amnesty forgot to include any actual evidence to corroborate its claims. The only actual evidence included in a report that otherwise consisted only of alleged interviews and 3D models of the prison made in London, was a picture taken from outer space by an imaging satellite.” (Tony Cartalucci)

Global Research brings to your attention the articles below on another failed attempt by the US in toppling down the Assad regime.

Imaginary Interior of Saydnaya Now Has Imaginary Crematorium – US State Department

By Catte, May 17, 2017

Remember “Saydnaya Military Prison”? It was the subject of enormous media attention a while back on the basis of a “report” from Amnesty International that turned out to have been fabricated in the UK by a virtual reality company “using 3D models, animations, and audio software, based on the admittedly baseless accounts of alleged witnesses who claim to have been in or otherwise associated with the prison.”

US Revives Discredited Syria “Slaughterhouse” Story

By Tony Cartalucci, May 16, 2017

The report’s release and leveraging by the US came just ahead of another round of talks aimed at stemming the catastrophic 6 year conflict. The move by the US was a bid to give Washington and its regional allies extra leverage at the negotiating table. And now – months later – and just when the US is in need of more leverage, the Sednaya story has once again been revived.

Fake News and Fake Intelligence: Another U.S. Attempt to Undermine Negotiations on Syria

By Sophie Mangal, May 18, 2017

According to Jones, the building has been allegedly used by the Syrian authorities to burn the bodies of prisoners died of tortures and inhumane treatment.

As a proof, the U.S. brought the ‘evidence’ of some international organizations and NGOs including Amnesty International which claims 50 prisoners get killed per day.

Fake News “Evidence”: US State Department Admits There Might Be No ‘Assad Crematorium’ in Saydnaya Prison

By News Desk, May 18, 2017

The State Department stated Monday based on international and local NGO reports that the alleged crematorium used to burn the bodies of hundreds of hanged prisoners at a prison run by the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad may not be a crematorium at all.

Syria Dismisses US Accusations About Crematory at Sednaya Prison, Demands The UN to Take Action Against Coalition’s Slaughters of Syrian Civilians

By Samer Hussein, May 18, 2017

Syrian Foreign and Expatriates Ministry dismissed the latest Trmup administration accusations about a crematory at Sednaya prison, which is allegedly being used to cover-up mass executions, saying the US administration is trying to amuse the public with yet another Hollywood-like story.

*     *     *

Truth in media is a powerful instrument.

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

Consider Making a Donation to Global Research 

For two decades, some Israeli officials and Israel partisans have worked to embed a new, Israel-focused definition of antisemitism in institutions around the world, from international bodies and national governments to small college campuses in heartland America. This effort is now snowballing rapidly. As a result, advocacy for Palestinian rights is well on the way to being curtailed and even criminalized as “hate.”

As the world has witnessed the oppression and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, many people have risen in protest. In response, the Israeli government and certain of its advocates have conducted a campaign to crack down on this activism, running roughshod over civil liberties (and the English language) in the process.

The mechanism of this crackdown is the redefinition of “antisemitism”^[1] to include criticism of Israel, and the insertion of this definition into the bodies of law of various countries.

Where most people would consider “antisemitism” to mean bigotry against Jewish people (and rightly consider it abhorrent), for two decades a campaign has been underway to replace that definition with an Israel-centric definition. That definition can then be used to block speech and activism in support of Palestinian human rights as “hate.” Various groups are applying this definition in law enforcement evaluations of possible crimes.

Proponents of this Israel-centric definition have promoted it step by step in various arenas, from the U.S. State Department and European governments to local governments around the U.S. and universities.

While this effort has taken place over the last two decades, it is snowballing rapidly at this time. The definition is increasingly being used to curtail free speech and academic freedom, as well as political activism.

Furthermore, such politicizing of an important word may reduce its effectiveness when real antisemitism occurs, doing a disservice to victims of true bigotry.

As of this writing, the U.S. Congress has endorsed the distorted definition, the governments of the UK and Austria have officially adopted it (in December and April, respectively), various U.S. State legislatures are considering it, and numerous universities are using it to delineate permissible discourse. Many representatives and heads of other states around the world have embraced the new meaning, even if they have yet to officially implement it.

This article will examine the often interconnected, incremental actions that got us where we are, the current state of affairs, and the public relations and lobbying efforts that are promoting this twisting of the definition of “antisemitism” — often under cover of misleadingly named “anti-racism” movements.

Claims of “Antisemitism” Used to Silence Support for Palestinians

For many years, numerous respected organizations have documented Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights, including killing of Palestinian civilians, abuse of Palestinian children, torture of Palestinian prisoners, confiscation of Palestinian land, and other cases of systematic violence and oppression. Detailed reports have been compiled by Defense for Children International, the International Red Cross, Amnesty International, Foreign Service Journal, Physicians for Human rights, Christian Aid, Human Rights Watch, the National Lawyers Guild, Israel’s Public Committee Against Torture, Israel’s B’Tselem and others.

Israel long claimed that its 1948 creation was on “a land without a people for a people without a land,” and many people may still believe this founding myth. The fact is, however, that the land was originally inhabited by an indigenous population that was approximately 80 percent Muslim, 15 percent Christian, and a little under 5 percent Jewish. The Jewish State of Israel was created through the ejection of approximately three-quarters of a million people.

Over the decades since Israel’s founding in 1948, accusations of antisemitism have been leveled against many people who criticized Israeli actions. Indeed, the accusation was used effectively to silence very prominent critics.^[2]

However, for most of that time, the meaning of the term itself was not in question. The standard definition was, in Google’s terms, “hostility to or prejudice against Jews.”^[3] Around the turn of this century, though, certain advocates began promoting official and even legal definitions of antisemitism that included various kinds of criticism of Israel.

Conflating Criticism of Israel with Antisemitism

Unsurprisingly, the new definitions appear to have originated from within the Israeli government, or at least with an Israeli government official.

The definitions adhere to a pattern set by a man named Natan Sharansky, who was Israel’s Minister for Jerusalem and Diaspora Affairs and chair of the Jewish Agency for Israel. Sharansky founded a Global Forum against Anti-Semitism in 2003, stating:

“The State of Israel has decided to take the gloves off and implement a coordinated counteroffensive against anti-Semitism.”

But Sharansky apparently didn’t mean a counteroffensive against just anti-Jewish bigotry, but an offensive against criticism of Israel. The following year he wrote a position paper that declared:

“Whereas classical anti-Semitism is aimed at the Jewish people or the Jewish religion, ‘new anti-Semitism’ is aimed at the Jewish state.”

Sharansky’s paper laid out what he called the “3-D Test of Anti-Semitism.” Sharansky applied the term “antisemitic” to criticism of Israel in three cases. First, he argued that statements that “demonize” Israel are antisemitic — by being, in his mind, unfairly harsh. (Some of those allegedly guilty of “demonizing” Israel are Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, Alice Walker, Human Rights Watch, Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, French President François Mitterrand, and others.)

Second, Sharansky declared that it’s antisemitic to apply a “double standard” to Israel — in other words, to criticize Israel for actions that other states may also take. However, if one could never criticize, protest or boycott abuses without calling out every single other similar abuse, no one would ever be able to exercise political dissent at all.

Finally, Sharansky said it’s antisemitic to “delegitimize” Israel, or dispute its “right to exist” (a standard Israeli talking point for many years). In fact, insisting Israel has the “right” to exist amounts to saying it had the right to expel Muslim and Christian Palestinians in order to found a religiously exclusive state. (See “What ‘Israel’s right to exist’ means to Palestinians,” by John Whitbeck, published in the Christian Science Monitor.)^[4]

Sharansky’s outline provided the pattern for a European agency to create a new definition of antisemitism the next year, 2005 — a definition that would then be adopted by a succession of organizations and governments, including the U.S. State Department.

There is a back story to how this all came about.

This European agency itself was founded and run by a man with important connections to Israel. It was called “The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia,” under the Council of the European Union. A Frenchman named Jean Kahn had convinced European heads of state to create it in 1997.

Kahn had been a President of the European Jewish Congress, elected in a plenary session in Israel, and said the Congress “would demonstrate its solidarity with Israel” and that he hoped European countries would “coordinate their legislation outlawing racism, anti-Semitism or any form of exclusion.”

Kahn was chairman of the Monitoring Centre’s management board and called the “personification” of the agency. Within three years, the Centre issued a position paper calling for the definition of anti-Semitic offenses to be “improved.”

A few years later, Israeli professor Dina Porat took up the effort to create a new definition. Working with her were Kenneth Stern and Rabbi Andrew “Andy” Baker of the American Jewish Committee. Stern reports that when the Monitoring Centre’s then head, Beate Winkler, had failed to deliver the desired definition, Andy Baker “smartly developed a working relationship with her.” Stern and others^[5] then created a draft for the Monitoring Centre to use.

Israeli Dina Porat, Kenneth Stern, Rabbi Andrew Baker worked to draft what became the European Monitoring Centre definition of antisemitism.

In 2005 the agency issued its “Working Definition of Anti-Semitism,” largely based on that draft. It included an array of negative statements about Israel as examples of antisemitic offenses. While standard dictionary definitions of antisemitism didn’t even mention Israel, fully half of the newly devised Monitoring Centre definition referred to Israel.

Once the Monitoring Centre had created its expanded definition, certain Israel partisans used it to promote similar definitions elsewhere. And while the Monitoring Centre itself continued to term it only a “working” definition and its replacement organization eventually withdrew the definition, in other countries and agencies the expanded definition became official.

In addition, quite frighteningly, proponents pushed successfully to begin applying the Israel-centric definition to law enforcement.

In the United States

The same year Sharansky created his “3-D” antisemitism test — a year after he founded the Global Forum against Anti-Semitism — the U.S. Congress passed a law establishing exceptional government monitoring of antisemitism. The law created a special State Department envoy and office for this monitoring, over objections of the State Department itself.

The law, called the “Global Anti-Semitism Review Act,” included a line that subverted its meaning by enshrining a new definition of antisemitism aligned with Sharansky’s:

“Anti-Semitism has at times taken the form of vilification of Zionism, the Jewish national movement, and incitement against Israel.”

The bill was introduced in April 2004. That June, a Congressional hearing was conducted about how to combat antisemitism. A major witness was Israeli minister Sharansky. In his testimony Sharansky proposed his “3-D” Israel-connected definition for anti-Semitism.^[6]

State Department officials objected to the proposed legislation, saying the new office was unnecessary and would be a “bureaucratic nuisance” that would actually hinder the Department’s ongoing work. A State Department press release opposing the new office described the many actions that State was already taking against antisemitism.

Despite this opposition, the Senate bill acquired 24 cosponsors representing both parties, including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Sam Brownback, Saxby Chambliss and Ted Stevens. Similar bills (here and here) were introduced in the House of Representatives, acquiring 35 cosponsors, again including both Republican and Democratic leaders. The legislation passed easily and quickly became law.

The first Special Envoy, Gregg Rickman, endorsed the European Monitoring Centre’s Working Definition in 2008. Rickman’s report called it a “useful framework” for identifying and understanding antisemitism. After Rickman left the State Department, he went to work for the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the major Israel advocacy organization that lobbies Congress.

The next Special Envoy, Hannah Rosenthal, took this campaign a major step forward: In 2010 the office officially adopted the European Monitoring Centre’s definition.

Rosenthal was extremely proud of having achieved this “breakthrough” definition. She began making use of it quickly, establishing a 90-minute course on the new antisemitism at the Foreign Service Institute, the training school for diplomats.

“We have now a definition we can train people on,” she told the Times of Israel, “and we’ve been very aggressive in training foreign service officers.”

Rosenthal announced that with the new definition including criticism of Israel, their reporting on antisemitism improved “300 percent,” even though, she said, that didn’t mean that antisemitism had actually increased in all the countries monitored.

The gloves were off. Now fully half of the official U.S. State Department definition of antisemitism had gone beyond the normal meaning of the world to focus on Israel.

Applying the New Definition to U.S. Citizens

The State Department uses the new definition to monitor activities overseas. But once the State Department definition was in place, efforts began to use it to crack down on political and academic discourse and activism within the U.S.

This past December (2016) the U.S. Senate passed a law to apply the State Department’s definition (i.e. the Sharansky-Stern-Rosenthal definition) of antisemitism to the Education Department, for use in investigating reports of religiously motivated campus crimes.

A companion bill for the House is supported by AIPAC, the ADL, the Jewish Federations of North America and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

South Carolina’s House of Representatives recently passed legislation under which the State Department’s definition “would be used in probes of possible anti-Semitism at state colleges and universities.” The state senate will consider this in 2018. If passed, it will mean that the state will now probe criticism of Israel on state campuses.

Similar bills are being considered in Virginia and Tennessee.

Such efforts are also ongoing in California. In December Democrat Brad Sherman called on the California Secretary of Education to “expand its definition to include certain forms of anti-Israel behavior.” Pro-Israel organizations such as the Amcha Initiative have also been pushing the state legislature for several years to officially adopt the State Department definition. So far these have been defeated but continue to be promoted.

U.S. Campuses

A parallel effort has been occurring on U.S. campuses. In 2003 Sharansky said that college campuses were “one of the most important battlefields” for Israel.

In 2015 University of California President Janet Napolitano (head of 10 campuses) publicly supported adopting the state department definition, after 57 rabbis sent a letter to her and the University Board of Regents promoting the definition.

Student councils or other groups at various universities have passed resolutions adopting the State Department definition, which can then be used to block campus events about Palestine.

An ongoing campaign to ensure Israel partisans become influential in student government has supported these efforts. This campaign was announced by an AIPAC leader in 2010:

“We’re going to make certain that pro-Israel students take over the student government,” he said. “That is how AIPAC operates in our nation’s capitol. This is how AIPAC must operate on our nation’s campuses.” (Video here.)

Resolutions referencing the Israel-centric definitions have now been passed by student governments at UC Santa Barbara, UCLA, East Carolina University, Indiana University, Ohio’s Capital University, Ohio’s Kent State, Orange County’s Chapman University, San Diego State University, and other campuses around the country.^[7]

An example of these resolutions is the 2015 bill at Indiana University. The resolution denounced anti-Semitism

“as defined by the United States State Department” and stated that the student government would not fund antisemitic activities or activities that “undermine the right of the Jewish people to self-determination.”

It also said that IUSA executives and Congress members would undergo diversity training on anti-Semitism.

According to the student newspaper, the bill was written by Rebekah Molasky, a fellow with the international pro-Israel organization Stand With Us. After the resolution was passed,

“the bill’s sponsors and outside supporters hugged and high-fived before gathering in the hallway to take a picture to commemorate the moment.”

As evidenced above, such resolutions can now be used to censor student events. The UC San Diego resolution largely replicated the Indiana format, announcing that the student government will not support activities that “promote anti-Semitism” under the new definition, including “denying Israel the right to exist.” Stand With Us applauded the resolution.

In 2012, an organization called the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under the Law was founded and immediately began promoting the new definition. Within a year it launched an initiative to establish student chapters at law schools throughout the U.S. to advance “the organization’s mandate to combat campus anti-Semitism through legal means.” The Center helped push the South Carolina legislation. It is one of numerous organizations promoting the new definition.

(Incidentally, former Supreme Court Justice Brandeis was a leader in the world Zionist movement and worked in public and covert ways to promote it — see here.)

“Thought Policing”

A number of analysts have pointed out some of the many significant flaws with such legislation.

Anthony L. Fisher at Reason.com writes of Congress’s December law applying the State Department definition to the Education Department:

“It gives the federal government the authority to investigate ideas, thoughts, and political positions as violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

Fisher continues:

“By specifically using the broad language of a 2010 State Department memo attempting to define anti-Semitism, the Senate bill wades into thought policing.”

Attorney Liz Jackson wrote in an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times:

“Anyone who values the constitutional right to express political dissent should worry about this development.”

On the other side of the debate is New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, formerly Wall Street Journal deputy editorial page editor and before that editor of an Israeli newspaper. Stephens, extremely hawkish on Israel, writes and speaks fervently against the movement to boycott Israel (BDS) and what he says is antisemitism on US campuses and elsewhere. In a Wall Street Journal editorial, he claimed that

“anti-Semitism is the disease of the Arab world.”

In 2014 Stephens spoke at the Tikvah Fund, a philanthropic foundation committed to supporting the “Jewish people and the Jewish State,” opining that it would be a scandal if Jewish people failed “to do all we can to assure the survival of the Jewish State.”

U.S. and European Lawmakers Pressure Governments to Ban Criticism of Israel

During all this time, parallel efforts to promote the new definition continued in Europe.

In 2009 an organization called the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism (ICCA) took up the effort to spread the expanded definition. The group says it brings together parliamentarians from “around the world” to fight antisemitism and lists a steering committee of six European and U.S. legislators.

The group held a conference in London in 2009 at which it issued a “London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism,” which was signed by then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and other heads of state and legislators. This declaration called on governments to use the European Monitoring Centre’s definition and to outlaw and prosecute such “antisemitism.”

It was couched in “anti-racism” terms, but when we look at the declaration’s recommendations combined with its definition of antisemitism, one thing becomes clear: In the declaration, numerous lawmakers of the Western world called on world governments to restrict political dissent.

Specifically, they called on governments to outlaw certain forms of criticism of Israel, including calls to boycott Israel; to regulate criticism of Israel in the media; to monitor criticism of Israel online and elsewhere; and to prosecute critics of Israel under “hate crimes” legislation.

Among numerous other demands, the lawmakers declared that governments:

• “must expand the use of the EUMC [Monitoring Centre] ‘Working Definition of antisemitism’” including “as a basis for training material for use by Criminal Justice Agencies;”
• should “isolate political actors” who “target the State of Israel;”
• “should legislate ‘incitement to hatred’ offences and empower law enforcement agencies to convict;”
• “should … establish inquiry scrutiny panels;”
• “should utilise the EUMC [Monitoring Centre] ‘Working Definition of antisemitism’ to inform media standards;”
• “should take appropriate and necessary action to prevent the broadcast of antisemitic programmes on satellite television channels, and to apply pressure on the host broadcast nation to take action to prevent the transmission of antisemitic programmes” (keeping in mind here that the declaration’s definition of “antisemitic” includes various criticism of Israel);
• “should use domestic ‘hate crime’, ‘incitement to hatred’ and other legislation … to prosecute ‘Hate on the Internet’ where racist and antisemitic content is hosted, published and written” (again keeping in mind what is defined as “antisemitic”);
• and that “education authorities should … protect students and staff from illegal antisemitic discourse and a hostile environment in whatever form it takes including calls for boycotts.”

In 2015 the European Commission created a special position to coordinate work on combating antisemitism and appointed German national Katharina von Schnurbein to the post. Schnurbein proceeded to promote the use of the Israel-centric definition.^[8]

UK and Austria Adopt Definition

 In December 2016, the UK announced it would formally adopt the Israel-centric definition. It was quickly followed by Austria, which adopted the definition in April 2017. The Austrian justice minister had previously announced that the new definition would be used in the training of new judges and prosecutors.

UK Prime Minister Theresa May made the announcement during a talk before 800 guests at the Conservative Friends of Israel’s annual lunch.

UPI reported:

“The British police are already using this definition^[9], which can now also be used by other groups, such as municipal councils and universities. The definition is not a law, but provides a formal interpretation of an illegal act that can serve as a guideline for criminal proceedings.”

Shortly afterward the UK’s higher education minister sent a letter informing universities that the government had adopted the IHRA definition and directing them to utilize it.

(The London council quickly followed suit with its own adoption of the definition, and other cities have now done the same. In May the Israel-Britain Alliance (IBA) began asking candidates for Parliament to sign a pledge that they would support the new definition.)

A number of groups objected to the definition, arguing that the definition “deliberately equates criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews.”

Opponents said it was

“vigorously promoted by pro-Israel lobbyists to local authorities, universities, Labour movement organisations and other public bodies.”

They stated that after its adoption there had been “an increase in bannings and restrictions imposed on pro-Palestinian activities, especially on campuses.” Some of the cancellations cited the IHRA definition. Oxford Professor Stephen Sedley wrote in the London Review of Books that the IHRA definition gives “respectability and encouragement to forms of intolerance which are themselves contrary to law.”

Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, recipient of the President’s Medal of the British Operational Research Society and Chair of the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine, said there were many examples of the definition creating a “chilling effect” on institutions’ willingness to permit lawful political activity, “even when the definition was not specifically cited.”

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which represents all of Europe, Eurasia, the U.S., and Canada — a billion people — was also pushed to adopt the definition at its December 2016 conference.

The American Jewish Committee, which has offices in Berlin, Brussels, Paris, Rome, and Warsaw, reported that it had “met with senior European government officials to encourage OSCE adoption of the definition.” However, adoption of the definition has so far been blocked by one member: Russia.

AJC leader Rabbi Andrew Baker wrote that the AJC would now work “to foster its greater use by the individual states of the OSCE and members of the European Union.”

Inter-Parliamentary Coalition’s American Representatives

Two American Congressmen are among the six-member steering committee of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism (CCA).

One is Florida Congressman Ted Deutch. Deutch’s Congressional website highlights his support for Israel as well as his work against antisemitism.

According to the site, Deutch

“works closely with his colleagues in the House and Senate to… pass resolutions strongly opposing manifestations of anti-Semitism at home in South Florida, across the United States, and around the world.”

Florida Congressman Ted Deutch The website reports:

“Congressman Ted Deutch is a passionate supporter of Israel whose advocacy for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship stretches back to his youth. Ted spent his summers at Zionist summer camp, worked as a student activist in high school and college, and served in leadership roles on several local and national Jewish organizations throughout his professional career. Today, Ted serves as Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s influential Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee, where he continues to champion Israel’s security during a time of great volatility in the Middle East.”

Deutch is also a member of the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats. His ICCA bio announces that he plans to use this position “to continue to publicly condemn anti-Semitism.”

Deutch receives considerable funding from the pro-Israel lobby.

In March Deutch led a bipartisan letter to Trump “Urging Forceful Action on Anti-Semitism.” It demanded ‘a comprehensive, inter-agency strategy that called for the Justice Department to investigate “anti-Semitic crimes” and “ensure the perpetrators are brought to justice.”

Deutch was one of two Congresspeople who introduced the December law to apply the State Department definition to education.

The other U.S. Congressman on the steering committee of the ICCA is Republican Chris Smith of New Jersey. Smith is also a senior member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. According to the website Open Secrets, a large proportion of his campaign donations are also from pro-Israel sources.

Natan Sharansky twice testified at hearings Smith chaired. In a speech at an event honoring Smith for his work against antisemitism, Smith remembered that Sharansky had

 “proposed what he called a simple test to help us distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism. He called it the three Ds: Demonization, double standard, and de-legitimization.”

Spreading the New Definition Under Cover of “Anti-Racism” Movement

UK universities have seen repression of pro-Palestinian activism on an epic scale. In 2007 the UK’s National Union of Students (NUS) adopted the new antisemitism definition at its national conference, when pro-Israel students introduced a motion entitled “AntiRacism: Challenging Racism on Campus and in Our Communities.” Some student unions at various UK universities then did the same.

This was a particularly ironic name for a pro-Israel motion, given that many people around the world consider Israel’s founding ideology, political Zionism, racist. In fact, in 1975 the UN General Assembly specifically passed a resolution that “Zionism is a form of racism.”

(The resolution was revoked In 1991, but not because the world body had changed its mind. In that year President Bush was pushing for the Madrid Peace Conference, which he hoped would end the “Arab-Israeli” conflict. When Israel said it would only participate in the conference if the UN revoked the resolution, the U.S. pressured member states to do just this.)

Through the years numerous entities have affirmed that Zionism is a type of racism, including conferences in South Africa and a recent UN commission which reported that Israel was practicing apartheid. (This report was then removed by the UN Director General, after Israeli and U.S. pressure.)

The UK student actions exemplify a trend that has pervaded this movement since the beginning: Efforts to shut down pro-Palestinian activism, curtail free speech and police thought both online and off are repeatedly packaged as “anti-racism” and sometimes “anti-fascism.”^[10]

Campaign for New Definition Overcomes Hiccups

Taken together, these steps towards redefining “antisemitism” to include criticism of Israel, and then ban it, are effectively (and increasingly rapidly) producing significant results in terms of actual regulation and even law enforcement. Nevertheless, there apparently has been some resistance to the change.

In 2013, the successor organization to the European Monitoring Centre (called the European Fundamental Rights Agency) quietly dropped the working definition from its website. Without any public announcement, the definition was simply no longer on its site. When questioned about this, the agency’s director simply said that the organization had “no mandate to develop its own definitions.”

Proponents of the definition were outraged. Shimon Samuels of the Simon Wiesenthal Center complained that the agency’s “disowning of its own definition is astounding” and that “those who fight antisemitism have lost an important weapon.” (The Wiesenthal Center is a global organization that declares it “stands with Israel” with offices in Los Angeles, New York, Toronto, Miami, Chicago, Paris, Buenos Aires, and Jerusalem.)

However, the fact that the Monitoring Centre had never officially adopted the definition, and that its successor organization now had apparently discarded it, seems to have been ignored by those who had adopted it.

The U.S. State Department continues to use the discarded version. The only difference is that the PDF that gave its Monitoring Centre origins has been removed from State’s website.

The World Jewish Congress convention 2014, chaired by David de Rothschild, urged “all countries to adopt a binding definition of anti-Semitic crimes” based on the Israel-centric definition.

The following year, the World Jewish Congress, which represents Jewish umbrella bodies in 100 countries, called on “all countries to adopt a binding definition of anti-Semitic crimes based on the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism developed by the former European Union Monitoring Commission (EUMC) and used in a number of states’ law enforcement agencies.”

IHRA Picks Up the Ball

Other groups stepped into the vacuum and kept the definition alive. In 2016 The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted the definition.

The IHRA consists of 31 Member Countries, ten Observer Countries, and seven international partner organizations. Its chair announced that the IHRA’s goal was to inspire “other international fora” to also adopt “a legally binding working definition.” It’s working: Britain and Austria almost immediately followed suit.

The U.S. Brandeis Center applauded the move, saying that “because the IHRA has adopted it, the definition has now officially been given the international status that it was previously lacking.”

The Brandeis Center reported that this was the

“culmination of a process initiated by Mark Weitzman, Director of Government Affairs at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, two years ago, with help from others including Ira Forman and Nicholas Dean of the U.S. Department of State.”

Forman was the State Department Special Anti-Semitism Envoy under Obama, reportedly led Obama’s reelection campaign in the Jewish community, had worked for Bill Clinton, and had served as Political Director and Legislative Liaison for AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying organization. Nicholas Dean had been the State Department Special Envoy for the Holocaust.

The New York Jewish Week reported that Forman and Dean “played a pivotal role in diplomatic efforts that led to the recent adoption by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance of a Working Definition of Anti-Semitism.”

“This is the first-ever formal international definition of anti-Semitism, and a potentially crucial tool for forcing governments and international agencies to confront and take action against it,” the article continued.

Pressure On State Department to Continue Extra Monitoring

Among much budget slashing proposed by President Donald Trump were cuts to the State Department that would have ended funding for the antisemitism monitoring office and special envoy (though State Department monitoring of antisemitism would continue even after the cuts).

Various organizations are lobbying to keep the office and envoy, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a U.S. organization whose mission is to “stop the defamation of the Jewish people” but which in effect seems to serve as an American extension of the most right-wing elements of Israel’s government. It has a long and infamous history of attacking critics of Israeli policy as “antisemites” and also uses an Israel-centric definition of antisemitism.

The ADL and allies pointed to a rash of bomb threats against Jewish institutions to strengthen their argument that this exceptional office must be funded. A letter with over a hundred signatories was sent to Trump demanding that he keep the dedicated State Department position, a bipartisan letter in support of retaining that special monitor was circulated in Congress, and over 100 Holocaust memorial groups and scholars urged Trump to keep the office.

As this political fight has raged, the ADL, which has a budget of over $56 million, sent out press releases to national and local media around the country reporting that antisemitic incidents have soared. The release was repeated almost verbatim in numerous national media and in individual states (as a random example, a Massachusetts headline declared: “Report: Anti-Semitism on the rise in Massachusetts.”)

However, it is impossible to know how many of the antisemitic incidents reported by the ADL were actually related to criticism of Israel, because the ADL didn’t release the data on which these results were based.

In addition, the ADL’s reported spike includes a spate of threats called in to Jewish organizations, schools and community centers that, thankfully, were hoaxes. The vast majority of threats (reportedly to over 2,000 institutions) apparently were perpetrated by an 18-year-old Jewish Israeli who reportedly suffers from medical and mental problems. (This alleged perpetrator is also accused of trying to extort a US Senator, threatening the children of a US official, and a range of other crimes.)

Another individual, an American in the U.S., apparently perpetrated eight hoax bomb threats in a bizarre campaign to get his former girlfriend in trouble.

A Jewish News Service article says the threats by the Israeli teen made up a significant percentage of the ADL’s spike and reported:

“The Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) decision to count an Israeli teenager’s alleged recent bomb hoaxes as ‘anti-Semitic incidents’ is prompting criticism from some Jewish community officials.”

An ADL official admitted that the audit is an approximation, saying “the science on it is currently being written.” A regional ADL director said that “this is not a poll or a scientific study,” but rather “an effort to get a sense of ‘what’s going on in people’s hearts.’”

Regarding hard data, the report said that anti-Semitic assaults across the nation had “decreased by about 36 percent.”

The ADL blames various groups for antisemitism, pointing the finger at people of color with claims that Hispanic Americans and African Americans are “the most anti-Semitic cohorts,” at “white supremacists” and at Trump’s election — but not at the Israeli teen responsible for 2,000+ hoax threats that terrorized Jewish institutions, nor at its own distorted, Israel-connected definition.^[11]

Claims of increased antisemitism are cited repeatedly in calls for the U.S. government to maintain funding for the special State Department monitoring.

Former Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power and two Democratic congressional representatives, Reps. Nita Lowey of New York and Deutch of Florida, are among those demanding that Trump appoint a new antisemitism monitor and maintain this office at full strength, even while he cuts other federal spending.

Power tweeted: “Anti-semitism is surging in world. Entire Trump admin needs to focus on it & envoy position must be kept.”

Lowey demanded:

“The president must show he takes the rise of anti-Semitism seriously by immediately appointing a special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism and fully staffing the Special Envoy’s office.”

In a May 2017 speech, World Jewish Congress leader Ronald Lauder said,

“Being anti-Israel is being anti-Semitic.” He announced that the congress “is creating a new communications department, or what you might call Hasborah” to counter this new “antisemitism.”

Dissenting Views

Many Jewish writers and activists dispute Lauder’s contention and oppose the campaign to conflate antisemitism with criticism of Israel. An article in Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper points out that “were anti-Zionism a cover for the abuse of individual Jews, individual Jews would not join anti-Zionist groups. Yet many do. Jewish students are well represented in anti-Zionist groups like Students for Justice in Palestine.”

Rabbi Ahron Cohen of Naturei Kartei (“Guardians of the Faith”) writes that “Judaism and Zionism are incompatible and mutually exclusive.” Cohen states that antisemitism is “an illogical bigotry. Anti-Zionism, however, is a perfectly logical opposition, based on very sound reasoning, to a particular idea and aim.”

Cohen argues:

“According to the Torah and Jewish faith, the present Palestinian Arab claim to rule in Palestine is right and just. The Zionist claim is wrong and criminal. Our attitude to Israel is that the whole concept is flawed and illegitimate. So anti-Zionism is certainly not anti-Semitism.”

 Antisemitism?

Recently Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper published a column entitled, “An Israeli Soldier Shot a Palestinian in Front of Her Kids. Where’s Her Compensation?”

The article, by Israeli journalist Gideon Levy, begins:

“For three months, Dia Mansur was certain his mother was dead. He was 15 years old when he saw her collapse in the living room of their home, felled by a bullet fired by an Israel Defense Forces soldier that sliced into her face, tearing it apart. He saw his mother lying on the floor, blood oozing from her mouth…”

Gaza, 2014. Israel’s invasions and shelling of Gaza killed and injured thousands of children and left multitudes homeless.

Levy, citing a report by an Israeli human rights organization, writes that from September 2000 to through February 2017,

“Israel killed 4,868 noncombatant Palestinian civilians, more than one-third of them (1,793) were children and adolescents below the age of 18.” (More info here.)

He continued:

“Thousands of others, who were also not involved in fighting, have been wounded and permanently incapacitated.” (Photos here.)

Shifa Hospital, Gaza, 2014

A few weeks before that report, Ha’aretz published an article that described Israel’s month-long imprisonment of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, one of over 200 Palestinian children taken by Israeli forces in a little over three months. The boy, accused of throwing stones against Israeli soldiers, would have been released from incarceration earlier, except that his impoverished family didn’t have enough money to pay the fine.

In the article, Israeli journalist Amira Haas reported that the boy’s father said that his son “wasn’t how he used to be before he was arrested.”

“He used to joke,” the father said, “and he stopped doing that. He talked a lot, and now he is silent.”

Haas wrote that UNICEF had issued a report four years ago that Israel was “extensively and systematically abusing detained Palestinian children and youth.” Today, she reported,

“The stories of physical violence, threats, painful plastic handcuffs and naked body searches remain almost identical.”

Sadly, every week there are similar stories.

To the multi-billion dollar network of lobbies advocating for conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, those who work to get such information to the American people – whose government gives Israel $10 million per day – are antisemitic.

Many others of all faiths and ethnicities have a different view.

Sixteen years ago I wrote:

“Equating the wrongdoing of Israel with Jewishness is the deepest and most insidious form of anti-Semitism of all.”

It is ironic that it is the Israel lobby that is today doing this equating, and that it has worked to invert the very meaning of antisemitism itself. Rather than denoting only abhorrent behavior, as it once did, today the term is often officially applied to what many consider courageous actions against oppression.

More troubling, still, these lobbying groups are working to outlaw conduct that numerous people (including many Israelis and Jewish Americans) consider morally obligatory.

It seems imperative for Americans who wish for justice and peace in the Middle East, and who oppose Orwellian distortions of language and law, to speak out against this campaign – while we can.

Alison Weir is executive director of If Americans Knew, president of the Council for the National Interest, and author of Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel. 

*     *     *

Timeline for creating new Israel-centric definition of antisemitism

Following is a timeline of some of the key events in the creation, promotion and adoption of the Israel-focused definition of antisemitism. It provides an outline, but does not include every step of the process, all the key players, or every action.

1991 – Jean Kahn is elected president of the European Jewish Congress at its plenary session in Israel. He announces an ambitious agenda, including demonstrating solidarity with Israel and European countries coordinating legislation to outlaw antisemitism.

1997 – Kahn “convinces 15 heads of state” to create the The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia to focus on “racism, xenophobia and antisemitism.”

2000 – The Monitoring Centre issues a position paper calling for the definition of antisemitic offenses to be “improved.”

2003 – Israel’s minister for diaspora affairs Natan Sharansky founds the Global Forum against Anti-Semitism, stating: “The State of Israel has decided to take the gloves off and implement a coordinated counteroffensive against anti-Semitism.”

2004 – Sharansky, who is also chair of the Jewish Agency for Israel, issues a position paper that lays out the “3-D Test of Anti-Semitism:” statements that “demonize” Israel, apply a “double standard” or “delegitimize” Israel are “antisemitic.” These will form the blueprint for new definitions adopted by lobbying organizations and finally governments.

2004 – US Congress passes law establishing special office and envoy in the State Department to monitor antisemitism that includes statements about Israel under this rubric. (Sharansky is witness at Congressional hearing.)

2004 – American Jewish Committee directors Kenneth Stern and Rabbi Andrew “ Andy” Baker work with Israeli professor Dina Porat to draft a new antisemitism definition and push the Monitoring Centre to adopt it, according to Stern. Their draft drew on Sharansky’s 3 D’s.

2005 – Monitoring Centre issues a “Working Definition of Anti-Semitism” that includes Sharansky’s 3 D’s, based on Stern et al’s draft. While standard dictionary definitions of antisemitism didn’t even mention Israel, fully half of the newly devised Monitoring Centre definition referred to Israel.

2007 – UK’s National Union of Students (NUS) adopts the new antisemitism definition focused on Israel, after pro-Israel students introduce a motion misleadingly entitled “AntiRacism: Challenging Racism on Campus and in Our Communities.” Some student unions at various UK universities then follow suit.

2008 – The first U.S. State Department Special Envoy on antisemitism, Greg Rickman, endorses the Monitoring Centre working definition in State Department report to Congress. (Rickman later went to work for AIPAC.)

2009 – The Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism (CCA), which brings together parliamentarians from around the world, issues the London Declaration signed by then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and others. The Declaration calls on governments to use the Monitoring Centre definition and to outlaw and prosecute such “antisemitism.” US Congressmen Ted Deutch and Chris Smith are members of the CCA’s steering committee.

2010 – Second US State Department Special Envoy on antisemitism Hanna Rosenthal officially adopts European Monitoring Centre definition; this is subsequently referred to as the State Department definition of antisemitism. Rosenthal creates course on antisemitism using this definition to train Foreign Service Officers.

2012 – Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under the Law is founded and immediately begins promoting the new definition. Within a year it launches an initiative to establish student chapters at law schools throughout the U.S.

2013 – Successor organization to the European Monitoring Centre (called the European Fundamental Rights Agency) quietly drops the working definition from its website. When questioned about this, the agency’s director says the organization had “no mandate to develop its own definitions.” (Groups using the definition continue to use it.)

2014 – Mark Weitzman, Director of Government Affairs at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, with help from Ira Forman and Nicholas Dean of the U.S. Department of State, initiates efforts for another agency to adopt and promote the working definition of antisemitism.

2015 – European Commission creates a special position to coordinate work on combating antisemitism, appointing German Katharina von Schnurbein to the post. Schnurbein proceeds to promote use of the Israel-centric definition. 

2015 – Indiana University passes resolution denouncing “anti-Semitism as defined by the United States State Department and will not fund or participate in activities that promote anti-Semitism or that ‘undermine the right of the Jewish people to self-determination.’” University of California Santa Barbara and UCLA also pass such resolutions.

2016 – The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), consisting of 31 Member Countries, adopts the definition; the goal is to inspire others to also adopt “a legally binding working definition.” An analyst writes that the IHRA action is “a potentially crucial tool for forcing governments and international agencies to confront and take action.”

December 2016 – U.S. Senate passes law to apply the State Department’s definition of antisemitism to the Education Department, for use in investigating reports of religiously motivated campus crimes. Now the law defines actions connected to criticism of Israel as “religiously motivated.”

December 2016 – UK announces it will formally adopt the Israel-centric definition–the first country to do so besides Israel. UK Prime Minister Theresa May made the announcement during a talk before 800 guests at the Conservative Friends of Israel’s annual lunch.

December 2016 – Adoption of the definition by the 57-member Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which had been heavily lobbied by the American Jewish Committee, is blocked by Russia. The AJC then says it will push for individual member states to adopt it.

March 2017 – South Carolina House of Representatives passes legislation under which the State Department’s definition “would be used in probes of possible anti-Semitism at state colleges and universities.” The Senate version will be discussed in 2018. Similar bills are being considered in Virginia and Tennessee.

March – May 2017 – Resolutions adopting the Israel-centric definitions are passed by student governments at Ohio’s Capital University and Kent State, California’s San Diego State University and at other campuses around the U.S.

April 2017 –

• Austria adopts the definition. (The Austrian justice minister previously announced that the new definition would be used in the training of new judges and prosecutors.)
• The ADL, which uses Israel-centric definition of antisemitism, announces that antisemitism has risen by 86 percent in 2017, but includes questionable statistics. News organizations throughout the U.S. report the ADL claim.
• Reports that Trump administration budget cuts might cause special antisemitism envoy position to remain vacant provokes outrage among Israel lobby groups and others. Samantha Power calls for entire Trump administration to focus on antisemitism. Soon, Trump administration says it will fill post.
• All 100 US Senators send a letter to UN demanding it stop its actions on Israel and connects these to antisemitism.

May 2017 –

• Israel-Britain Alliance begins asking candidates for Parliament to sign a pledge that they will support the new definition.

Notes

^[1] I’m using the newer, unhyphenated spelling of this word, which seems to be growing in popularity. I feel it is a more appropriate spelling, since the hyphenated version suggests that it refers to all Semites, which is incorrect. The word was created in 1879 specifically to refer to anti-Jewish prejudice.

^[2] Former Israeli parliament member Shulamit Aloni explained this in a 2002 interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy now. “It’s a trick. ” she said. “We always use it. When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust. When in this country people are criticizing Israel, then they are ‘anti-Semitic’.

Aloni noted that the pro-Israel lobby in the United States “is strong, and has a lot of money.” She continued: “Ties between Israel and the American Jewish establishment are very strong … their attitude is ‘Israel, my country right or wrong.’”

“It’s very easy,” she said, “to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli government as ‘anti-Semitic’ and use that claim to justify everything Israel does to the Palestinians.”

Examples abound of critics of Israel silenced in this way. One telling story is that of once-famous journalist Dorothy Thompson, who was virtually erased from history after writing about the Palestinian cause. Read about her here and here.

^[3] Dictionaries all agreed on this meaning, with one exception that caused considerable outrage. This was Merriam-Webster’s mammoth unabridged dictionary, which included a second meaning: “opposition to Zionism: sympathy with opponents of the state of Israel.”

When some people discovered this extra, Israel-related meaning in 2004 and raised objections to it, there was a general outcry that the additional meaning was inaccurate and should be removed, including by New York Times columnist and linguistics arbiter Jeffrey Nunberg, who wrote that it “couldn’t be defended.”

Merriam-Webster responded by saying that the extra meaning would “probably be dropped when the company published a new unabridged version in a decade or so.” The company hasn’t published a new version yet, but it seems to have followed through with this decision. The online version of the unabridged dictionary, which says it is updated with the latest words and meanings, makes no mention of Israel or Zionism.

^[4] An increasingly common Israeli talking point is the claim that it’s antisemitic to deny the Jewish people their “right to self-determination.” This is disingenuous: Self-determination is the right of people on a land to determine their own political status, not the right of some people to expel others in order to form an exclusive state on confiscated land. In reality, the principle of self-determination would have had the Muslim, Christian and Jewish residents of historic Palestine forming a government for all of them, and today would give Palestinians living under Israeli occupation the freedom to determine their own destiny.

^[5] Michael Whine, Jeremy Jones, Israeli Roni Stauber, Felice Gaer, Israeli Yehuda Bauer, Michael Berenbaum and Andy Baker, and later on, AJC’s Deidre Berger, previously an NPR reporter.

^[6] The other witnesses were representatives of the Orthodox Union of Jewish Congregations, American Jewish Committee, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, Anti-Defamation League, National Conference for Soviet Jewry, B’nai B’rith International, World Jewish Congress, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Shai Franklin, and Jay Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP.

^[7] An organization called Students Supporting Israel (SSI) takes credit for most of these initiatives. Created in 2012 at the University of Minnesota by Israeli Ilan Sinelnikov and his sister, Valeria Chazin, SSI now has chapters on over 40 college campuses around the U.S., at least three high schools, and some campuses in Canada. In 2015 Israel’s Midwest Consulate chose SSI to receive the award for “Outstanding Pro Israel Activism.” Campus Hillels are also frequently involved.

The bill at Chapman University passed but was vetoed. Another vote will probably be proposed in in the fall.

^[8] For information on additional Israel-centered campaigns, see the works of Israeli strategist Yehezkel Dror, such as his paper “Foundations of an Israeli Grand Strategy toward the European Union”

^[9] The AJC’s Andy Baker reported: “It is part of police-training materials in the UK.”

^[10] An antifa group in France, for example, reportedly shut down a talk by an anti-Zionist intellectual.

^[11] A number of analysts have also suggested that some antisemitism may at times be an (inappropriate) response to Israeli violence and oppression of Palestinians. Yale Chaplain Bruce Shipman pointed out in a letter to the New York Times that an earlier period of reported rising antisemitism in Europe paralleled “the carnage in Gaza over the last five years, not to mention the perpetually stalled peace talks and the continuing occupation of the West Bank.” Israel partisans were outraged and Shipman was soon required to resign.

Alison Weir is a renowned British historian and author. Visit her website 

The city of Raqqah is considered one of the most important Syrian cities. The city is located on the northeast bank of the Euphrates River, at the edge of “Sharqiya Syria”, a term used to describe eastern Syria.

Syria’s largest dam, the Tabqah Dam is located 40 kilometers west of Raqqah. The dam is one of the most important electricity and water sources in Syria. It was built to generate the hydroelectric power, as well as irrigate lands on both sides of the Euphrates. The town of Tabqah and the nearby Tabqah Military Airport are located directly south of the dam.

Raqqah is linked with the Syrian industrial capital of Aleppo, the oil-rich province of Deir Ezzor, and the fertile area Hasakah through the M4 Highway. The city’s inhabitants number 220,000, according to the 2004 census. The Raqqah countryside is home to about 100,000 people.

The strategic importance of the city as well as the nearby Tabqah dam turned Raqqah into a target for every faction involved in the war and all of them have attempted to take control of it.

At the beginning of the Syrian crisis, Raqqah was one of the calmest provinces, as it did not witness any significant protests or violence. Sporadic protests by opposition groups did not exceed a hundred protestors at their peak.

Thus, Raqqah and its capital became one of the safest provinces accepting scores of loyalist refugees displaced from the Aleppo, Hasakah, and Deir Ezzor where fierce clashes between pro-government forces and militants took place in 2012.

At the end of 2012, Ahrar Al-Sham with the support of Jabhat al-Nusra (the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda; Now it’s known as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham) declared its intention to capture the provincial capital of Raqqah and launched a military operation to do this. Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra captured the Jirah Airbase and the important town of Maskanah in the province of Aleppo, and entered into the province of Raqqah. Militants captured Tabqah and the Tabqah Military Airport and captured the city of Raqqah after 3 days of clashes on March 6, 2013.

The Syrian Army did not organize any real defenses for the city. This led to many questioning the loyalties of the provincial leadership, which seemingly played an integral role in the loss of this strategic province.

Initially, ISIS activities inside the city were aimed at supporting Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra in actions against the besieged Syrian Army military installations in its vicinity. However, later ISIS began own operation in order to recapture Raqqah from Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra. ISIS declared a control over Raqqah in January 2014. A majority of Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra militants fled, abandoning the entire city to ISIS. Those who remained either defected to ISIS or were executed.

In the past three years, ISIS was systematically strengthening its presence and influence in Raqqah as it did not face any real danger from other forces involved in the war.

In 2016, following the first liberation of Palmyra, the Syrian Army, backed up by the Russian Aerospace Forces, launched an advance with the goal of recapturing the Tabqah Military Airport and even the city of Raqqah from ISIS. However, government forces did not reach even their first goal and were pushed to retreat after a series of ISIS counter attacks.

The start of the Russian military operation in Syria in 2015 dramatically changed the course of the war and returned an ability to conduct successful operations to the Assad government. The government advance on the Tabqah Military Airport resulted in no gains. Nonetheless, it became clear that if the US-led coalition against ISIS continues ignoring the terrorist group in Syria, the Syrian government and its allies would be able to solve this problem by themselves. [Just for example, in the same year, the Syrian army liberated the city of Aleppo from Jabhat al-Nusra and its allies. This was one of the biggest government victories in this war.] This could become a major diplomatic and PR failure for the US and its regional allies.

In October 2015, the new brand of the US-backed forces appeared in the war. The establishment of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) was declared during a press conference in Hasakah, a town controlled by the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its military wing the People’s Protection Units (YPG). While the US and the mainstream media claimed that, the SDF was multi-ethnic organization, the YPG and the YPJ, the female equivalent of the YPG, became the core of the group. Understanding this problem, the US-led coalition contributed significant efforts in 2016 and in early 2017 to build an Arab faction in the SDF. However, the Kurdish militias remained the undisputed core of the SDF.

On November 6, 2016, the SDF, backed up by the US-led coalition’s air power and special forces, launched the Operation Euphrates Wrath aimed at expelling ISIS from the province of Raqqah.

Now, the SDF officially includes:

1. 36,000 YPG fighters
2. 24,000 YPJ fighters
3. 20,000 Arab tribal fighters including groups like the Manbij Military Council

Between 10,000 and 20,000 members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) present in the SDF-held area in northern Syria and unofficially participate in SDF military operations. Official representatives of the PYD and the YPG have repeatedly denied this fact because it could negatively impact the US-Turkish relations. An official recognition of this fact will also create a pretext for Ankra to launch a military operation against the SDF. Turkey and a number of other nations describe the PKK as a terrorist group. The Turkish leadership insists that the YPG is just a branch of the PKK.

However, this does not stop Ankara from conducting military strikes on YPG targets along the Turkish-Syrian border. The United States have been pushed to increase its military activity along the border and at a contanct line between the SDF and pro-Turkish militants in the province of Aleppo to prevent a possible full-scale Turkish military operations against the SDF/YPG in northern Syria. Thus, US troops play a role of buffer force between Turkey and the SDF.

The SDF advance in the Raqqah countryside is ongoing amid an immense fire support from the US Coalition’s warplanes, attack helicopters and artillery. The US also expanded few airfields inside Syria. They are used for delivering supplies to the SDF and as forward bases for US attack helicopters. The US, French and Germany special operations forces also play an important role in supporting the SDF on the ground. The US Marine Corps provides an artillery support for SDF operations around Raqqah.

So far, the SDF has been able to outflank Raqqah from the western, eastern and northern directions, to cross the Euphrates and to capture the Tabqah Military Airport, the town of Tabqah and to set a foothold for isolating the ISIS self-proclaimed capital from the southern direction.

From its side, ISIS began preparing for the Battle of Raqqah since the Coalition’s announcement of the Raqqah operation in 2016.

Since the beginning, it became clear that ISIS was not intending to defend numerous villages in the Raqqah countryside. In turn, ISIS implemented a mobile defense approach. ISIS units were retreating under the pressure of the SDF and the US-led coalition from small villages and were counter-attacking relying on technicals and vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs).

The goal of this strategy was (and is) to deliver a maximum possible damage to the SDF manpower and military equipment instead of attempting to defend small settlements without any strategic value. Tabqah, the Tabqah Military Airbase and the Tabqah dam were the only locations that ISIS had attempted to defend because of their strategic value – controlling these sites, US-backed forces will have a foothold on the southern bank of the Euphrates west of Tabqah.

Inside and around Raqqah, ISIS started setting up a series of fortifications around the city at the end of 2016 by constructing a high berm and a trench that encircles the city in its entirety. Several local sources also reported that the terrorist group had worked on establishing an intricate series of tunnels, trenches, and cement barriers inside Raqqah.

Furthermore, opposition sources reported that ISIS began lacing explosives and planting IEDs in sensitive areas inside and around the city.

At the turn of 2017 following the success of US-backed forces in Raqqah’s western and eastern countryside and the cutting off of the Raqqah-Deir Ezzor highway in addition to the Syrian Army’s resilience in Deir Ezzor, ISIS began relocating its equipment and ammunition to the insides of the city as well as establishing firing points and sniper nests. The terrorist group has been also relocating its most experienced fighters to the city.

According to different sources, in Raqqah ISIS has between 5,000 and 10,000 fighters and its most effective armament including TOW and Fagot missiles smuggled from Idlib. ISIS also has stocked weapons like RPG-29 and OSA M-79 for the Battle of Raqqah. Dozens of tanks and armored vehicles have been deployed inside the city. The group is actively manufacturing various kinds of VBIEDs using their stock of explosives.

A military planning, a motivated infantry and a sophisticated usage of VBIEDs are the key strong sides of ISIS forces.
The current goal of the US-led forces is to seize control of the Raqqah countryside putting an additional pressure on the terrorist group from the northern and western direction. It’s expected that the US-led coalition and its allies on the ground will attempt to repeat the Mosul-like operation. However, there is a difference: US-backed forces could leave an escape route for ISIS members south of Raqqah. This could allow to ease the resistance of ISIS members inside the city. Meanwhile, if this is done, many terrorist group members will be able to remain alive and free in Syria. Some of them could then move to Europe as refugees.

The storm Raqqah will include a heavy bombing campaign by the US-led coalition air force with warplanes, attack helicopters and drones, as well as Marine artillery. The United States will expand their military presence on frontlines against ISIS and deploy more troops and military equipment. Like in Mosul, Washington and the mainstream media will likely deny that US troops are directly engaged in a battle against ISIS in Raqqah. However, without an active US military support, the SDF will be hardly able to retake Raqqah from ISIS in a realistic time.
ISIS will also use the Mosul experience, using well-equipped small groups of fighters, deploying huge numbers of snipers on all streets of the city, and of course the heavy use of VBIED and suicide bombers to attack any gathering of SDF, and to deploy mines and IEDs on all roads.

One of the biggest problems that the SDF will face is a high number of civilians in the city. According to local sources, there are over 250,000 people, including refugees from Deir Ezzor and Iraq, and families of ISIS terrorists in Raqqah.

In general, the battle is expected to last months, and unfortunately, as in Mosul, large numbers of civilians will be killed due to a fighting and the coalition’s bombing campaign. US military officials argue that US-backed forces will start storming Raqqah this summer. Nonetheless, it’s complicated to forecast when the city is retaken from terrorists. Iraqi forces launched their final push towards the ISIS stronghold of Mosul on October 16, 2016 and the city has not been liberated completely so far.

Tensions between the PYD/YPG and the Turkish government is another factor that impacts and slows down the SDF advance on Raqqah.

Meanwhile, the Kurdish-dominated SDF has announced that the liberated city will be included in the Federation of Northern Syria–Rojava, the YPG/SDF-held area of northern Syria.

This raises a lot of concern in the Syrian government and many pro-government activists question the loyalty of the administration that will rule the city and the people’s desire to join Kurdish federalism, especially after much talk about the racist practices of the Kurdish federal administration in Hasakah and Qamishli against the Arabs. Some speculations even say that if SDF succeeded in controlling the city, it may fail in managing it. However, it is too early to make such far-reaching conclusions.

The liberation of Raqqah is an important part of the broader effort aimed at expelling ISIS terrorists from Syria and Iraq. All sides share this point.

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

When FOX 5 initially interviewed investigator Rod Wheeler about the Seth Rich case, Wheeler stated he believes there’s a cover-up at the DC Police department and keys to the murder are located within a laptop:

“The police department nor the FBI have been forthcoming,” said Wheeler. “They haven’t been cooperating at all. I believe that the answer to solving his death lies on that computer, which I believe is either at the police department or either at the FBI. I have been told both.”

Wheeler also told us,

“I have a source inside the police department that has looked at me straight in the eye and said, ‘Rod, we were told to stand down on this case and I can’t share any information with you.’ Now, that is highly unusual for a murder investigation, especially from a police department. Again, I don’t think it comes from the chief’s office, but I do believe there is a correlation between the mayor’s office and the DNC and that is the information that will come out [Tuesday]”.

One would think CNN, and other stations with a liberal bent would want to focus on a possible murder cover-up, or the whereabouts (and contents) of Rich’s computer. While Fox stated “Rod Wheeler backtracks statements about Seth Rich investigation,” as clarification to the updated link, it failed (thanks to CNN’s intrepid journalism) to explain how clarifying one statement erases the validity of others, or specify that most statements were never backtracked.

In addition, something overlooked by everyone trying to discredit Wheeler is that he clearly states

“I believe that the answer to solving his death lies on that computer, which I believe is either at the police department or either at the FBI.”

So, Wheeler states there’s a cover-up.

Wheeler states he does not know the whereabouts of Seth Rich’s computer, which he believes holds the truth regarding potential ties to WikiLeaks.

Two claims that have nothing to do with a source at the FBI, since other pieces of circumstantial evidence bolster both claims.

Apparently, CNN’s Oliver Darcy doesn’t care about both clearly stated claims, and made no mention of these claims in his recent hit piece on Wheeler, prompting establishment media to proclaim victory in the Seth Rich murder narrative.

Oliver Darcy, a senior media reporter at CNN wrote a piece titled Story on DNC staffer’s murder dominated conservative media — hours later it fell apart. When reading the title, one might think this story is purely about political partisanship, rather than a murder investigation that’s provided no leads after one year. However, it’s almost certain Rod Wheeler doesn’t view himself to be a mouthpiece for conservative media and the Rich family hired him for his expertise.

Aside from clickbait, the headline is deceptive for numerous other reasons. First, the Seth Rich murder has been on the hearts and minds of progressives throughout the United States, not just conservatives. Second, the fact Wheeler might not speak to a source at the FBI has absolutely zero relevance to his claims of a DC Police Department cover-up, or other aspects of this unsolved case. Most importantly, Darcy wrote the following message to me today on Twitter:

Great, show us the email, Oliver Darcy!

The screenshot of the Tweet (in case Darcy pulls a Cenk Uygur), and the Tweet itself speak volumes. First, it’s highly doubtful Rod Wheeler would agree entirely with the headline Story on DNC staffer’s murder dominated conservative media — hours later it fell apart.

Darcy’s mystery “Wheeler email” almost certainly doesn’t condone CNN’s misleading headline. If anything, the majority of the Fox interview was about something other than an FBI source. Wheeler clearly spoke about the D.C. Police Department cover-up (and Rich’s laptop) for the majority of his short interview with FOX 5 and it’s telling that FOX and CNN’s Darcy fail to make that distinction.

In terms of Darcy’s article (a piece that everyone in the “Seth Rich was killed by two bullets in the back from a botched robbery” crowd used as political ammunition), the CNN piece is more of a public relations press release, than actual investigative journalism. Rod Wheeler clearly states he doesn’t have possession of the computer, and clearly states he believes DC Police aren’t doing their job. Both claims are ignored by Darcy’s laser-focus on these quote, introduced by specious introductions:

Wheeler instead said he only learned about the possible existence of such evidence through the reporter he spoke to for the FoxNews.com story. He explained that the comments he made to WTTG-TV were intended to simply preview Fox News’ Tuesday story. The WTTG-TV news director did not respond to multiple requests for comment. “I only got that [information] from the reporter at Fox News,” Wheeler told CNN.

Asked about a quote attributed to him in the Fox News story in which he said his “investigation up to this point shows there was some degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and Wikileaks,” Wheeler said he was referring to information that had already been reported in the media.

For a breakthrough article in the Seth Rich saga, Wheeler is hardly quoted at all (short, likely out of context quotes) in the over 800 word CNN piece. Interestingly, nobody knows what [information] Darcy is referring to in one quote of Wheeler, nor does the reader know the actual question Wheeler answered.

Mr. Darcy, do you think it’s somewhat important to show readers the question Wheeler answered with

 “I only got that [information] from the reporter at Fox News,” and not simply your summary of the question?

Then Wheeler clearly refutes Darcy’s thesis, that an FBI source is the only basis for other claims, within this Fox interview on Hannity:

In the interview on Fox, Wheeler states he has a source, but doesn’t specify only an FBI source; the maniacal focus of Darcy’s CNN piece.

Take note, CNN, because at 2:10 of the Hannity interview, Wheeler states

“I have never the seen the emails myself directly, I haven’t even seen the computer that Seth Rich used… I don’t even know where the computer is… where did this information come from… there was a federal investigator… a person that’s very credible… he said he laid eyes on the computer and he laid eyes on the case file… it’s very consistent for a person with my experience… perhaps there were some email communications between Seth and WikiLeaks… every time I talk to the police department about the WikiLeaks or the emails, it’s automatically shut down…that discussion is automatically shut down.”

Why would that discussion be automatically shut down by DC Police? Any thoughts, Oliver Darcy?

WikiLeaks has a decade-long pristine reputation for accuracy; they’ve only published authentic documents. Unlike spy agencies or news organizations linked to political parties, Wikileaks is not affiliated with any American political group, despite the belief by some that DNC or Podesta emails (that CNN used to fire Donna Brazile and the DNC used to fire Debbie Wasserman Schultz) swayed the election. It could be quite meaningful that WikiLeaks offered a reward for information about Seth Rich’s murder, and Tweeted about the case six times, including one Julian Assange retweet of the original Fox story:

Assange retweeted:

WikiLeaks also retweeted the following:

These six Tweets were sent at different times after the latest Fox story, and there are potentially a greater number of WikiLeaks Tweets since last year, after Seth Rich was murdered.

Is CNN’s Oliver Darcy claiming that 5 retweets by WikiLeaks and one by Julian Assange have zero relevance to this case?

It’s highly doubtful WikiLeaks or Assange would go out of their way to retweet various pieces of information pertaining to the Seth Rich case, if there was no link whatsoever to Seth Rich. In addition, this doesn’t mean Seth Rich was the WikiLeaks source. It only means there’s a possible connection (Rich might have been involved, in some way with WikiLeaks) due to the Podesta emails stating Clinton’s campaign chairman was willing to make an example of leakers, or the WikiLeaks reward, etc.

Darcy’s overt disregard for Wheeler’s claim of a cover-up and his statements on the importance of Seth Rich’s laptop also discredits CNN’s obvious hit piece on Wheeler.

Ultimately, we have the Comey memo in the news, but Americans must now see the “Darcy email.”

If your email, Mr. Darcy, shows that Rod Wheeler approves 100% of the title Story on DNC staffer’s murder dominated conservative media — hours later it fell apart, then I’ll offer a sincere apology and retract my claims that you’ve deceived people regarding this topic.

Until then, there’s a possible cover-up at the DC Police Department, and a laptop that holds the keys to the Seth Rich murder is nowhere to be found. Even if Wheeler had an IRS or NASA contact as a source, or any other federal employee, those two issues (DC Police cover-up and laptop information) would remain just as relevant, and sadly, just as ignored by people like CNN’s Oliver Darcy.

Dianne Feinstein and James Clapper have both stated categorically that no direct evidence of Trump colluding with Russia exists (to their knowledge), yet circumstantial ties have dominated American media. If the same logic is applied to the Seth Rich case, circumstantial evidence points to far more than a failed robbery. Thankfully, more people care about potential police corruption, or the fate of whistleblowers, than CNN and establishment pundits.

Finally, millions of progressives, liberals, independents, and people who never vote Republican want justice for Seth Rich. To claim it’s only of interest to right-wing conspiracy theorists isn’t only disingenuous, but ignores a large portion of the United States wondering at this moment if there’s indeed a Seth Rich cover-up.

For a complete explanation of why CNN’s latest journalistic hit piece actually exonerates Rod Wheeler, just watch my critique of CNN:

In legal terms, it was both an act of war and criminal. The US military is currently occupying Syrian territory without invitation by the Syrian government and without any form of mandate from the United Nations.

In geostrategic terms, the United States is attempting to assert itself and its geopolitical strategy of establishing and subsequently expanding “safe zones” inside Syrian territory in a bid to topple the Syrian government, then divide and destroy the Syrian state.

Foreign Policy, a clearinghouse for corporate-financier funded think tank policymakers, in an article titled, “US Bombs Syria Regime for the First Time,” would admit:

The strike showed American commanders are willing to use force to maintain de facto safe zones in the country’s east, where U.S. forces are training local militias to battle the Islamic State and provide security in liberated regions.

While Foreign Policy’s article confirms US intentions of carving out “safe zones” in Syria, it misleads readers regarding the purpose of doing so.

While it claims that these “safe zones” are intended to host training for “local militias to battle the Islamic State,” US intentions to create such zones stretches back long before the threat of the Islamic State was introduced into the conflict.

US policymakers themselves openly admitted the “safe zones” were meant to both perpetuate the conflict and seek a more long-term process of regime change after initial attempts to stampede the government in Damascus out of power failed in 2011.

A March 2012 Brookings Institution paper titled, “Middle East Memo #21: Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change” (PDF), proposes the concept of “safe zones” or “safe-havens” not to fight the yet-to-be invented Islamic State, but specifically to assist US-backed regime change. It claims (emphasis added):

An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.

A 2015 Brookings paper titled, “Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country” would elaborate on the nature of these zones, not as bases for fighting terrorism – but as a means of incrementally dividing and literally “deconstructing” Syria as a unified nation-state (emphasis added):

The end-game for these zones would not have to be determined in advance. The interim goal might be a confederal Syria, with several highly autonomous zones and a modest (eventual) national government. The confederation would likely require support from an international peacekeeping force, if this arrangement could ever be formalized by accord. But in the short term, the ambitions would be lower—to make these zones defensible and governable, to help provide relief for populations within them, and to train and equip more recruits so that the zones could be stabilized and then gradually expanded.

It would also elaborate regarding the role the Islamic State specifically plays in all of this – not as an enemy to be defeated – but as a pawn to be used against the Syrian government:

The use of the Islamic State as a pawn against the Syrian government should come as no surprise and is hardly a “conspiracy theory.” The US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) itself in 2012 would publish a memo (PDF) detailing specifically what a prescribed “Salafist” (Islamic) “principality” (State) would be used for by the US and its allies:

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 then explains exactly who the supporters powers are – as well as who the principality’s enemies would be:

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

America’s strategy in Syria is an admittedly more drawn out process than was used against Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, and Libya in 2011. All three nations are now destabilized and virtual breeding grounds for terrorism, conflict, instability, and human catastrophe – cautionary examples of Syria’s fate should US foreign policy “succeed” there as well.

With the recent strike, the US proves that it will continue its illegal, unwarranted aggression in Syria until it either topples the Syrian government and succeeds in transforming the nation into yet another failed state amid its growing collection of global military interventions, or until the US is stopped by sufficient deterrence by Syria and its allies in Moscow and Tehran.

The people of few conflicted countries including Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria hardly seem to get out of bloody wars. Syria, which is battling the regime change, would land into the same bloody fate of Afghanistan if it undergoes this transition. In both cases – before and after the regime change- the natives of these territories should pay the price of the West’s ambitious and hegemonic conspiracies.

Afghanistan’s death toll from the US-led war is placed at 100,000 people. This startling figure sparks the speculation that the US and allies were just watching the people dying over this period. The US-based Brown University’s “Costs of War” study finds that at least 100,000 civilians have lost their lives to the war between 2001 through 2014.

It added to the injury when the year 2015 ended up with record-high human casualities than any single year since 2001. And then at the end of the following year 2016, United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) described the causalities “shocking” and “unprecedented”. The rate is set to go up as the US mulls over sending further reinforcements and F-16 fighters jets that suggest fierce war.

The Brown University’s finding seems to be authentic, because it is strongly circulated among Afghan war experts that an average of 20 people die a day in Afghanistan that constitute the estimated number when calculated. On the opposite front, the UNAMA reports the Afghan fatalities about one third of the Brown University’s figure. This UN agency’s compilation of war victims is unfounded and impartial and it amounts to complicity or clemency towards war instigators – by not disclosing the right statistic or just by sufficing to call on warring sides to heed for civilians life.

The Brown University’s study concludes that over 370,000 people have died due to direct war violence in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan since 2001. It also revealed that the costly war in terms of life and expenditure didn’t result in inclusive, transparent, democratic governments in Afghanistan and Iraq.

According to the Syrian Centre for Policy Research (SCPR), Syrian fatalities caused by war, directly and indirectly, amount to 470,000 people. It states the number is twice the UN’s figure of 250,000 victims collected nearly a year ago. The SCPR’s report estimates that 11.5% of the country’s population has been killed or injured since the crisis erupted in March 2011.

In Afghanistan, civilians are killed for certain causes, and it is not by accident. Last month, ten Taliban suicide infiltrates killed 170 soldiers in a military headquarter in northern Balkh province [the unofficial figure put dead between 300 and 400 soldiers]. The harrowing and murderous Balkh carnage could serve as a best example behind many civilian and military deaths in Afghanistan. In days after the massacre, the US Secretary of Defense James Mattis arrived in Kabul and informed of a new Washington strategy on the way in a press conference with the top US commander, as a response to the incident.

The carnage apparently became a motive for the likely shift in US’s policy that might be deployment of further US troops, more military hardware and demanding additional NATO forces in Afghanistan. In this context, Australia has already said it is open to sending more soldiers after Berlin signaled reservations.

In a single sentence: it was not the carnage that caused the strategy change, but it was, indeed, the strategy change that caused the carnage.

Afterwards, in a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, the US National Intelligence Chief Daniel Coats spoke of a downhill security in Afghanistan through 2018. He said:

“Even if NATO deploys more troops, the political and security situation in Afghanistan will likely get worse”.

In spite of being the most powerful military in a recent ranking, the US casts the Taliban “unbeatable”. The US officials since long predict each coming year “dangerous” for Afghanistan. But how do they know that?

The other day, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford speaking at Saint Michael’s College in Vermont also followed the track of James Mattis and Daniel Coats and stressed on sending more troops to Afghanistan. While speaking, he hinted at the latest Afghan Army massacre and raised it as basis to lobby the audience. The US never bothers to deliver a statement repeatedly unless the issue is concerned for it.

These high-ranks’ back-to-back rhetoric speech comes as the US is vigilant of measurable Russian support of the Taliban fronts in parts of Afghanistan.

In October 2015, the Taliban militants rushed into the unseen mass-killing of civilians on the streets of northern Kunduz city and converted it into a ghost city. The war analysts believed it was the US’s intrigue to send shockwaves into the Central Asian countries and importantly Russia.

Following the Kunduz attack, Sen. John McCain appeared to say that:

“The Taliban’s strength has been fueled by the Obama Administration’s scheduled troop withdrawal”.

He critically directed the Kunduz attack’s blame to Obama administration’s “untimely” troop drawdown. He wanted the troops to stay behind and only such a tragedy was feasible to push the troop-pullout plan in reverse.

Even though McCain and others have long sought more troops or continued war on terrorism, Afghanistan loses more inhabitants to the fake war with every year going by.

Even the waves of so-called “terrorists attacks” in Germany, Holland and France last year underscores that these are the conspiracy theories aimed at continuous war in Syria and elsewhere. Many Europeans would still keep faith with the war-mongers’ cooked-up stories and back the US and NATO’s intervention in Syria. The sole purpose of all these planned attacks was and is to demonize the Islamic State or Al-Qaeda and draw a whole support to wage a filthy war against “the nations” where these terrorists operate.

Unrest in Afghanistan is a recipe for more US weapons’ sales to war-exposed countries, viable drug trafficking that generates a profit far beyond measure, unearthing of underground resources worth of several trillion dollars, restraining of the regional military and economic rival powers and so others.

The insurgent groups – be it in Afghanistan, Syria or Iraq depending on the nature of war – have always chanted their slogans against the military forces or the incumbent governments – not civilians. But the wars have instead largely cost the ordinary people’s lives.

In almost every Taliban attack where the NATO and Afghan forces or government officials were targets, quite a few normal people have fallen victim. Typically, in a recent suicide attack on NATO fleet in Kabul, no international servicemen died or injured, but dead were only passersby and passengers of a minivan running behind the convoy.

The terrorist groups have left almost no public establishment un-attacked over this period, from hospitals and TV stations to universities and restaurants have tasted the undue violent killings. In March, Kabul’s Sardar Mohammad Daoud Khan hospital was penetrated by several suicide bombers. Every war front including the Taliban leadership understands the immunity and neutrality of hospitals having no issue with war, but the armed men indifferently set off a killing spree and shot dead every one they came across in the hospital including ailing and elderly people and children.

The militants are, of course, aided and abetted by external and internal elements and this is just a show of distorted reality in Afghanistan used by war architects to hold a foot on the ground. While the terrorist groups have nothing in mind to achieve by slaughtering innocents, it rather give birth to grounds for the West’s presence and drag the fake war well into the future.

This war is stoked or afloat thanks, in most part, to the “kill and then blame” policy. This is well captured in Syria’s Khan Sheikhon chemical attack. First the gas attack that was over-amplified in the world media was fabricated and later the ground was prepared for the US to carry out Tomahawk missile strikes on Syrian Shayrat airbase without finding that the Khan Shaikhon chemical attack was launched from this base.

According to Afghan Human Rights organization, the Afghan war has claimed some 40,000 lives only between 2009 and 2016. Laal Gul an Afghan Human Rights expert says:

 “The Afghan and NATO security officials never disclose a true statistic of victims of an attack”.

It is aimed to simmer down public fury.

In Afghanistan, another excuse for civilian causalities is that the Taliban loyalists bury IEDs or landmines on public avenues allegedly for striking Afghan Army or the NATO’s convoy, but in many instances a civilian vehicle often packed with people has run over the explosives and torn apart. In an extremely disturbing episode, a footage released earlier showed that an old man rushes to the scene where his entire family’s car was blown up by a roadside bomb and desperately looks to women and children’s blood-soaked corpses that litter around the explosion point. Later it features that the man burst into tears as he lifts a lifeless child’s body.

People of Afghanistan are put to suffer this way along the one-and-a-half-decade-long US “war on terror”.

This is while Trump is considering sending more troops to Afghanistan. In 2011, there were 100,000 US soldiers on the ground with almost the same causality rate of present day. Fewer more troops are not up to making a twist in civilian life.

Many years ago, an Afghan journalist who was not named over security reasons learned about a mind blowing fact after contacting a Taliban spokesman and asking about those innocents killed in the Taliban suicide bombing, who replied:

“Those Afghans [other than foreign troops] killed in the blast would go straight to the heaven along with the suicide bomber”.

The intensifying conflict tells that another huge bulk of people is about to perish in the future. The people of Afghanistan and other war-wrecked nations can no longer tolerate such a vortex which is putting them on agony.

Back in my time in the CIA, there were two places in the headquarters building one could go that were free speech zones—places where it was safe to vent about senior management without necessarily being admonished or even reported. They were the Historical Intelligence Collection room off the library, where no one ever went to look at the books, and the office supplies storage room in the basement. The supplies room had a lot of dark corners and concealing shelves where it was possible to be anonymous and it was completely unsupervised in the belief that true-blue CIA officers would never stoop to taking even a single pencil more than was actually needed to get the job done.

I don’t know if those rooms still exist, but I sometimes think of them when the subject of government conspiracies come up. I have this vision of two or three conspirators huddled in the corner behind the staplers back in 1975 discussing how one would go about eliminating the likes of Senator Frank Church, who at that time was heading a major congressional investigation into CIA improprieties.

If there had been such a gathering, I would imagine that the Washington Post would have found out about it on the next day as intelligence officers are gregarious and like to talk. This has been my principal problem with the debate in some quarters about the 9/11 Commission. Their report did indeed miss many important angles in order to protect certain governmental interests, but if there had been a genuine conspiracy involving what must have been hundreds of people to demolish the Twin Towers with explosives, it surely would have leaked long ago.

Two months ago, I would have dismissed as fantasy any thoughts of a conspiracy based in America’s national security agencies to bring down Donald Trump. But now I am not so sure. Many of my friends who are former intelligence officers are increasingly asking questions. It is worth pointing out that none of us are fans of what the White House has been doing and saying—quite the contrary. Still, alerting the country to concerns over what might be a developing soft coup orchestrated by the intelligence and law-enforcement agencies to nullify the results of a national election in no way equates to trying to protect Donald Trump and his uncouth and ill-informed behavior. It is rather a defense of the Constitution.

Donald Trump said on Wednesday that

“This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!”

He might be right. He was referring to Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein’s appointment of the highly-respected Robert Mueller (picture on the right) as independent counsel to investigate “any links and/or coordination between Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump, and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”

Trump’s bombast puts everyone but his most tone-deaf supporters on edge, but there are two points that he has been making repeatedly that are essential to any understanding of what is going on. First, the investigation into Russia and the Trumpsters has been a high priority at FBI and also in Congress for nearly a year. Yet so far no one has produced evidence that anyone broke any law or even that someone did something wrong. Second, and more importantly, the vilification of Trump and Russia has been driven by a series of leaks that come from the very top of the national security apparatus, leaks that appear not to have been seriously investigated.

This involvement of FBI and CIA in the campaign, whether inadvertently or by design, was particularly evident in the various reports that surfaced and were leaked to the press during the campaign and right up to the inauguration. The leaks of that type of information, to include technical intelligence and Special Access Program “codeword” material, require top-level access as well as the ability to arrange clandestine contacts with major players in the media, something far beyond the reach of most employees at CIA or the FBI.

Similar leaks have been appearing since that time. I confess to finding Monday’s detailed account of what President Trump discussed with Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov, which included corroborating material that likely did more damage than the information that was actually shared, highly suggestive of the possibility that something like a conspiracy is, in fact, functioning. Given the really tight-security control of that transcript after it was determined that it contained sensitive information, one might reasonably assume that the leaks to the media came directly out of Donald Trump’s own National Security Council or from the highest levels of the office of the DNI, CIA, or FBI.

Yesterday, the anonymous sources struck again, revealing that

“Michael Flynn and other advisers to Donald Trump’s campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the 2016 presidential race.”

That sort of information had to come from the top level of the FBI and would have been accessible to only a few, but even though the leaks of what constitutes highly-classified information have been recurring for many months, no one has been fired or arrested.

The emphasis on Russia derives from the government and media consensus that Moscow was behind the hacking of Democratic National Committee (DNC) computers that led to the exposure of what the DNC was doing to destroy the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. There is also a related consensus that the Russian hacking was intended to damage American democracy and also to help the Trump campaign, a narrative that the president has described as a “made-up thing,” a view that I share. All of these assertions are regarded as unquestionably true as measured by inside-the-beltway groupthink, with even the White House now conceding that there was Russian interference in the election.

Sometimes the hysteria over Russia produces over-the-top stories in the mainstream media, including last week’s completely speculative piece wondering whether the entourage of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had sought to sneak a recording device into the White House during his White House visit. It was the type of tale that might have been inspired by a leak from someone in the National Security Council who personally observed the context of the meeting and was able to provide corroborating details.

Nevertheless, in spite of the overwhelming groupthink, it has been repeated ad nauseam by people like myself that no actual evidence has been produced to support any of the claims being made about Russia and Trump. There is more evidence that the White House was penetrated by Ankara—through the good services of Michael Flynn—than by Moscow, but Congress has not called for an investigation into Turkey’s lobbying. Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA analyst, is even speculating that the Agency might have been the actual hacker into the DNC, leaving a trail behind that would have suggested that it was done by the Russians. His concern arises from the recent WikiLeaks revelation that the CIA had developed cyberwarfare capabilities to do just that.

McGovern, like myself, is also asking why former CIA Director John Brennan has not been summoned by the Senate Committee looking into Russia-gate. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has testified twice, while former FBI Director James Comey, current NSA Director Mike Rogers, and former Justice Department senior official Sally Yates have all appeared once. Brennan’s absence is conspicuous as he was the senior national security official most closely tied to the Obama Administration, may have had the tools at hand to fake the Russian connection, and has also been plausibly linked to “encouraging” British Intelligence to provide damaging information on Michael Flynn.

I now suspect that there is indeed a group at the top of the U.S. national security system that wants to remove Donald Trump and has wanted to do so for quite some time. If that is true, I believe that they have been operating with that goal in mind for at least the past year. It is not a traditional conspiracy or cabal in that it does not meet and conspire together, but I suspect the members know what they are doing in a general sense and are intervening whenever they can to keep Trump off balance. Their program is simple: convince the nation that the president and his team colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 election in his favor, which, if demonstrable even if not necessarily true, would provide grounds for impeachment. They are motivated by the belief that removing Trump must be done “for the good of the country” and they are willing to do what they consider correcting a mistake made by the American voters. They are assisted in their effort by the mainstream media, which agrees with both the methods employed and the overall objective and is completely on board with the process.

Saving the country from Trump is certainly an attractive notion. I suspect the Comeys, Clappers, and Brennans, together with a host of former senior officers who appear regularly on television, if they were involved, see themselves as great patriots. But they must understand that the blunt instrument they are using is far more dangerous than the current occupant of the White House. A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more threatening to our democracy than anything Donald Trump or even the Russians can do.

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

Drang nach Osten has several translations into English: “yearning for the East”, “thrust toward the East”, “push eastward”, “drive toward the East” “It was a term coined in the 19th century to designate German expansion into Slavic lands.” The concept was part of Nazi ideology during the Third Reich.  (GR Editor)

*    *    *

The so-called US/NATO establishment now endlessly repeats the stale postulate: Russia is our enemy. Yet no one objectively evaluates the validity of this hypothesis.

What really is this alleged threat of Russian aggression? To comprehend the current US/NATO vs. Russia confrontation requires some knowledge of history, warfare, geography, demography, and the globalist political and economic schemes. Certainly much more knowledge and wisdom are needed than what is being exhibited by the ubiquitous globalist media, globalist’s gofer-administrations, and some unbalanced members of Congress.

In terms of geography, the territory of Russia covers some 14% of the Earth’s land mass, with a population of about 150 million. Russian per capita income is about 12% of that of the US. Clearly, Russia needs people, trade, and economic development much more than additional territory. Remember, Russia sold Alaska for just pocket change to the US.

In terms of demography, in 1991 the abrupt politically-imposed breakup of the USSR along its communist administrative borders left almost 40 million Russians outside of the USSR Russian Socialist Republic — which is now the Russian Federation (Russia). Ironically, US/NATO (an anti-communist alliance) accorded the breakup of the USSR in line with the previous communist regime’s objectives and its imposed internal borders.

This demographic problem came to the forefront as the repressive-racist regimes of some USSR spinoff countries outlawed Russian ethnicity and joined NATO (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) or become militantly hostile to their indigenous Russian population(Moldavia in 1992, Georgia in 2008,and Ukraine currently).This is and will remain a major problem until a more just and prudent solution is reached.Taking this into account, we must ask: What business does US/NATO have to so intently enforce the communist doctrine and borders of the former USSR?

In terms of military confrontation, just locate on the map US/NATO military installations surrounding Russia. To US/NATO warmongers it is obvious: Putin definitely wants war– see how close Russia is to our military bases. Still, there is no real possibility of Russian unilateral aggression against US/NATO countries. The 3.2 million US/NATO active military personnel outnumber Russia’s by four-to-one. The US/NATO conventional arsenal is still far superior both in quality and quantity to Russia’s. The only military parity Russia has with US/NATO is in nuclear weapons, which currently serves as an acute deterrent to any military aggression whatsoever. Most of all, Russian GDP is only 16% of US GDP and just 7% of the combined GDP of US-NATO economies. The Russian economy is simply incapable of supporting any one-sided military aggression against US/NATO.

Evidently, US/NATO military infrastructure has uncompromisingly advanced to Russia’s borders. But what is behind this aggression and why? Better yet, who really formulates US/NATO foreign policy? Do not be fooled by all the smoke and mirrors of US executive and legislative branches. The administrations of Presidents Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama have mostly implemented the strategic policy directives of the stealthy think-tanks funded by the globalist oligarchy. To paraphrase Pat Buchanan (senior adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan) the majority of Republican and Democrat members of US government and Congress are now just two wings of the same globalist bird of prey. The insatiable greed and arrogance of the few — with their stated ultimate goal of breaking-up Russia into several puppet states and appropriating its vast resources–is precisely what now drives US /NATO countries into an inevitable grim confrontation with Russia. How did this come to be?

Thirty years ago, President Reagan’s patented trust-but-verify containment presented us with a historic opportunity to turn deadly US-USSR confrontation into robust cooperation. At that time, most Russians were eager to accept Americans back as the ironce-trusted WW2 allies. Such a development would have been the ultimate win-win of the Cold War. Unfortunately we blew it.

The administration of President Bush (41) haughtily declared victory in the Cold War and ushered the era of the new Unipolar World Order. The emerging global hegemons, still in search of their new globalization strategy, simply awarded Eastern Europe into the care of the newly unified Germany. The emboldened, revengeful German elite quickly revamped the Third Reich’s proven economic, political and territorial takeover of Eastern Europe. Following the German lead, the rising global oligarchy realized that they could acquire, literally for a penny-on-a-dollar, enormous valuable assets and markets in Eastern Europe. They swiftly turned their sights on the USSR/Russia, the biggest prize by far. And the new colossal “DrangnachOsten” (Eastern Conquest) was set in motion.

The global oligarchy used President Clinton’s administration to arrogantly transform US/NATO into the aggressive military muscle of their totalitarian globalization doctrine. They broke President Reagan’s promise and advanced US/NATO military infrastructure eastward into former Soviet bloc countries. The German-led revisionist breakup of Yugoslavia provided a blueprint and the test run for the implosion and breakup of the USSR. Whereby, old Nazi accomplices are amply rewarded (for their renewed collaboration) at the expense of old Nazi enemies.

All the while, the globalist media has engaged in a shameless psychological warfare – repeatedly fabricating misinformation to demonize targeted enemies. The general public was lied to and deceived with false pretexts in order to support humanitarian military interventions,bombardments, and the destruction of sovereign countries (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria…).

Keep in mind that for centuries Russian people have fought off quite a few invasions from the west. To them, the current US/NATO military advance eerily resembles Hitler’s 1941 invasion. Except that this time around, US/NATO military strategists and planners are trying to avoid Hitler’s strategic and tactical mistakes. Now the promotion of global democracy is a ploy to hire and direct local malcontents and terrorists for numerous debased color/spring revolutions and coups –used to install US/NATO puppet regimes. These new hybrid-war strategies and tactics have brilliantly succeeded in first imploding the Warsaw Military Pact and the USSR, and then in turning the former members into the front-line troops against Russia. However,the planned methodical implosion of Russia was halted and partially reversed by Russian President Putin. This is really the main reason why 90% of Russia’s citizens support him, and why he is so intensely vilified by the globalist establishment and their brown-nose media.

The globalists crossed the fine line between containment and aggression toward Russia when the administration of President Bush (43) in 2004 brazenly extended NATO military infrastructure into the new Baltic states of the former USSR, right along Russia’s borders. This was not just a smug Hitleresque humiliation of a former foe. This was done with the sinister intent — to under some future conjured pretext provide US/NATO with a hair trigger for military action against Russia.

The unremitting globalist oligarchy used President Obama’s administration for another aggressive advance against Russia. They deployed land- and sea-based radar and missile systems from the Baltic to the Black Sea (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey) as well as in the Atlantic and Pacific theaters. The alleged purpose of this anti-missile shield is to defend EU/USA against possible missile attacks. However, this radar and missile complex has much greater offensive tactical use then it has defensive potential.

Within a couple of years this complex will practically cover the entire Russian territory with thousands of US/NATO warheads. Most frighteningly, this deployment provides US/NATO with a first strike option –a sudden attack to destroy most of Russia’s military defensive and offensive capabilities. The perilous logic of this first strike strategy arrogantly discounts Russia’s retaliation by counting on the unproven capability of the US/NATO anti-missile shield to shoot-down any remaining Russian land- and sea-based nuclear ballistic missiles.

In light of this menacing US/NATO military threat, Russia is developing and deploying new defensive and pre-emptive offensive countermeasures. The new official Russian military doctrine spells out that any attack (conventional or otherwise) on Russia, if necessary will be answered with asymmetric means and measures — including a nuclear option. In other words, President Putin just turns around President Kennedy’s warning to Khrushchev during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis — that if anything from Cuba was fired at the USA, the USSR would bear the full responsibility and the brunt of the response.

The US/NATO pseudo-establishment with its endless repetition Russia is our enemy simply serves the highest bidder. The mercenary incantation of “our” thus actually refers to the entrenched global oligarchy and its minions — not to the vast majority of us. Over the past 30 years the global oligarchy have autocratically taken over the vital institutions of our Republic –only to exploit us and our country as a blunt tool for their totalitarian globalization. Their conquest of Russia is not in the interest of the vast majority of Americans. However, our existential national interest is to stop this unbridled globalist aggression from turning into the Armageddon. And for that, we must first realize that our real enemy is not Russia but the global oligarchy and their corrupt puppet authorities at home.

On May 18, the moving convoy of the Syrian pro-government forces consisted of militias was hit by a massive airstrike of the U.S.-led international coalition. The accident occurred at the Syrian-Jordanian border near the settlement of At-Tanfa.

As reported by the official representative of the U.S. Central command Josh Jakes, the Pentagon did not have any information about the number of casualties as a result of the airstrike.

It is worth noting that the U.S. has previously hit the pro-government forces in Syria. For example, during Obama’s presidency the Syrian army positions in Deir ez-Zor were attacked by ISIS terrorists right after the United States had launched their own airstrike. According to the US officials that attack was a mistake caused by “the human factor”.

In April the U.S. Navy has already bombed Syria’s Shayrat Air Base, in response allegedly to the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack.

So, what’s the true reason of such aggressive actions of the US-led international coalition this time? A number of Syrian military analysts believe that the U.S. Air Force main task was to hamper Syrian pro-government forces and to slow down their further advance towards Deir ez-Zor rather than to ‘protect’ U.S. ‘partners’.

Their actions are motivated by the fact that the Syrian military command is ready for a large-scale military operation to liberate the city from ISIS. Damascus sees the complete liberation of Deir ez-Zor province from the blockade as the restoration of the control over the largest oil fields. This may significantly improve the economic situation in the country.

This Syrian city is also a tasty little deal for the coalition forces. The overwhelming desire of the West to plunge the country into a state of constant chaos is the main reason for the planned seizure of oil rigs.

The Syrian city was samely a kind of dainty bit for the US-led coalition. The irresistible impulse of the West to drive the country into the permanent chaos is the primary reason for the oil derricks seizure.

Furthermore, the air strike was performed amid the ongoing Syrian talks in Geneva. A show of power like that may have targeted at making the talks even more difficult and troublesome as they are.

Apparently, the US-led coalition’s regular strikes on the pro-government troops in Syria testify that Washington intends to continue its double-standard policy towards the Syrian conflict. We remember how they supported the establishing “de-escalation” zones but now their actions indicate the opposite. It is sheer cynicism to strike against those who really fight ISIS terrorists. But this doesn’t come as a surprise either in Syria or in the world.

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

Warplanes operating under the US-led coalition carried out airstrikes against a Syrian Arab Army (SAA) convoy advancing along the Al-Tanf-Damascus-Baghdad international road. The airstrikes targeted Syrian forces in Al-Shuhaimi area, 50 km from the town of Al-Tanf located at the Syrian-Iraqi border.

The airstrikes destroyed two battle tanks, and damaged a Shilka vehicle, several pickups and trucks. Six SAA fighters lost their life and 3 were injured.

The US-led coalition said that the airstrikes were “warning shots” against Shiite militias. However, Shiite militias operation at the Al-Tanf road don’t have tanks or Shilka vehicles and there were many pictures and videos showing the presence of elements of the SAA in the area.

The US airstrikes on government forces are a clear signal that Washington are seeking prevent the Syrian government from taking control over the border and to build a buffer zone between Syria and Iraq that could establish an alliance in the near future.

Meanwhile, Jaysh al-Thuwar, a US-backed Free Syrian Army group, claimed that its militants have attacked the SAA and prevented it from approaching the Al-Tanf area. Earlier this week, a representative of Jaysh al-Thuwar, said that the target of the Free Syrian Army and the US-led coalition is to capture the city of Deir Ezzor.

Recently, Jaysh al-Thuwar received 20 technical vehicles as well as some TOW missiles and mortars from the US-led coalition, claiming that it will be used in the battle for capturing Al Bukamal.

From its side, the SAA transferred significant forces from Homs and Damascus to Suweida including tanks and 130 mm artillery pieces. It was also announced that the National Defense Forces in Suweida will participate in the operation.

Government forces, led by the Syrian Arab Army’s Tiger Forces, have been advancing against ISIS terrorists in the eastern part of the province of Aleppo. Following the previous advances, the Tiger Forces got control over the villages of Wadi Muwayih, Jub al-Ali, Tal Hasan, Nafiyah, Atirah and Mazyuna. In coming days, government forces will continue their operation against ISIS in the area aiming to isolate the ISIS stronghold of Maskanah.

248 men from the province of Raqqah have received training and joined the US-backed Syrian Democratic Fores (SDF). These fighters will participate in an operation aimed at capturing Raqqa city from ISIS terrorists.

The SDF has also trained more than 50 men from the province of Raqqah as security forces. The task of this force will be to secure the province of Raqqa after capturing it.

Meanwhile, the SDF has the captured villages of Thoul Nail, Hamrat Ghanam, Annadah and Tall Zaidan and advanced on the villages of Hamrat Buwaytiyah and Raqqah as Samra in the Raqqah countryside.

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

Syria’s White Helmets have suspended several members of their rescue team after stomach-churning footage emerged showing rebel militants conducting a summary execution of a man in the town of Jasim, with the White Helmets helping get rid of the body.

In the aftermath of the May 18, 2017, U.S bombing of Syrian armed forces near al-Tanf, in southern Syria, several important issues remain unresolved.

On the one hand, we know that there won’t be any outcry from Canada’s government, because it supports the terrorists in Syria.

And we know that there won’t be any outrage from Western corporate media, because it is an appendage of, and embedded with, the terrorists in Syria.

But where is the outrage from Canada’s religious communities? NATO terrorists have been ethnically-cleansing minorities, including Christians, from the outset of this dirty war on Syria. Surely Canada’s religious communities must be aware of this.

Reverend Andrew Ashdown, who has been to Syria ten times during the war as a guest of local churches, and has travelled extensively in areas most affected by the conflict, noted his interactions with a Syrian priest:

From the cradle of faith and civilisation … A Syrian Priest: “If the West doesn’t stand by the Christians in the East, it will be the beginning of the end for Christianity in the West. Western Christians are contributing to the persecution of the Churches in the East.”

Another Syrian Christian:

“If Christians in the West are truly Christian and have Christian love, they must support the Christians in Syria, and the people of Syria. If this continues, what happened here will happen in Europe.”

I have heard this time and again from both Christians and Muslims in Syria. Yet we refuse to dialogue with Christians and Muslims who wish to preserve plurality and diversity in Syria, and support extremists who are attacking anyone that does not support their extremist ideology.

Commenting on an undercover video recording of life in Idlib, under terrorist control, Ashdown observed,

Interesting documentary about life in Idlib Province under terrorist ‘rebel’ control. No sign of any ‘moderates’ here, or of a ‘free’ society, and few Syrians support them, yet these are the people our governments are supporting. Perhaps those who support these extremist groups would like to visit for themselves, and experience the kind of ‘hospitality’ they have to offer?

I share Ashdown’s rage when he writes

The sheer evil of the West’s alliances and culpability in helping to destroy this country (and I make no apology for using that term), is despicable.

People currently in Syria, such as Reverend Ashdown, or those of us who have recently been in Syria, and all of us who have studied NATO’s dirty war on Syria, know who supports the terrorists, and it is our governments. The recent U.S attack on Syrian military forces is yet another reminder of this.

The evil that is visiting Syria is infecting us all. Our silence and complicity bears witness to this.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. Visit the author’s website at https://www.marktaliano.net.

---

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley said that the Trump administration “wants to prevent another conflict like Syria, North Korea or South Sudan” in Venezuela which is a code phrase for “regime change.” According to a May 17th report by the Associated Press (AP):

Haley said the U.S. intention wasn’t to be “intrusive” or “heavy-handed” but to support regional efforts to find a political solution and “show respect for the Venezuelan people” who want free and fair elections, the release of political prisoners and the worsening humanitarian situation addressed.

“We think if that doesn’t happen we will certainly be hearing this in the Security Council because it will be a real problem — not just in the region but internationally,” Haley told reporters after the closed-door briefing and discussions that lasted over 1½ hours.

Venezuelan Ambassador Rafael Ramirez accused Washington of trying “to interfere in our domestic issues.” The AP report says that the

“demonstrations have escalated into a vehicle for airing grievances against the government for triple-digit inflation, food shortages and a rise in crime.”

What the AP forgot to mention was the fact that as early as 2014, Saudi Arabia flooded the markets with cheap oil, which at one point was at $110 per barrel. Saudi Arabia coordinated the move with approval from Washington and to a point, Tel Aviv to drive down oil prices which would affect Venezuela domestically thus opening the door to violent protests against the Maduro government. Washington knew that Venezuela’s economy that provides social programs is mainly based on oil exports.

According to a Telesur report earlier this year, not only the Venezuelan government’s profits from its natural resource exports were targeted by the U.S. and its close allies, private food companies have also contributed to Venezuela’s economic chaos:

Since the early 2000s, supermarket owners affiliated with Venezuela’s opposition have been purposefully hoarding food products so they can resell them at higher prices and make large profits. Food importing companies owned by the country’s wealthy right-wing elite are also manipulating import figures to raise prices.

In 2013, former Venezuelan Central Bank chief Edmee Betancourt reported that the country lost between US$15 and $20 billion dollars the previous year through such fraudulent import deals. It doesn’t stop there. Last year, over 750 opposition-controlled offshore companies linked to the Panama Papers scandal were accused of purposely redirecting Venezuelan imports of raw food materials from the government to the private sector. Many of these companies sell their products to private companies in Colombia, which resell them to Venezuelans living close to Colombia.

“Selling contraband is a serious problem. People here are taking large quantities of products meant for Venezuelans and selling them in Colombia,” Valencia resident Francisco Luzon told Al Jazeera in a 2014 interview. Reuters admitted in 2014 that Venezuelan opposition members living in border states are shipping low-cost foodstuffs provided by the Venezuelan government into Colombia for profit. Overall, Venezuela’s millionaire opposition are profiting handsomely from the country’s food crisis while blaming it on the socialist government that’s trying to eliminate it.

The crisis in Venezuela is getting worst; Washington’s long-term plan was to create chaos. Create the chaos, and then comes condemnation from Washington. Then Washington gives the green light for the opposition to move forward and attempt a coup against the Maduro government. This would bring a civil war onto the streets of Caracas that would spread throughout other parts of the country.

On April 24th The New York Times quoted what National Assembly President Julio Borges had said to opposition forces

“I’m calling on the country, on all of Venezuela, to go out into the streets until we have a democratic country with social justice, where there’s progress for all,” Borges told Venezuelan television channel Globovision.

Borges urged anti-government protesters to take their anger onto the streets adding fuel to the fire in a volatile situation. The White House released a press statement on May 6th on the meeting between Trump’s National Security advisor H.R. McMaster and Borges on the political crisis in Venezuela:

National Security Advisor McMaster met with Venezuela’s National Assembly President Julio Borges at the White House yesterday afternoon. They discussed the ongoing crisis in Venezuela and the need for the government to adhere to the Venezuelan Constitution, release political prisoners, respect the National Assembly, and hold free and democratic elections. They agreed that there is a strong need to bring the crisis to a quick and peaceful conclusion

A quick and peaceful conclusion’ won’t happen anytime soon as long as the opposition continues to use violent tactics against the Maduro government as the New York Times report also said that

“Venezuelan government officials blamed the opposition for attacks against pro-government demonstrators on Monday during sit-ins organized by the opposition that gathered thousands in support of elections.”  the report also said that “the events showed that Venezuela may be girding for a long war of attrition on the streets as the opposition calls for sustained civil disobedience against Mr. Maduro’s accumulation of power.”

The Trump administration recently imposed sanctions on several members of Venezuela’s Supreme Court according to Time magazine:

The Trump administration is imposing sanctions on members of Venezuela’s Supreme Court following a series of rulings that the U.S. says has usurped power from the nation’s opposition-controlled congress and sparked a deadly wave of unrest.

The U.S. Department of Treasury announced Thursday it is freezing the assets of eight Venezuelan government officials on the Supreme Court in an effort to support the Venezuelan people “in their efforts to protect and advance democratic governance”

The U.S. has now imposed sanctions; will a coup take place by the U.S. backed opposition? The Trump administration (Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in particular) wants to get their hands on Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. It’s not about the Venezuelan people or their grievances, its business. Tillerson wants Venezuela’s oil market under U.S. control. When the late Hugo Chavez became president, U.S. multinational oil corporations such as ExxonMobil (where Tillerson was CEO) lost a large share of their profits. The U.S. wants payback, so what happens next in Venezuela? A civil war between anti and pro-government forces seem inevitable. Haley claims that the U.S. wants to prevent another Syria, North Korea or South Sudan, but the reality is that Washington’s economic war on Venezuela was the first step into turning the South American country into a warzone.

It had been, from the start, a cruel wait and see game. Lacking logic and consistency, the Swedish effort to extradite Julian Assange from the United Kingdom, not for formal charges but the pretext of questioning him over sexual assault and rape, collapsed on Friday.

The Director of Public Prosecutions Marianne Ny and Chief Prosecutor Ingrid Isgren, in a press conference in Stockholm, were doing their best not to have Assange have the last, grizzly laugh. Abandoning the investigation had been a logistical matter, as they had been unable to serve the Australian with allegations during an interview at the Ecuadorean embassy in November 2016.

It is worth pointing out that getting that interview had been a point of persistent refusal and stonewalling from the Swedish prosecutor’s office. Communications had also been repeatedly made by the WikiLeaks legal team that they were open to a video interview from the start.

Ny’s text, relayed to the Stockholm District Court, claimed in dryer language that it was “no longer possible to continue the preliminary investigation pursuant to Chapter 23, Section 4, second paragraph, of the Code of Judicial Procedure.” Keeping in mind

“the facts and circumstances of the case, executing the decision to extradite him to Sweden is not expected to be possible in the foreseeable future.”[1]

When pressed about the issue of whether the US still had a thick and clumsy hand in matters, denial followed. At no point had figures in Washington applied pressure to the case. But Isgren and Ny did claim that an email from a figure claiming to work for the FBI was received in March inquiring about Assange, though both claimed it insufficiently clear to draw any conclusions from.

Prosecutors Marianne Ny, left, and Ingrid Isgren, right

Indifferent to the inquiry, the prosecutor’s office simply referred the matter to information already available on the agency’s website. Showing the sort of care they have had to the entire process, the inquiring email was deleted.

Little wonder then, that Assange shot back, telling supporters and journalists that Sweden, and the European Union more broadly, had made indefinite detention a key policy.

“There is no time limit that someone can be detained without charge. That is not how we expect a civilised state to behave.”

Professor Mads Andenæs, chair of the UN Working Group on arbitrary detention, claimed the collapse of the prosecution case “a victory for the rule of law. The warrant was contestable. There were dissents in both the UK and Swedish supreme courts.” Andenæs also noted that the UK Supreme Court had trouble with “several aspects of the extradition request.”[2] As had the UN Working Group itself, which found for Assange last year.

Within Sweden itself, the legal fraternity were also getting stroppy at the lethargic, asthmatic efforts to push the case. The Swedish Supreme Court had also issued a warning to prosecutors that they needed to speed up efforts or drop the case.

With haste and speculation, the Swedish exit from the Assange equation came with questions whether he would complement it with his own exit from the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

“The European arrest no longer holds,” exclaimed Ecuador’s foreign minister Guillaume Long on Twitter. “The UK must now grant safe passage to Mr Julian Assange.”

Nothing of the sort: a promise had been made by police that he would be arrested the moment he steps out.

The hook upon which to hang the case against Assange remains his decision to defy UK judicial opinion in June 2012, when he took refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy after the Supreme Court handed its final decision ordering his surrender to Sweden pursuant to the flawed European Arrest Warrant.

A statement from the Metropolitan Police dispelled any doubts:

“Westminster Magistrates’ Court issued a warrant for the arrest of Julian Assange following him failing to surrender to the court on 29 June 2012.”[3]

The Met were “obliged to execute that warrant should be he leave the Embassy.”

This keeps the geopolitical dimension relevant. Assange in the hands of the British authorities will be a far easier catch for US agents keen to pursue WikiLeaks on charges relating to the disclosure of classified material, despite the seemingly impregnable defences of the free speech amendment.

As Assange claimed in a grimly delivered press address from the balcony of the Ecuadorean embassy, looking every bit the modelled out information soldier, his detractors in the United States government have little interest in observing the first amendment freedoms for the press for WikiLeaks and its associates.

The Central Intelligence Agency’s Mike Pompeo has deemed WikiLeaks a “hostile non-state intelligence agency” which precludes conventional press protections.

“We can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us. To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for.”[4]

The continuing struggle, one between the guerrilla warriors of the information and transparency movement pitted against the abuses of the Deep State, will continue. As will the barnacle determination of Assange in occupying that little bit of Ecuador in Knightsbridge.

“The proper war,” promised Assange, “is just commencing.”

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

Notes

Why is it a “conspiracy theory” to think that a disgruntled Democratic National Committee staffer gave WikiLeaks the DNC emails, but not a conspiracy theory to think the emails were provided by Russia?

Why?

Which is the more likely scenario: That a frustrated employee leaked damaging emails to embarrass his bosses or a that foreign government hacked DNC computers for some still-unknown reason?

That’s a no-brainer, isn’t it?

Former-DNC employee, Seth Rich, not only had access to the emails, but also a motive. He was pissed about the way the Clinton crowd was “sandbagging” Bernie Sanders. In contrast, there’s neither evidence nor motive connecting Russia to the emails. On top of that,  WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange (a man of impeccable integrity) has repeatedly denied that Russia gave him the emails which suggests the government investigation is completely misdirected. The logical course of action, would be to pursue the leads that are most likely to bear fruit, not those that originate from one’s own political bias. But, of course, logic has nothing to do with the current investigation, it’s all about politics and geopolitics.

We don’t know who killed Seth Rich (picture on the right) and we’re not going to speculate on the matter here. But we find it very strange that neither the media nor the FBI have pursued leads in the case that challenge the prevailing narrative on the Russia hacking issue. Why is that? Why is the media so eager to blame Russia when Rich looks like the much more probable suspect?

And why have the mainstream news organizations put so much energy into discrediting the latest Fox News report, when– for the last 10 months– they’ve showed absolutely zero interest in Rich’s death at all?

According to Fox News:

“The Democratic National Committee staffer who was gunned down on July 10 on a Washington, D.C., street just steps from his home had leaked thousands of internal emails to WikiLeaks, law enforcement sources told Fox News.

A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer Seth Rich’s computer generated within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time….

Rod Wheeler, a retired Washington homicide detective and Fox News contributor investigating the case on behalf of the Rich family, made the WikiLeaks claim, which was corroborated by a federal investigator who spoke to Fox News….

“I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and Wikileaks,” the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department.” (“Family of slain DNC staffer Seth Rich blasts detective over report of WikiLeaks link”, Fox News)

Okay, so where’s the computer? Who’s got Rich’s computer? Let’s do the forensic work and get on with it.

But the Washington Post and the other bogus news organizations aren’t interested in such matters because it doesn’t fit with their political agenda. They’d rather take pot-shots at Fox for running an article that doesn’t square with their goofy Russia hacking story. This is a statement on the abysmal condition of journalism today. Headline news has become the province of perception mandarins who use the venue to shape information to their own malign specifications, and any facts that conflict with their dubious storyline, are savagely attacked and discredited. Journalists are no longer investigators that keep the public informed, but paid assassins who liquidate views that veer from the party-line.

WikiLeaks never divulges the names of the people who provide them with information. Even so, Assange has not only shown an active interest in the Seth Rich case, but also offered a $20,000 reward for anyone providing information leading to the arrest and conviction of Rich’s murder. Why? And why did he post a link to the Fox News article on his Twitter account on Tuesday?

I don’t know, but if I worked for the FBI or the Washington Post, I’d sure as hell be beating the bushes to find out. And not just because it might help in Rich’s murder investigation, but also, because it could shed light on the Russia fiasco which is being used to lay the groundwork for impeachment proceedings. So any information that challenges the government version of events, could actually change the course of history.

Have you ever heard of Craig Murray?

Murray should be the government’s star witness in the DNC hacking scandal, instead, no one even knows who he is. But if we trust what Murray has to say, then we can see that the Russia hacking story is baloney. The emails were “leaked” by insiders not “hacked” by a foreign government. Here’s the scoop from Robert Parry at Consortium News:

“Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, has suggested that the DNC leak came from a “disgruntled” Democrat upset with the DNC’s sandbagging of the Sanders campaign and that the Podesta leak came from the U.S. intelligence community….He (Murray) appears to have undertaken a mission for WikiLeaks to contact one of the sources (or a representative) during a Sept. 25 visit to Washington where he says he met with a person in a wooded area of American University. ….

Though Murray has declined to say exactly what the meeting in the woods was about, he may have been passing along messages about ways to protect the source from possible retaliation, maybe even an extraction plan if the source was in some legal or physical danger…Murray also suggested that the DNC leak and the Podesta leak came from two different sources, neither of them the Russian government.

“The Podesta emails and the DNC emails are, of course, two separate things and we shouldn’t conclude that they both have the same source,” Murray said. “In both cases we’re talking of a leak, not a hack, in that the person who was responsible for getting that information out had legal access to that information…

Scott Horton then asked, “Is it fair to say that you’re saying that the Podesta leak came from inside the intelligence services, NSA [the electronic spying National Security Agency] or another agency?”

“I think what I said was certainly compatible with that kind of interpretation, yeah,” Murray responded. “In both cases they are leaks by Americans.”

(“A Spy Coup in America?”, Robert Parry, Consortium News)

With all the hullabaloo surrounding the Russia hacking case, you’d think that Murray’s eyewitness account would be headline news, but not in Homeland Amerika where the truth is kept as far from the front page as humanly possible.

Bottom line: The government has a reliable witness (Murray) who can positively identify the person who hacked the DNC emails and, so far, they’ve showed no interest in his testimony at all.  Doesn’t that strike you as a bit weird?

Did you know that after a 10 month-long investigation, there’s still no hard evidence that Russia hacked the 2016 elections?  In fact, when the Intelligence agencies were pressed on the matter, they promised to release a report that would provide iron-clad proof of Russian meddling.  On January 6, 2017, theDirector of National Intelligence, James Clapper, released that report. It was called The Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA).  Unfortunately, the report fell far-short of the public’s expectations. Instead of a smoking gun, Clapper produced a tedious 25-page compilation of speculation, hearsay, innuendo and gobbledygook.  Here’s how veteran journalist Robert Parry summed it up:

“The report contained no direct evidence that Russia delivered hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta to WikiLeaks….The DNI report…as presented, is one-sided and lacks any actual proof. Further, the continued use of the word “assesses”….suggests that the underlying classified information also may be less than conclusive because, in intelligence-world-speak, “assesses” often means “guesses.” (“US Report Still Lacks Proof on Russia ‘Hack’”, Robert Parry, Consortium News)

Repeat: “the report contained no direct evidence”, no “actual proof”, and a heckuva a lot of “guessing”. That’s some “smoking gun”, eh?

If this ‘thin gruel’ sounds like insufficient grounds for removing a sitting president and his administration, that’s because it is. But the situation is even worse than it looks,  mainly because the information in the assessment is not reliable. The ICA was corrupted by higher-ups in the Intel food-chain who selected particular analysts who could be trusted to produce a document that served their broader political agenda. Think I’m kidding? Take a look at this excerpt from an article at Fox News:

“On January 6, 2017, the U.S. Intelligence Community issued an “Intelligence Community Assessment” (ICA) that found Russia deliberately interfered in the 2016 presidential election to benefit Trump’s candidacy…  (but) there are compelling reasons to believe this ICA was actually a politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments…… to ensure this one reached the bottom line conclusion that the Obama administration was looking for. …

….Director of National Intelligence James Clapper explained in his testimony that two dozen or so “seasoned experts” were “handpicked” from the contributing agencies” and drafted the ICA “under the aegis of his former office” …  While Clapper claimed these analysts were given “complete independence” to reach their findings, he added that their conclusions “were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of the three agencies and me.”

This process drastically differed from the Intelligence Community’s normal procedures.  Hand-picking a handful of analysts from just three intelligence agencies to write such a controversial assessment went against standing rules to vet such analyses throughout the Intelligence Community within its existing structure.  The idea of using hand-picked intelligence analysts selected through some unknown process to write an assessment on such a politically sensitive topic carries a strong stench of politicization….

A major problem with this process is that it gave John Brennan, CIA’s hyper-partisan former director, enormous influence over the drafting of the ICA.  Given Brennan’s scathing criticism of Mr. Trump before and after the election, he should have had no role whatsoever in the drafting of this assessment.  Instead, Brennan probably selected the CIA analysts who worked on the ICA and reviewed and approved their conclusions….

The unusual way that the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment was drafted raises major questions as to whether it was rigged by the Obama administration to produce conclusions that would discredit the election outcome and Mr. Trump’s presidency.”

(“More indications Intel assessment of Russian interference in election was rigged”, Fox News)

Repeat: “A politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments.” That says it all, doesn’t it?

Let’s take a minute and review the main points in the article:

1–Was the Intelligence Community Assessment the summary work of all 17 US Intelligence Agencies?

No, it was not. “In his May 8 testimony to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, Clapper confirmed …(that) the ICA reflected the views of only three intelligence agencies — CIA, NSA and FBI – not all 17.”

2–Did any of the analysts challenge the findings in the ICA?

No, the document failed to acknowledge any dissenting views, which suggests that the analysts were screened in order to create consensus.

3– Were particular analysts chosen to produce the ICA?

Yes, they were “handpicked from the contributing agencies” and drafted the ICA “under the aegis of his former office” (the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.)

4– Was their collaborative work released to the public in its original form?

No,  their conclusions “were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of the three agencies and me.” (Clapper) This of course suggests that the document was political in nature and crafted to deliver a particular message.

5–Were Clapper’s methods “normal” by Intelligence agency standards?

Definitely not. “This process drastically differed from the Intelligence Community’s normal procedures.”

6–Are Clapper and Brennan partisans who have expressed their opposition to Trump many times in the past calling into question their ability to be objective in executing their duties as heads of their respective agencies?

Absolutely. Check out this clip from Monday’s Arkansas online:

“I think, in many ways, our institutions are under assault, both externally — and that’s the big news here, is the Russian interference in our election system,” said James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence. “I think as well our institutions are under assault internally.”

When he was asked, “Internally, from the president?” Clapper said, “Exactly.” (Clapper calls Trump democracy assailant”, arkansasonline)

Brennan has made numerous similar statements. (Note: It is particularly jarring that Clapper– who oversaw the implementation of the modern surveillance police state– feels free to talk about “the assault on our institutions.”)

7–Does the ICA prove that anyone on the Trump campaign colluded with Russia or that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections?

No, it doesn’t.  What it shows is that –even while Clapper and Brennan may have been trying to produce an assessment that would ‘kill two birds with one stone’, (incriminate Russia and smear Trump at the same time) the ICA achieved neither. So far, there’s no proof of anything.   Now take a look at this list I found in an article at The American Thinker:

“12 prominent public statements by those on both sides of the aisle who reviewed the evidence or been briefed on it confirmed there was no evidence of Russia trying to help Trump in the election or colluding with him:

The New York Times (Nov 1, 2016);
House Speaker Paul Ryan (Feb, 26, 2017);
Former DNI James Clapper , March 5, 2017);
Devin Nunes Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, March 20, 2017);
James Comey, March 20, 2017;
Rep. Chris Stewart, House Intelligence Committee, March 20, 2017;
Rep. Adam Schiff, House Intelligence committee, April 2, 2017);
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senate Intelligence Committee, May 3, 2017);
Sen. Joe Manchin  Senate Intelligence Committee, May 8, 2017;
James Clapper (again) (May 8, 2017);
Rep. Maxine Waters, May 9, 2017);
President Donald Trump,(May 9, 2017).
Senator Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, indicated that his briefing confirmed Dianne Feinstein’s view that the President was not under investigation for colluding with the Russians.”
(“Russian Hacking and Collusion: Put the Cards on the Table”, American Thinker)

Keep in mind, this is a list of the people who actually “reviewed the evidence”, and even they are not convinced. It just goes to show that the media blitz is not based on any compelling proof, but on the determination of  behind-the-scenes elites who want to destroy their political rivals. Isn’t that what’s really going on?

How does former FBI Director James Comey fit into all this?

First of all, we need to set the record straight on Comey so readers don’t get the impression that he’s the devoted civil servant and all-around stand-up guy he’s made out to be in the media. Here’s a short clip from an article by Human Rights First that will help to put things into perspective:

“Five former FBI agents…raised concerns about his (Comey’s) support for a legal memorandum justifying torture and his defense of holding an American citizen indefinitely without charge. They note that Comey concurred with a May 10, 2005, Office of Legal Counsel opinion that authorized torture. While the agents credited Comey for opposing torture tactics in combination and on policy grounds, they note that Comey still approved the legal basis for use of specific torture tactics.

“These techniques include cramped confinement, wall-standing, water dousing, extended sleep deprivation, and waterboarding, all of which constitute torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in contravention of domestic and international law,” the letter states.

Those signing the letter to the committee also objected to Comey’s defense of detaining Americans without charge or trial and observed, “Further, Mr. Comey vigorously defended the Bush administration’s decision to hold Jose Padilla, a United States citizen apprehended on U.S. soil, indefinitely without charge or trial for years in a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina.” (“FBI Agents Urge Senate Judiciary Committee to Question Comey on Torture, Indefinite Detention”, Human Rights First)

Get the picture?

Comey is a vicious political opportunist who doesn’t mind breaking a few legs if it’ll advance his career plans. I wouldn’t trust the man as far as I could throw him. Which isn’t far.

American Thinker’s Clarice Feldman explains why Comey launched his counter-intel investigation in July 2016 but failed to notify Congress until March 2017, a full eight months later. Here’s what she said:

“There is only one reasonable explanation for FBI Director James Comey to be launching a counter-intel investigation in July 2016, notifying the White House and Clapper, and keeping it under wraps from congress. Comey was a participant in the intelligence gathering for political purposes — wittingly, or unwittingly.” (“Russian Hacking and Collusion: Put the Cards on the Table”, American Thinker)

Are we suggesting that the heads of the so called Intelligence Community are at war with the Trump Administration and paving the way for impeachment  proceedings?

Yep, we sure are. The Russia hacking fiasco is a regime change operation no different than the CIA’s 50-or-so other oustings in the last 70 years. The only difference is that this operation is on the home field which is why everyone is so flustered. These things are only suppose to happen in those “other” countries.

Does this analysis make me a Donald Trump supporter?

Never.  The idea is ridiculous. Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t other nefarious forces at work behind the smokescreen of democratic government. There are. In fact, this whole flap suggests that there’s an alternate power-structure that operates completely off the public’s radar and has the elected-government in its death-grip. This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of  Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently,  they have enough influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We’ll see.)

And what’s more surprising, is that the Democrats have aligned themselves with these deep state puppetmasters.  They’ve cast their lot with the sinister stewards of the national security state and hopped on the impeachment bandwagon. But is that a wise choice for the Dems?

Author Michael J. Glennon doesn’t think so. Here’s what he says in the May edition of Harper’s Magazine:

“Those who would counter the illiberalism of Trump with the illiberalism of unfettered bureaucrats would do well to contemplate the precedent their victory would set. …

American history is not silent about the proclivities of unchecked security forces, a short list of which includes the Palmer Raids, the FBI’s blackmailing of civil rights leaders, Army surveillance of the antiwar movement, the NSA’s watch lists, and the CIA’s waterboarding. …. Who would trust the authors of past episodes of repression as a reliable safeguard against future repression?”

(“Security Breach– Trump’s tussle with the bureaucratic state”, Michael J. Glennon, Harper’s Magazine)

“Who?”

The Democrats, that’s who.

May 16, 2017, immediately following China’s highlight “Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation,” President Xi Jinping signed multiple agreements with the Presidents of the participant nations, a broad spectrum of the globe, ranging from Central Asia’s Uzbekistan through Turkey and as far West as Italy – and beyond.  The agreements included cooperative arrangements for trade, infrastructure development, tariff reductions, to mention merely a few announced cooperative arrangements. 

This modern recreation of the Ancient Silk Road essentially traversed the route Marco Polo traveled centuries ago, and today includes arrangements for building highways, seaports and other infrastructure crucial for opening up trade throughout Central Asia and connecting that vast area through Central Europe into Western Europe – and beyond – as far as Latin America and Africa. The project will implement the construction of infrastructure crucial to facilitate modern trade, investment and economic-development, and will include other facilities indispensable for international commerce.

Latin America is notably represented by Chile’s President Michelle Bachelet, whose enthusiastic participation in the forum is celebrated. China’s investments in Africa have been one of China’s priorities for more than a decade and were another feature of the forum. President Xi Jinping signed friendship agreements with numerous participants, including the President of Indonesia, and his meeting with Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi was significant for their agreements for the two countries’ cooperation and partnership. Also included was Christine Lagarde representing the International Monetary Fund, and the Director of the World Bank, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Gutierrez, who delivered a moving speech enumerating the vast challenges facing the world at this moment, and the President of the United Nations General Assembly, Peter Thompson, who emphasized the compatibility of China’s Belt and Road Forum with the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which includes 17 goals prioritizing poverty eliminating and gender equality.

These multiple economic partnerships, essentially spanning the globe, are the foundation for the “interconnected, inclusive, innovated world, advocated by China, and based on the concept of “win-win” cooperation that China is sponsoring and fervently encouraging, partnerships antithetical to the zero-sum approach on which North-South relations were hither based, and which amounted to the exploitation and plundering of the people and resources of the developing world.  This “zero-sum” approach  actually constituted the “development of underdevelopment,” denounced by the great economist Andre Gunder Frank and numerous others.

There have been criticisms of some of China’s projects already being implemented in Latin America, with some experts alleging that this new infrastructure will benefit both China’s oligarchs together with Latin America’s oligarchs, and are in reality not focused upon reaching the multitudes of the very poor in Latin America, and improving the economic conditions of their lives.  There have been complaints by some countries in Africa where Chinese investment is already being implemented, that these large infrastructure development projects employ only Chinese workers, without creating jobs for the African workers in whose countries these projects are based.

The international press was assisted by Chinese student volunteers who were gracious, extraordinarily patient and remarkably skilled in technological know-how. However, the press was not permitted direct access to the actual conference participants, so it was not possible to assess whether the most sensitive, controversial and crucial contradictions confronting the world at this moment in history were ever addressed. It is, however, highly probable that the Belt and Road Forum neglected – or avoided – confronting the paramount contradiction that threatens the survival of the human species at any moment: at no point did the Forum confront the fact that a huge proportion of the budgets of some participating countries, including the US, the UK is being diverted into trillions of dollars of investment into development of advanced nuclear weapons, resources that should, in a sane world, be invested into human development, instead of into the potential destruction of all life on earth.

There is hackneyed saying that “in politics there are no friends, only interests.” In reality, in today’s imperiled world, there are no actual enemies, only those created to rationalize the greed for profit maximization by myopic oligarchs who profit from the military-industrial complex, which slaughters populations and pulverizes nations, demolishing this very “interconnected, inclusive” world that China’s Belt and Road “ is attempting to create. This neglect of the indispensable connection between disarmament and development is a fatal weakness , which may lead to the outbreak of World War.

Carla Stea is Global Research’s Correspondent at UN headquarters, currently in Beijing for the Belt and Road Forum.

The roots of a 21st-century tragedy

With his just-released book Washington’s Long War on Syria, Stephen Gowans blows away the twisted layers of disinformation and war propaganda around Syria, and exposes the great 21st-century tragedy in that West-Asian country in all its stark reality: a long war of aggression waged by the U.S.-NATO empire against a secular and pluralist Arab republic that, like Iraq and Libya, thwarted its hegemonic, capitalist interests, and resisted Israeli, Saudi and other theocratic and anti-democratic players in the region.

The international political reporter and analyst that I am, nearly 40 years with Montreal daily La Presse and three months of 2003 spent in Iraq, ploughed with frustration through the 105 pages of the stage-setting introduction and first two chapters, eager and hungry for the Ottawa-born author to get down to brass tacks and the nitty-gritty — which he does with quiet but unswerving fact-based confidence and clarity in Chapters 3 and 4.

Lighting the flame of imperialist war

The single determining factor for the confusion, hand-wringing, hair-splitting and division over the Syrian tragedy is based in events that took place mid-March 2011 in the small southern town of Daraa, on the border with Jordan, with a mainly Sunni population of 100,000.

“Daraa: The spark that lit the Syrian flame,” wrote CNN’s Joe Sterling, one year later. Daraa has also been called “The cradle of the revolution.”

Quoting diligently from mainstream U.S. media and official U.S. sources, Gowans (picture on the right) demonstrates that what happened in Daraa on March 17, 2011 and afterward was no “popular uprising,” but an orchestrated provocation by armed Islamist jihadists, old foes of the secular Baathist regime in Syria, aided by jihadists trained in Jordan by U.S.-NATO powers and their conservative Arab monarchist vassals, and abetted by U.S.-NATO propaganda for war on Syria. The “Syrian flame” that was lit in Daraa was not the flame of revolution — because the regime was popular, as was well reported at the time by the same Western mainstream media. It was the flame of imperialist war for regime change — with jihadists and the so-called Free Syria Army (FSA) functioning as proxies.

Quoting abundantly from Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Democracy Now! and the Independent, Gowans shows more than he argues that the Daraa demonstrators were jihadists agitating for a sectarian Sunni Islamic State; that they were armed and “violent from the beginning,” as recognized early on by the U.S. government but “obfuscated” later on; and that the “uprising” had no popular support whatsoever. It was not even a “popular uprising,” as the anti-Assad narrative goes, that was “hijacked” by armed jihadists; it was a planned provocation from the start — using the anecdote of a handful of youths, killed by some accounts, jailed in other versions, for painting anti-Assad graffiti on a wall.

Against the backdrop of the so-called Arab Spring under way in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, a Facebook page created in January 2011 announced a “Day of Rage” in Syria for early February, which fizzled out as participants called instead for Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi to step down in the face of a rising NATO/jihadist onslaught against him. The Daraa agitators burned down the local Baath Party HQ, the governor’s office and a cellphone company. But the story about the graffiti painters, said Assad, was “a fallacious narrative…only propaganda.” Assad responded to the Daraa protesters by announcing a series of reforms they were demanding — but to no avail, since what they and their backers really wanted was regime change and nothing else.

Roots of a long war

The “long war” on Syria is not only the one that’s been going on ever since — longer than the Second World War — as Syrians are killed and injured, turned into refugees and internally displaced in the millions, and as their country is destroyed. Gowans sets the start of the long war in the ’50s, as the U.S., deepening the Cold War against the USSR, tried to globalize NATO: it founded CENTO in 1955 (the Baghdad Pact) with Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey and the U.K. Syria, a republic, was not yet Baathist, but had a growing Arab nationalist and anti-Zionist component, opting for stronger ties with the USSR — like India, which had joined the Non-Aligned Movement the previous year. CENTO soon collapsed as Iraq overthrew the monarchy in 1958, espousing Arab nationalism and socialism. Syria had its own Baathist Revolution in 1963 and Iraq adopted Baathism in 1968.

As early as 1957, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower and British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan had plotted the assassination of topmost Baathist and Communist figures in the Syrian government. The plan was entrusted to Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA’s Middle East chief, who in 1953 had engineered the overthrow of Iran’s elected prime minister, Mohammed Mosaddeq, for nationalizing Iran’s oil.

“Roosevelt planned to create internal uprisings in Syria, enlisting the aid of the country’s Muslim Brotherhood,” writes Gowans, adding, “[h]e also plotted to create and arm paramilitary groups to wage a civil war within the country.” The U.S.-U.K. axis could not bring over Iraq and Jordan, so the plan went dormant, but “the features of Roosevelt’s plan would show up later in the Syria 2011 uprising,” he notes.

From Kermit Roosevelt to General Wesley Clark‘s revelation of the post-9/11 Pentagon memo about “taking out seven countries of the Middle East in five years,” to Paul Bremer‘s systematic “de-Baathification” of Iraq after the 2003 occupation, and to the empire’s mantra since 2011 that “Assad must go,” runs the uninterrupted line of “Washington’s long war on Syria” — a varied economic, diplomatic and propaganda war before it became nakedly military — and now pitting NATO and vassals against the Russia-China double veto at the UN, and Russia’s active military and diplomatic role in the Astana peace process for Syria with the involvement of regional powers Iran and Turkey.

Gowans’s book was launched in Montreal this month by Baraka Books Publisher Robin Philpot at a well-attended public function moderated by Université de Montréal Professor Samir Saul. He stressed that the empire’s war on Syria was a perilous prelude to an ultimate war against Russia itself. This book is an indispensable contribution that dissipates the proverbial “fog of war” around Syria — and brings clarity and understanding to the U.S.-NATO empire’s historically unceasing and sustained project for a war of aggression on one Arab country that has always resisted its will.

Jooneed J. Khan is a journalist and human rights activist based in Montreal.

We are happy to announce the launch of the mobile version of GlobalResearch.ca.

We hope that our mobile readers will enjoy a more fluid reading experience in a format crafted specifically for their mobile device.

We would like to encourage readers who wish to give us their feedback on the mobile version of our site to do so by sending any comments they may have to Jezile at [email protected]

We are in the process of adding additional features.

As a reader, your input and participation are essential to us.

We are greatly indebted to your support and hope that this mobile version is a tool that will allow you to share knowledge, spark conversations, and keep up to date with what you’re not being told, whether at home or on the go.

 

With best wishes,

The Global Research Team

 

 

*     *     *

Truth in media, now on your mobile device is a powerful instrument. Spread the word far and wide.

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

Consider Making a Donation to Global Research 

The Left in the United States is fond of saying one thing in support of its programs, yet, generally does something entirely different. It also seems to have strange bedfellows. Here are a few examples:

The Left Forum brings together national and international politics, people, ideas, and activism for a just, equitable, free, sustainable world beyond capitalism. 

Originally founded in the 1960s, the Left Forum is holding its annual meeting June 2-4, 2017. Its situation is symptomatic of the American Left and its self-created problems. Embroiled this year in a vicious controversy over speakers and panels, the Forum is struggling with censorship, religion, and political correctness–but refuses to acknowledge its problems or explain its actions.

Given such statements and procedures, some people have questioned the Left’s attitude.

Gilad Atzmon, the Israeli Jew, musician, one-time soldier, and political writer, talks often about the Treacherous Left, the people more concerned with homosexual marriage than war, peace, or prosperity. In New York City’s East Village in early May 2017, Atzmon spoke on the

“tyranny of political correctness,” saying it was in fact “worse than tyranny, because it is self-censorship. It is you who silence yourself.”

Sarah Ferguson, author of an account in The Villager of his talk, asked

“What is the relationship between the Left and Free Speech? And is some speech so beyond the pale, that it’s wrong to even engage in debate?”

Given the hostility shown Atzmon at that event, this was not a rhetorical question. Too many set themselves up as arbiters of free speech. In the words of Swiss publicist, Frank A. Meyer, the media have become “moral executioners”. He noted that anyone making forbidden inquiries about government-promoted policies is punished. He said they are denounced as racist, right-wing populists, in extreme cases as fascists. (Meyer, Frank A. “Berlin-Anschlag Deutscher Winter 2016” (Berlin Attack German Winter 2016), Focus Online, December 25, 2016.)

And that is why the Left really is sinister, pun intended.

Look at the “progressives” who did not criticize Hillary Clinton‘s wild charges that Russian influence cost her the election. Look at the Leftists who refused to challenge Barack H. Obama‘s destruction of Libya and Syria. Where were the howls of rage? Where were the incandescent editorials in major newspapers? The journalist Bob Parry lost several jobs at mainstream publications because he would not color his reporting to fit management’s views (to protect their ties to government). No one from the Left protested. The “liberal” press, such as the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times savaged Gary Webb for publicizing CIA drug-dealing in support of Iran-Contra. Yet, no one from the sinister Gauche took to the streets, even after he “committed suicide” by shooting himself in the head–twice.

And where is Democracy Now with its perceived credibility? A supposed “leftist”, the TV show’s host, Amy Goodman, is generously funded by globalist foundations. As a result, she is now a gatekeeper, promoting regime change in Syria. On May 3, 2017, Goodman interviewed Anand Gopal, former fellow at the New America Foundation. He claimed “Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad [is] the cause of all suffering in Syria.” (Haiphong, Danny. “‘Democracy Now’ Runs Interference for Imperialism in Syria”, Global Research, May, 15, 2017.) In yet another article, Democracy Now’s public face “is contributing to the very violence being committed by Western-backed mercenaries against the Syrian people.” (Tracy, James F.  “‘Progressive’ Journalism’s Legacy of Deceit”, Global Research, July 20, 2012.)

Mrs. Goodman will not touch a hot topic with a 10-foot pole or a 12-foot hungarian. This author sent her a copy of his book, Visas for Al Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked The World, suggesting it  might be of interest to her program.  Dead silence. No one at Democracy Now responded to follow-up letters, emails, and telephone calls. (Copies of his upcoming publication, Goodbye, Europe? Hello Chaos? Merkel’s Migrant Bomb will go elsewhere.)

On December 18, 2016, the CBS “news” show 60 Minutes promoted the Syrian White Helmets (who work only in terrorist-controlled areas). According to the program, …

“[T]he trained force of 3,000 rescue workers offer Syrian civilians their only hope.”

Yet, “the Left” did not attack this fake news. (Cf. Global Research and 21st Century Wire for real news about the Helmets and their unsavory activities, connections, and background.)

The Left, as is clear from the foregoing, is controlled by gatekeepers. What are they? Who are they? What do they do? They control access.

Gatekeepers rarely challenge their own position as gatekeepers. They are simply right. They are more knowledgeable, more level-headed, more experienced, and more invested in the future of whatever movements they belong to. They know what is best and will enforce it for the greater good. They find themselves saying, “That is not appropriate,” or “That is counterproductive,” or “Why do you have to make this about you when it’s about us?” (“Why It’s Important To Challenge The Power Of Gatekeepers”, TheEstablishment.com, July 7, 2016.)

Like the Left Forum, 60 Minutes, and Amy Goodman, Medea (given name Susan) Benjamin is another gatekeeper. She is well-heeled and well-connected.

…during the 2004 Presidential campaign, Benjamin’s message and tone began to shift dramatically into what came to be known as the “ABB” movement—Anybody But Bush. She and eighty fellow prominent leaders who once formed the one hundred-thirteen member “Nader 2000 Citizens Committee” put forth a petition urging anti-war Nader not to run, and instead threw their support behind pro-war Democratic Party candidate John Kerry… Benjamin cajoled [the] Greens into neither nominating Nader nor giving him the official endorsement he and running mate Peter Camejo had publicly sought from the party. (Shaw, Charles.  “The Gatekeepers of the So-Called Left”, Conspiracy Archive, May 16, 2005.)

Leftist gatekeepers appear to have connections with the Central Intelligence Agency. The “liberal” magazine Nation has ties to the Agency and its former director William Casey, founder of the Manhattan Institute, an alleged free market think tank.

But who funds the Gatekeepers? One organization is the Ford Foundation, “with a raft  of joint  Foundation-CIA projects”.

Investigative journalist Bob Feldman identifies several alternative media outlets receiving Ford Foundation funding (based on their tax returns).

As Feldman points out, these outlets has systematically marginalized independent researchers who have systematically studied…the JFK and other political assassinations. (Bramhall, Dr. Stuart Jeanne. “Does the CIA Fund Both the Right and the Left ?”, March 17, 2015, normanpilon.com).

Why does this happen? How does this happen? Is it because too many people are pig-stupid and badly educated? Is it because they put their trust in the wrong places? Here’s an explanation from a reader of the German translation of Visas for Al Qaeda (Die CIA und de Terror, Kopp Verlag.):

People here have too much faith in America…I told my sister about your book. She is a medical doctor and not stupid, but as in many cases she does not have enough time to figure out on her own the political picture. She saw what I told her from your book as a “conspiracy theory.” Al-Assad is an inhuman dictator, the US helps democracy in the Near East, etc. It is almost hopeless.

In the end, it’s the influence of special interest groups. Their members worm their way into power in Leftist media, organizations, and factions. Working together for particular interests, they block alternative viewpoints, limiting the public’s ability to know, to learn, to compare disparate ideas and viewpoints.

As the Washington Post now claims on its masthead,

“Democracy Dies In Darkness”.

US military aircraft have carried out an airstrike on a convoy of pro-Syrian government fighters advancing toward the positions of foreign-backed militants in the south of the Arab country.

AFP quoted unnamed US military officials as saying that the American jets struck a convoy of 27 tanks heading towards a garrison in al-Tanf near the Jordanian border on Thursday.

“A convoy going down the road didn’t respond to numerous ways for it to be warned off from getting too close to coalition forces in al-Tanf,” said one of the officials, adding that British and US commandoes have been training anti-Damascus militants at the base in Homs province.

“Then there was finally a strike against the lead portion of” the convoy, which was “significant” in size, the official stated.

There have been no immediate reports on possible casualties as a result of the air raid.

Another US official said the jets carried out “shows of force” in the skies above the tank convoy and fired warning shots before bombing the lead vehicles, which were moving to within 27 kilometers of the garrison.

Reports also said the US-led coalition purportedly fighting militants in Syria unsuccessfully tried to contact Russia to ask the pro-government convoy to stop advancing further south.

In this image released by the US Navy, the guided-missile destroyer USS Porter conducts strike operations against Syria while in the Mediterranean Sea on April 7, 2017. 

Citing a source with the US-backed Maghawir al Thawra militant group, Reuters reported that the militants initially clashed with the advancing pro-government forces prior to the airstrike. The report added that at least one tank and a bulldozer were destroyed in the US attack.

Meanwhile, Yehya al-Aridi, a spokesman for the foreign-backed opposition High Negotiations Committee holding talks with a Syrian government delegation in Geneva, “welcomed” the US strike as a “robust action” against pro-government fighters in the war-torn country.

The development comes only a few days after US-led jets killed nearly two dozen civilians in an attack on an area in Syria’s eastern province of Dayr al-Zawr near the border with Iraq.

In September last year, US-led coalition airstrikes on Syrian army positions near Dayr al-Zawr military airport also killed over 80 soldiers.

Russia called an emergency United Nations Security Council meeting over the attack, which was conducted by two F-16 and two A-10 jets that had entered Syrian airspace from Iraq.

The most extraordinary thing about the Tory manifesto is that you can read pages and pages of it and not come upon a monetary value put on anything. Figures are extremely few and far between indeed, and where there is a cost placed on something there is normally no indication given at all of where the money is coming from.

You have to get to page 14 before you come across a single figure at all. Then it tells you that by 2020 they will increase the personal tax allowance to £12,500 and increase the higher rate threshold to £50,000. But it places no value at all on the next cost of this tax cut, or how it can be afforded.

You have to go through six more pages of waffle before you get the next figure at page 20, a National Productivity Fund of £23 billion. Again, no indication is given of the source of this funding, perhaps because it is very much an old recycled announcement.

Perhaps the most remarkable instance of lack of clarity on funding is the promise of £8 billion extra for the NHS. Again no indication at all is given of where this money is coming from. The only indication of an extra funding source is a levy of £450 per head on overseas students for use of the NHS. That will raise only about £50 million and is just a chance for an attack on a group May particularly hates – and a bone to the racists.

It is impossible not to contrast the complete absence of prices on 95% of the proposals in the manifesto, and the complete lack of explanation of the source of funds on almost all the few items that are costed, with the huge media onslaught on the fiscal detail of the opposition parties’ manifestos. A completely different standard is being applied to the Tories.

The BBC as usual wheeled out the Institute of Fiscal Studies, the “independent” body representing extreme neo-liberalism. The IFS has been lyrical for hours these last few days giving instant judgments on why the Labour manifesto had holes in it, repeating continually the corporate propaganda that if you increase taxes on the super-rich, they will pay less. But when invited by the BBC to comment on the finances of the Tory manifesto, the IFS merely replied that they would be presenting an analysis of all the manifestos next Tuesday.

The Tory manifesto is literally priceless – it puts no price on anything. But we all know it will carry a disastrous cost for our public services and for the most vulnerable in our society.

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was also British Ambassador to Uzbekistan. Visit his books page HERE.

Last Thursday, May 9, 2017, the Duluth News-Tribune re-published, on their Opinion Page/Other View, an editorial previously published in The Free Press of Mankato, MN. The title of the DNT was “Not Learning from our Errors” and the Free Press title was “Debunked vaccine fear taking toll on Minnesota”.

Also last week a Duluth Reader reader from Tower, MN wrote a letter to the editor criticizing a recent Duty to Warn article of mine that could (and should) undermine the confidence that people have in the vaccine industry and the clinics and physicians who follow the so-called “scientific consensus” on the CDC’s, FDA’s and AAP’s vaccine mandates (and presumably for the rapid institution of the 271 new vaccines that are in Big Pharma’s pipeline into the CDC’s already over-vaccination agenda).

Both articles mentioned the oft-referenced case of Andrew Wakefield and his dozen co-authors who reported on their evaluations of a series of 12 severely disabled autistic children who were all also chronically ill with severe abdominal pain and chronic diarrhea, whose parents had brought them to the team for evaluation. The parents knew that their child had been developmentally normal prior to the MMR vaccinations and, following the inoculations, had deteriorated both neuro-developmentally and gastro-intestinally.

Wakefield, a gastroenterologist, and his team performed various studies, including colonoscopies and biopsies, on the very sick children. The viral assays that were done showed that the viral enteropathy was caused by a strain of measles that was identical to that which was in the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.

So the conclusion that could not be avoided was that the bowel disorder in the vaccine-injured children was actually an iatrogenic disease (physician- or treatment-caused) that was caused by the MMR shot. It was not much of a jump to also conclude that the accompanying autism disorder was also iatrogenic.

To a powerful multinational corporation like Glaxo (and their shareholders), that was an intolerable finding and something had to be done to try to discredit the findings and the authors. Threats to most of the team succeeded in disavowal, except for Wakefield and another (who was later totally legally absolved of any ulterior motivations).

The article was also an intolerable finding for the hospitals, clinics, physicians and nurses in the entire National Health Service (and the world’s health systems) who had been indoctrinated with the notion that all vaccines were safe and effective. Because of their indoctrination, they had been complacently administering larger and larger amounts and more types of vaccines, assuming that the repeated reassurances from Big Pharma were true that VACCINES WERE NOT THE CAUSE OF AUTISM.

The elegant paper that Wakefield, et al published in The Lancet in 1998 had been thoroughly peer-reviewed prior to publication, but readers drew the proper conclusion and now knew for certain that their fears about the dangers of the NHS’s vaccine program had been correct. So the confidence of the public in Big Pharma had been misplaced – and there was a backlash against Glaxo’s product.

I will shorten the story and allow the reader to access a powerful videointerview with Dr Wakefield himself.

Watch it at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8EtfkAngKw&app=desktop

and you will begin to also doubt the CDC and Paul Offit when it comes to vaccine policy, because they have been lying about the Wakefield smear campaign that was part of a massive conspiracy between GlaxoSmithKline and Rupert Murdoch’s Sunday Times yellow journalist Brian Deer that successfully destroyed the reputation of a beloved and honorable physician. Wakefield exiled himself to the US.  A brief synopsis of the story is at:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/12/leadership-longevity-2015-dr-andrew-wakefield.html

Incidentally, the Mankato Free Press (the author of the Duluth News Tribune “Other View” piece) was once totally owned by Dow Jones, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, which also owns the pro-corporate Fox News and the pro-corporate Wall Street Journal, both of which are very gentle with Big Pharma’s corporations, the most profitable investment sector in the history of the world. Murdoch’s son James, incidentally, was on the board of directors at Glaxo at the time of the Wakefield scape-goating conspiracy, and the Murdoch family has strong family and business ties with Glaxo. The Wall Street Journal has been as guilty of fomenting the fake story about Wakefield as has every mainstream media outlet, not to mention NPR, PBS and the Duluth News-Tribune.

So rather than trying to justify my periodic vaccine skeptical articles argument by argument, I will simply let the readers who are actually interested in truth-finding about the vaccine issue (that is seriously imperiling our children’s and demented adult’s health) perform the due diligence themselves by reading from the following documents.

Anybody choosing to not read the documents below has no right to reject the thesis that vaccines are inherently unsafe, particularly in the cocktails that have been injected into innocent children over the past 3 decades.

*    *     *

References: Recommended Reading 

Bad Science? or Willful Ignorance at the CDC: And Why it has Lost its Trustworthiness When it Comes to Vaccine Policy

http://www.globalresearch.ca/vaccines-and-the-centers-for-disease-control-cdr-bad-science-or-willful-ignorance-why-the-cdc-has-lost-its-trustworthiness/5521667

Doctors Agree With Censored Study That Concludes That Unvaccinated Children Are Healthier Than Vaccinated Children

http://cdc.news/2017-01-08-doctors-agree-with-study-that-concludes-unvaccinated-children-are-healthier-than-vaccinated-children.html

What’s Behind BigPharma’s Freak-out Media Blitz Over Measles?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/whats-behind-big-pharmas-freak-out-media-blitz-over-measles/5430542

Why We Need to be More Cautious About America’s Over-Vaccination Program

https://www.transcend.org/tms/2016/02/duty-to-warn-why-we-need-to-be-more-cautious-about-americas-over-vaccination-program/

 

American College of Pediatricians Warns of Gardasil HPV Vaccine Dangers

http://vaccineimpact.com/2016/american-college-of-pediatricians-latest-to-warn-of-hpv-vaccine-dangers/

Roll Up Your Sleeves Folks, There are 271 New Vaccines in Big Pharma’s Pipeline: Into Whose Bodies Will They be Injected?

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

Vaccine Induced Immune Overload and the Epidemic of Chronic Autoimmune Childhood Diseases

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2014/06/16/vaccine-induced-immune-overload-and-the-

What We Don’t Know About America’s Childhood Vaccine Programs

http://www.medicalveritas.org/MedicalVeritas/Current_Childhood_Vaccine_Programs.html

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

https://www.transcend.org/tms/2016/03/duty-to-warn-big-pharmas-nefarious-control-of-health-care-and-the-vaccine-injury-compensation-program/

 

Unvaccinated Kids Don’t Get Autism (or Asthma or Juvenile Diabetes)

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2005/12/07/The-Age-of-Autism-A-pretty-big-secret/68291133982531/

How Vaccinations Work

http://www.ei-resource.org/articles/gulf-war-syndrome-articles/how-vaccinations-work/

 

30 Solid Scientific Studies that Prove Vaccines [can] Cause Autism

Sean Adl-Tabatabai, yournewswire.com – December 9, 2015

A list of 30 scientific studies that show a link between vaccines and autism, disproving the myth that no official research papers exist to support what alternative doctors have been saying for years.

Chronic Fatigue Syndromes, Neurological Disorders, POTS and the Dangers of Aluminum-adjuvanted Vaccines like Gardasil and Cervarix

https://www.transcend.org/tms/2017/05/chronic-fatigue-syndromes-pots-and-the-dangers-of-aluminum-adjuvanted-vaccines-like-gardisil/

Big Vaccine’s Darling Paul Offitt and CDC Vaccine Advisor, Pockets $29 Million Promoting Vaccines

http://www.naturalnews.com/026359_vaccine_CDC_childhood.html

The Vaccine Autism Link

Age of Autism embraces the fact that “the autism epidemic is real, and excessive vaccinations are the cause.”

http://www.ageofautism.com/the-vaccine-autism-link.html

 

Gardasil and Cervical Cancer: A Hoax in the Making? (Exploring Big Pharma’s Unproven Assertion that Gardasil Will Prevent Cervical Cancer)

https://www.transcend.org/tms/2016/07/duty-to-warn-gardasil-and-cervical-cancer-a-hoax-in-the-making/

Medical Communication Companies: America’s Medical Propaganda Machine

https://www.transcend.org/tms/2017/01/medical-communication-companies-and-the-medical-propaganda-machine/

Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by vaccine adjuvants (Shoenfeld’s syndrome)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23557271

Biopersistence and brain translocation of aluminum adjuvants of vaccines

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25699008

Fluoride in drinking water may produce developmental neurotoxicity

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/

Ethical and legal challenges of vaccines and vaccination

https://ijme.in/articles/lessons-learnt-in-japan-from-adverse-reactions-to-the-hpv-vaccine-a-medical-ethics-perspective/?galley=html

Rupert Murdoch (Media Mogul and Friend of GSK) is Behind the Mandatory Vaccination Push in Australia

www.hangthebankers.com/murdoch-vaccines-australia/

*     *     *

Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. In the decade prior to his retirement, he practiced what could best be described as “holistic (non-drug) and preventive mental health care”. Since his retirement, he has written a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, an alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns mostly deal with the dangers of American imperialism, friendly fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, and the dangers of Big Pharma, psychiatric drugging, the over-vaccinating of children and other movements that threaten American democracy, civility, health and longevity and the future of the planet. Many of his columns are archived at

http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2;
http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/gary-g-kohls; or at
https://www.transcend.org/tms/search/?q=gary+kohls+articles

Addendum added below
—

The Syrian army is on the way to liberate the ISIS besieged city of some 100,000 and garrison of Deir Ezzor in the east of the country. The U.S. has trained a few thousand “New Syrian Army” insurgents in Jordan and is reportedly prepared to march these and its own forces from Jordan through the east-Syrian desert all the way up to Raqqa and Deir Ezzor. About a year ago it occupied the al-Tanf (al-Tanaf) border station which consists of only a few buildings in the mid of the desert. The station between Syria and Iraq near the Jordan border triangle was previously held by a small ISIS group.

A U.S. move from the south up towards the Euphrates would cut off the Syrian government from the whole south-east of the country and from its people in Deir Ezzor. While that area is sparsely populated it also has medium size oil and gas fields and is the land connection to the Syrian allies in Iraq.

With the western part of the country relatively quiet, the Syrian government and its allies decided to finally retake the south-eastern provinces from ISIS. They want to lift the ISIS siege on Deir Ezzor and close the border between Syria and Iraq with its own forces. The move will also block any potential U.S. invasion from the south by retaking the road to al-Tanf and the Syrian-Iraqi border (red arrows). The sovereign Syrian state will not give up half of the country to an illegal occupation by ISIS or the U.S. At the same time as the eastern operations are running consolidation and clearing operations against ISIS in the middle and west of the countries will take place (green arrows).

Map by OZ_Analysis (modified by MoA) – see bigger picture here

Yesterday a small battalion size force (~2-300 men) of the regular Syrian army, Syrian National Defense Organization volunteers and Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF/PMU of the Kata’ib al-Imam Ali) marched on the road from the west towards al-Tanf. They were about 23 kilometers away from the border station when they were attack by U.S. aircraft coming in low from Jordan. The U.S. jets directly fired at the convoy, allegedly after earlier giving some “warning shots”. At least one Syrian tank and several other vehicles were destroyed. Six Syrian government forces were reported killed and more were wounded.

The U.S. command claimed that this was a “defensive” move to “protect” its soldiers at the al-Tanf station. There are U.S. and British special forces stationed near the station who lead and train the NSA contingent – all together a few 100 men.

The U.S. attack was clearly a willful, illegal attack on Syrian ground against legitimate forces of the sovereign Syrian government. (The Iraqi PMU contingent in Syria is a legitimate allied force under control of the Iraqi prime minister.) There is no clause in international law, no U.N. resolution or anything similar, that could justify such an attack. The U.S. military has no right at all to be at al-Tanf or anywhere else in Syria. There is nothing to “defend” for it. If it dislikes regular Syrian and Iraqi forces moving in their own countries  towards their own border station and retaking it, it can and should move out and go home. Moreover – the U.S. claims it is “fighting ISIS” in Syria. Why then is it attacking the Syrian government forces while these launch a large move against the very same enemy?

The coalition led by the U.S. military claimed it asked Russia to intervene and that Russia tried to deter the Syrian force to move towards al-Tanf. I am told that this claim is incorrect. Russia supports the Syrian move to the east and the retaking of the border. The move will be reinforced and continue. The revamped Syrian air defense will actively protect it. Russia will support it with its own forces if needed.

The illegitimate occupation forces, the U.S. and British forces and their proxies, will have to move out of al-Tanf or they will have to directly fight the Syrian government forces and all its allies. They have no right to be there at all. The Iraqi PMU in Syria, some of which were hurt in yesterday’s U.S. attack, are an active part of the coalition against ISIS in Iraq. If the U.S. fights it in Syria it will also have to fight it in Iraq (and elsewhere). Russia is able and willing to reinforce its own contingent in Syria to help the government to regain the Syrian east.

The U.S. has no legitimate aim in Syria. It is somewhat tolerated in the north-east where it helps Syrian-Kurdish forces to fight ISIS and to liberate Raqqa. That does not give it ANY right to occupy Syria’s east or to attack Syrian government forces. When Raqqa is done all U.S. forces in the north-east will have to again move out.

Together with its many subordinate NATO and Gulf allies the U.S. has the military and economic power to destroy the Syrian military. It can eliminate the Syrian government under President Assad and occupy the whole country. That would be a large war which would probably escalate into a global fight against Russia, Iran and other countries. It would necessitate a several decades long follow-up occupation for “nation building” while constantly fighting against a large al-Qaeda aligned Takfiri insurgency in Syria and all its neighboring countries (especially in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey where U.S. friendly governments would fall). The war would cost several trillion U.S. dollars, a large number of casualties and cause decades long chaos in a geo-politically sensitive region.

The U.S. has a simple choice: Either go in with full force and bear the above consequences, or concede to the sovereign Syrian government and its allies and coordinate with them to retake the country from ISIS and al-Qaeda. This will have to be done as they, not the U.S., see it proper to do. To believe that the U.S. can take the east and convert into some peaceful vassal statelet is pure fantasy. Way too many regional forces and interests are strung against that. There is little grey between these black and white alternatives.

The only tactically thinking U.S. military and intelligence services will try to avoid to choose between these. They will use their Jihadist proxy forces in west-Syria to break their current ceasefire with the Syrian government side and launch a diversion for their moves into the Syrian east. The Syrian government would then probably have to delay its larger operations in the east.

But that would not change the strategic situation. The choice the U.S. people and their government have to make will still be the same. The point in time to finally accept it may move out a few month while the fighting escalates and causes more damage on all sides. The choice would still be the same. It is all-in or out. The best time to take it is now.

Addendum (6:00am):

There are some maps flowing around which assert that Iran is seeking a military land communication route via Iraq into Syria and beyond. They show some fantasy route up north through Iraqi and Syrian Kurdish territory as the “current route” and the roads between Damascus and Baghdad as “future route”. The claim is that military equipment moves along these roads.

It is nonsense. Iran did not and does not need such land routes for military exchanges with its allies in Syria and Lebanon. Where was that Iranian land route in 2006 when the U.S. occupied Iraq while Israel attacked Lebanon? Where was that land route when ISIS occupied half of Iraq and Syria? There was no such route and Iranian support still reached Hizbullah in 2006 and later Syria. It came by air, by ship and, most important, by other means.

By holding up such fantasy maps certain interests want to insinuate that the area is “strategically important” for the U.S. and that the U.S. must therefore occupy south-east Syria. It is true that the road network between Syria and Iraq has some economical importance. Like all roads these are used for local commerce. But history demonstrates that they are not militarily strategic asset in the sense of an essential, overarching need.

Vladimir Putin is probably laughing his head off.

The current Russian-centred imbroglio in the United States involving its Congress, its President and the hidden state, replete with ill-tempered verbal jousting and backdoor scheming has gathered a level of momentum many would suggest amounts to a state of impeachment fever.

Why might the president of the Russian Federation feel disposed to privately allow himself a chuckle at the present state of affairs in the United States? The answer lies in the not uncommon human capacity for schadenfreude.

Schadenfreude is pleasure derived from the misfortune of others.

The United States has consistently created mischief in countries bordering the Russian Federation and within Russia itself in order to put pressure on a state which unlike the one headed by Boris Yeltsin has not been inclined to bow to the foreign policy dictates of the United States which finds it intolerable for other nations to pursue an independent course in foreign relations.

The United States has sought to intimidate Russia by expanding the Nato military alliance close to its borders as well as by fomenting a so-called ‘Color Revolution’ in Ukraine between 2004 and 2005, a war with Georgia in 2008 and a coup d’etat in Ukraine in 2014. These were covert operations involving the use of proxies which included NGO fronts and neo-Nazi militias.

While Russia has been reactive rather than proactive in the various crisis around its borders, it is nonetheless clear that it has a national policy objective geared towards weakening American influence in Europe. It has provided varying degrees of support and encouragement for nationalist political parties in countries such as France and Hungary. This is widely believed to include financial support.

Parties such as the Front National and Jobbik are strongly anti-European Union. Russian animus towards the EU is hardly surprising given its view that the EU has been used as a tool by Washington as cover for United States aggression including the anti-Russian sanctions imposed by the EU over the Crimean Crisis; a crisis caused by the American-backed overthrow of the Yanukovych government which threatened Russia’s vital national security interests in regard to its Baltic Fleet based in Crimea.

Only a few could fail to understand if the Russian response to this catalogue of aggression was to back an American presidential candidate who was promising to improve relations between both countries. The question which has consistently exercised many in the United States is whether such support went to the extent of the provision of finance, cyber-hacking and even blackmail.

It is an issue often presented by the American media with an affectation of moral integrity that camouflages the unsavoury history of United States interventions in foreign nations using such means as electoral fraud, economic blackmail, political assassinations and the violent overthrow of governments.

The post-Soviet Russian state has been on the receiving end of electoral manipulation directed by the United States. An American-directed IMF “emergency infusion” of over ten billion dollars into the Russian economy re-routed a substantial amount of this sum into the coffers of the Western-backed lackey Boris Yeltsin who had been languishing with a single-digit approval rating in the run-up to the Russian presidential elections of 1996.

Yeltsin would win a disputed election during which the pro-Yeltsin team engineered a dirty tricks campaign that included the use of disinformation and disruption tactics against the opposition.

The American media which is quick to chase the scent of any form of difficulties faced by the Kremlin and of dissent within Russian civil society is now contending with a daily news deluge of chaos in the White House intensified after the recent dismissal of FBI head James Comey by President Donald Trump.

Comey’s sacking, the resignation of Michael Flynn as national security advisor, open bickering between the president and the intelligence community as well as calls in congress for the appointment of a special prosecutor have at their root the question of supposed Russian meddling in the last American presidential campaign.

Observing the United States in turmoil over the Trump presidency, Putin could not prevent himself from making the following barbed comment over the recent allegation that Trump had revealed classified intelligence to visiting Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov:

We see that the United States has been developing political schizophrenia, this is the only thing I can think of when I hear allegations saying that the president has revealed some secrets to Lavrov.

The still unproven allegations of Russian hacking during the American presidential elections as well as that related to Trump being compromised by a blackmail operation conducted by Russian intelligence only serve to confirm that the United States has plunged itself into a self-inflicted state of tumult.

The baleful westward gaze of the Russian sphinx described by Aleksandr Blok in his poem The Scythians might for a short time at least be replaced by a softer, wrinkly countenance suggestive of a smile.

It is a smile that reeks of schadenfreude.

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies, backed up by Russian warplanes and attack helicopters, have made fresh advances against ISIS terrorists in the province of Homs. They have liberated the Tafaha hills area within about 20 km northwest of the Tiyas Airbase and engaged ISIS units near the Arak gas field near Palmyra.

ISIS claimed that its members had been able to hit two SAA battle tanks with anti-tank guided missiles near the Palmyra silos. The fate of the crews is unknown.

According to pro-government sources, some 15 ISIS members were killed in the recent clashes.

In the province of Aleppo, government forces, led by the SAA’s Tiger Forces, have liberated Jarah Kabir, Durubiyah al-Kabirah, Nafiiyah, Atira, Atira Cattle Farm, Mazyounat al-Humur, Tall Hassan, and Jubb al-Ali from ISIS terrorists.

The SAA is advancing towards the strategic ISIS-held town of Maskanah. Multiple airstrikes against ISIS targets were reported in this countryside.

Meanwhile, reports appeared that the Desert Hawks Brigade had arrived the Ithriyah-Aleppo road area in order to support the SAA’s efforts against ISIS in central Syria.

The SAA has repelled several fierce ISIS attacks in the city of Deir Ezzor. According to the Syrian Defense Ministry, 28 terrorists were killed and 30 others were wounded during the clashes. The SAA also managed to destroy a tank, a BMP-1 vehicle, and 2 technicals armed with 23mm guns.

As ISIS is collapsing in Syria and Iraq, sides involved in the conflicts have increased their efforts in the area of the Syrian-Iraqi border. Western-backed militant groups, supported by the US-led coalition’s special forces and airpower, increased their activity in southern Syria.

US-led forces are pretending to control the whole Syrian-Iraqi border area south of the Euphrates. However, while al-Bukamal remains under the ISIS rule, this is not possible.

Another important target is Deir Ezzor. The Deir Ezzor countryside is full of oil fields and if US-backed forces reach it they would impose control over these important assets. Deir Ezzor and Raqqah remain the only cities, which US-backed forces can capture under a pretext of combating terrorists.

At the same time, Syrian government forces also increased operations in the southeastern Syria desert and the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) have expanded efforts aimed at combating ISIS near the border with Syria.

According to Iraqi sources and some experts, the PMU is a force having the potential to come to power in Iraq after the defeat of ISIS. The PMU consists mostly of Arabs who share a regional vision similar to that of the Damascus government.

The main goal of the US and its allies is to prevent a situation where the PMU could dominate in Iraq or to build a large buffer zone between Iraq and Syria dividing potential allies.

The global elites are successively opposed to the creation of a united Arab entity in the Middle East. In this light, the US-backed militant advance “against ISIS” along the Syrian-Iraqi border is just a tool to achieve some geopolitical goals in the Middle East.

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

The US political and media establishment has rejected and even ridiculed President Putin’s offer to Congress of the transcripts of the meeting in the Oval Office between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US President Donald Trump.

The prevailing response to the offer is that it was not intended seriously.  The tone was set by BBC journalist who speaking on British television claimed that in making the offer Putin was having, and was just trolling the US, and that there is “no possibility” of the US accepting a transcript written on “Kremlin notepaper”.

This is to misrepresent what was a perfectly serious offer despite the humorous tone with which Putin spoke.

That the offer was intended entirely seriously can be judged by the words Putin used when he made the offer

As for the results of Foreign Minister Lavrov’s visit to the United States and his meeting with President Trump, we assess the results highly. This was the first visit, a return visit by our foreign minister, after we received US Secretary of State Tillerson here in Moscow.

This is normal and natural international practice. At the same time, however, we see the growing political schizophrenia in the United States. There is no other way I can explain the accusations against the current president that he handed whichever secrets over to Lavrov.

Incidentally, I spoke with him [Lavrov] today about this matter, and I will have to give him a ticking off for not sharing these secrets with me. Not with me, nor with our intelligence officials. This was really not good of him at all.

What’s more, if the US administration has no objection, we are ready to provide a transcript of Lavrov’s conversation with Trump to the US Senate and Congress. Of course, we would do this only if the American administration so desires.

Initially, when we watched the first developments in this internal political struggle, we were amused. But now, the spectacle is becoming quite simply sad, and it is causing us concern, because it is hard to imagine just how far people willing to think up this kind of nonsense and absurdity might go. All of this is ultimately about fanning anti-Russian sentiment.

This does not surprise me. They are using anti-Russian slogans to destabilize the internal political situation in the United States, but they do not realise that they are harming their own country. If this is the case, then they are quite simply stupid. If they do understand what they are doing, then they are dangerous and unscrupulous people. In any event, this is the United States’ own affair and we have no intention of getting involved.

As for assessments of President Trump’s actions so far in office, this too is not our affair. It is for the American people, American voters, to give their assessment. Of course, this will be possible only once he is fully allowed to work.

An important point about Putin – and one which I have made previously, and which was very obvious to me on the two occasions when I have seen him in person (at the two SPIEF conferences which I have attended in St. Petersburg in 2014 and 2016) – is that he is one of those people who use humour to hide their anger.

It does not follow from this that when Putin makes jokes it always and invariably means that he is angry. However it sometimes does, so that when he laughs and makes jokes in a certain way it can be interpreted – and is interpreted by those around him – as a warning sign. The words I have highlighted show that this was one such case.

What these words show is that far from “enjoying” the US political crisis – as the BBC journalist crassly imagines – Putin is furious that relations with Russia are being used as a weapon in an internal US political conflict which he characterises – correctly – as a power struggle. He is also aghast at the ruthlessness and cynicism of the people who are doing it, whom he characterises as “dangerous and unscrupulous” (he obviously doesn’t think they are “stupid”).  He also judges them completely irresponsible, saying – also correctly – that they are destabilising the political situation in their own country.

As for the offer of the transcript, there is no doubt this was seriously intended.

To repeat my explanation from before, at any high level diplomatic meeting senior officials are accompanied by interpreters whose job is not just to translate what is said but also to make a verbatim written record of what is said.

Both the US and Russians would have had such people present at the meeting between Trump and Lavrov, and both sets of these people would have made a verbatim record of what was said during the meeting.

These records – scribbled by the interpreters in shorthand – are then written up into a proper transcript and are if necessary circulated to other senior officials and throughout the bureaucracy. They then become an essential part of the diplomatic archive of whichever country the officials taking part in the meeting belong to.

It is through consulting such transcripts when archives are opened that diplomatic historians can reconstruct the course of negotiations when they write their diplomatic histories. In the meantime it is a fundamental rule of international diplomacy that until that happens – usually many decades later – records like these are kept confidential, and are not released without the agreement of both sides taking part in the discussions.

What Putin was offering – as his words clearly show – was an agreement with the US whereby the Russians would provide the US Congress with their transcript. The US would obviously be in a position to check its accuracy against its own, or in the alternative it could also provide the Congress with its own.

Far from being intended as a joke, this is a highly unusual and almost unprecedented offer, the making of which shows how seriously Putin and the Russians are taking the situation.

Of course the offer was refused even though it is the best and simplest way of finding out what actually happened at the meeting between Trump and Lavrov in the Oval Office.

This of course shows the real agenda of those who have been spreading stories about the meeting. They are not really interested in finding out what actually happened at the meeting.

They have now had clearcut denials of the original Washington Post story from almost everyone who was present or was involved, not just from Putin and Lavrov, but also from Trump, McMaster, Tillerson, and Dina Powell. McMaster has toured the television stories repeatedly calling out the Washington Post story as “false”.

Yet in spite of these denials from the most senior officials of the US and Russian governments, they continue to believe – or pretend to believe – the anonymous sources which were behind the Washington Post article, who almost certainly were not there.

They have also rejected – and misrepresented and ridiculed – a serious and unprecedented offer from the Russian government which would once and for all settle the truth of the matter.

Putin called these people “dangerous and unscrupulous”. Their response to his offer shows he is right.

Surrounded by CEOs and autoworkers bused in for the event, Donald Trump made it clear during his March 14th appearance in the Detroit area that he was going to get rid of a federal regulation in order to free up the industry so it could “make thousands and thousands and thousands of additional cars.” For him it was a simple decision:

“If the standards threatened auto jobs, then common-sense changes could have and should have been made.”

Trump sees regulations for higher fuel efficiency burdens auto manufacturers and drives up the cost for potential buyers. In Trump’s vocabulary, regulations are all bad. (Of course Trump sees regulations around reproductive rights as good, but consistency isn’t one of his characteristics.)

Trump talks as if regulations were designed by federal bureaucrats to give them greater power over corporations and consumers. That view turns the history of health and safety regulations upside down! We have all heard of food contamination in preparation and packaging. Every year we learn of products that must be recalled because they have resulted in deaths and injuries – whether we are talking about GM ignition switches or baby cribs.

But these are cases where the company did not meet regulations that had been established. Take away inspectors so regulations are not enforced, or reduce/wipe regulations off the books and we knowingly endanger ourselves. Why should companies be allowed to sell products that are unsafe at whatever cost?

Fuel Efficiency

Originally passed during the Middle East countries’ oil embargo back in 1975, fuel efficiency legislation only later became a mechanism for decreasing human-caused CO2 emissions. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations are based on how far the vehicle travels on a gallon of fuel. Standards were not increased for 20 years; as oil prices declined automakers built bigger vehicles and doubled the average horsepower.

But California, concerned about air pollution, adopted a higher benchmark in 2002. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in charge of the CAFE standards, granted the state, and more than a dozen others, waivers enforcing more stringent rules. But when California cited climate change as the reason for a waiver during the George W. Bush administration, the request was denied. California’s attorney general then sued.

The issue was settled when Barack Obama became president and negotiated to have the EPA adopt the California standard. In the first phase (2012-16) increased fuel efficiency, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), saved Americans more than $17-billion. Yet the UCS noted that each year, under the current CAFE standard, 53,000 people suffer early death from vehicle pollution.

For its part, the EPA projected that by 2025 the higher standards would decrease oil consumption by 12 billion barrels, produce six billion fewer metric tons of greenhouse pollution and save consumers $1.7-trillion.

Additionally a 2012 study by the Blue-Green Alliance – an organization made up of environmental organizations, businesses and unions – reported that the new technology would create 50,000 auto parts and assembly jobs by 2030.

Investigating a wide range of factors to set the standard for CAFE’s second phase (2022-25), the midterm report established an average of 54.5 miles per gallon. Since the review was finalized a year early, Obama signed off on it last January.

On March 15th Trump announced he would direct the EPA to reopen and review the report at the request of automakers who claim the evaluation was truncated. The EPA website states that the evaluation will be completed by April 1, 2018.

Unless Trump demands an end to waivers, states with a higher standard will continue to set the bar because they represent 40 per cent of the national market. This means manufacturers will be forced to adhere to the higher standard. And given that the U.S. industry exists in a world market where competition demands greater fuel efficiency and electrification, the consequences of a review with a revised lower standard might not mean much for auto manufacturers, although they are always pleased when they have more wiggle room.

Trump’s announcement does accomplish three goals. First, it makes his administration seem like they are moving ahead on their promise to rebuild U.S. manufacturing, creating thousands of jobs. Second, he underscores his mantra that regulation is a ball and chain that inhibits industry. And third, he thumbs his nose at those who want to drastically curtail usage of fossil fuels in the name of saving the planet. As Trump remarked,

“The assault on the American auto industry is over. Believe me, it’s over.”

Regulation and Labor’s Trap

Regulations in capitalist economies enforce standards to protect workers or the larger community when people demand action. The passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970 and creation of the EPA is the direct result of unions, organizations concerned with public health and environmental organizations.

In particular, Tony Mazzocchi of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers (OCAW) read Rachel Carson‘s book, Silent Spring and realized OCAW workers were in danger. He pushed workers to understand why they needed to fight for clean air legislation, made a bridge to the environmental movement and educated them to support worker health and safety. That’s why it is shocking that the U.S. labor movement has been trapped by Trump’s promise to create jobs through deregulation.

Building trades officials were delighted with Trump’s order to the Army of Engineers for a go-ahead to complete the Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines. In fact drastically reducing dependence on fossil fuels means employing people to make buildings energy efficient, building a mass transportation system both regionally and nationally and continuing to develop solar, wind, geothermal and water power. These are the jobs we need to demand!

My own union, the UAW, embraces Trump’s “Buy American – Hire American” mantra. But it’s not possible to oppose some of the Trump agenda and enthusiastically support other parts. Unions don’t realize that the narrow “We only care about ourselves” perspective takes us away from seeing ourselves as having more in common across the globe with other workers than with the multinationals who employ us and pollute our cities and countryside.

Frankly it is chilling to read that the Trump budget calls for a 21% cut to the Department of Labor and a 34% cut to the EPA. If those cuts are implemented, inspectors who carry out the work of enforcing the laws may be on the chopping block.

When the Occupational Health and Safety Act was passed in 1970 there were 14,000 on-the-job fatalities and two million workers with serious on-the-job injuries each year. Today worker deaths have been reduced by two-thirds. Thousands more suffer debilitating injuries from improperly maintained equipment, tools and machines.

In the auto parts plant where I worked, one young woman was scalped by an assembly line that was later determined to be running too fast. Of course some industries are far more dangerous than others, but injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome occur at every workplace. We need a strengthening, not a weakening, of health and safety protections. This is particularly true for non-union manufacturing plants where the injury rate is high.

More Cars on the Road?

It is also chilling to hear Trump speak of the production of many thousands more cars. Last year the U.S. auto industry produced more than 17.6 million! Climate change isn’t a problem for the future; we already see the effects of burning coal, oil and gas. We need to move rapidly from reliance on cars and trucks to a system of mass transit. Auto plants can be retooled to produce trains, fuel efficient buses and even components for turbines. That’s the kind of infrastructure we need to build, not more pipelines, cars and highways!

During World War I and World War II, auto plants were quickly converted to defense production. But workers were laid off and communities surrounding the plants left to make do as best they could. That must not happen again! Environmental justice demands that society guarantee full compensation to workers and frontline communities most directly affected.

In the process of moving to an energy-efficient society we have the opportunity to guarantee economic security and reduce inequality. The destruction that capitalism has unleashed in its continued demand for accumulation and profit needs to be replaced by the imperative to put the wellbeing of all at the center of the transition – beginning with those most harmed by pollution and climate change.

Just as regulations have offered some protection to the hazards of industrial production, a “just transition” is an essential tool to move from our fossil fuel economy to a sustainable one. No one should have to choose between a job and one’s life.

Certainly we are far from the kind of democratic planning that could bring us this transition, but only in maintaining the vision of a better life are we able to counter the rhetoric of right-wing populism – where words are twisted to mean their opposite, and a bully tells us that everything will be all right if we let him make the decisions.

Dianne Feeley is active with Solidarity and writes for Against the Current, where this article first appeared.

On Wednesday, May 17th, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, who has built his political career as both a fundamentalist Christian, and a client of the libertarian Koch brothers’ extensive fundraising network, made his unofficial but starting bid to become the U.S. President: he formed an organization to raise funds from billionaires and centi-millionaires, in order for Pence to be able to distribute those wealthy investors’ funds to Republican politicians (especially to ones in the U.S. Senate and House) whom Pence favors, and who might reasonably then be expected to return that favor by their supporting a Pence bid to become the U.S. President. Of course, the Presidency is the only American political office that’s higher than Pence’s current one, the Vice Presidency. 

This type of organization is called a “leadership PAC,” and the donors to it are thereby entrusting to the politician who has formed it, that politician’s ability and power to serve as the given donor’s agent to select other politicians to become agents of that given donor — Pence is thus becoming a financial middle-man, to control the distribution of those donors’ cash.

As Bill Allison of Bloomberg News headlined this action by Pence, on May 17th, “Pence Takes Steps to Build War Chest as White House Stumbles”. That report opened:

Political action committee registered Wednesday with FEC

Neither Biden nor Cheney had active leadership PACs in office

While President Donald Trump’s White House grapples with the fallout from his firing of the former FBI director, Vice President Mike Pence has taken steps to begin building his own political war chest.

Pence launched Great America Committee, a leadership PAC, a move that will enable him to channel money to congressional Republicans ahead of the 2018 midterm elections. The political action committee’s registration was posted Wednesday on the Federal Election Commission website.

There are only two ways in which Pence can replace the current U.S. President, Donald Trump, while Trump is serving his four-year elected term in that office:

The well-known method is by the sitting President’s becoming impeached by 50%+1 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and then actually removed from office by a subsequent two-thirds vote of the members of the U.S. Senate. Of course, Mr. Pence would be helped in this method if some of those members of Congress are partially relying upon Mr. Pence in order to be financially able to retain, or else to become advanced from — such as to become a Cabinet member in a President Pence’s Administration — their current office.

The less well-known method is yet more subject to being influenced by the existing holder of the office of the U.S. Vice President; and this is Section 4 of The 25th Amendment, which starts with:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments [i.e., the Cabinet members] or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

The rest of the 25th Amendment describes the conditions under which the existing President will either become restored to the Presidency, or else become permanently removed from it and the Vice President finish out that President’s existing term. The President then becomes permanently removed only upon:

two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.

So: whereas the impeachment-route entails two-thirds only in the Senate, the “disability”-route entails two-thirds in each of the two houses. However,  the “disability”-route is far easier to start: it entails merely a declaration by the V.P, plus the vote of 50%+1 of the Cabinet — no impeachment-trial (no equivalent of a grand jury’s verdict to bring charges in a criminal case) precedes the sitting President’s removal-from-office.

Both routes can be greatly assisted by means of Pence’s formation of his Great America Committee, leadership PAC.

Here is how Mike Pence’s background was described, on May 17th, by the progressive Doug Henwood, under the headline “The Post-Trump Era?”:

What then? President Pence? If Pence were president, the entire Republican dream agenda would sail through Congress in like three weeks. Pence spent a dozen years in Congress (Tea Party branch) and four years as governor of Indiana; he’s an appalling figure but he knows how things work. He might not be able to overcome his party’s internal divisions, but he probably could do a better job than Trump, and every day would not be a circus as it is now.

Pence is a horror — fiscal sadist, misogynist, homophobe, lover of the carceral state. He’s repeatedly described himself as “a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order,” though given today’s modern GOP, it’s not clear there’s much of a difference among these features. (He should have said he’s a reactionary Christian; there are plenty of other kinds.) He’s a creationist who rejects climate change, thinks stem cell research is “obsolete,” and once actually said that “smoking doesn’t kill.” His anti-abortion law was the most extreme in the country. His cuts to Planned Parenthood led to a rural HIV epidemic. Like Sessions, Pence is a maximalist on drugs, including weed. He’s hot to privatize Social Security. He likened the Supreme Court’s upholding of Obamacare to 9/11.

Should Trump get pushed out, the orchestrated campaign of healing would be painful. It’s not far-fetched to imagine leading Democrats channelling Gerald Ford’s “our long national nightmare is over.” There would be something of what Wall Street calls a “relief rally” on the transition, and it would perversely grease the way for Pence to make the U.S. more like the Indiana he left behind. We should be fighting to keep him in office, as fatally damaged goods.

Several things seem to be driving this campaign to squeeze Trump out, aside from the obvious fact he’s an unstable ignoramus. Dems still can’t get over the fact that they lost to the most unpopular candidate in the history of polling, but instead of blaming their own terrible candidate (the second-most unpopular candidate in the history of polling) and the slavers’ legacy, the Electoral College, they want to blame Russia.

Pence was chosen by Trump because Trump needed the support of two constituencies in order to win: the [corporate] aristocracy (who control all the large corporations including the ’news’media), and the fundamentalist Christian clergy (who control a significant sector of the electorate, and who especially do a terrific get-out-the-vote effort of their followers who are far-right Republicans). Pence met both requirements. Here is how I described Pence at the time Trump selected Pence as his running-mate, when I headlined — as it turned out falsely — “Trump Writes Himself Off by Choosing Pence”:

Donald Trump, the Republican Presidential nominee-to-be, has effectively ended his chances to become U.S. President, by his choice of the idiot Mike Pence to be his Vice Presidential choice.

Pence’s only articles about his vision for the nation and for the Republican Party were published at his campaign site “Mike Pence for Congress,” between 1991 and the year 2000, when he finally won a seat in Congress. So, the quotations here will be from that time.

Here will be quoted some of that idiot’s stunning allegations. The dates he said these idiotic things are all no later than 17 April 2000 (as is indicated by the earliest URL listing them being http://web.archive.org/web/20000417191056/http://www.mikepence.com/ where the “20000417” means that it was recorded on 17 April 2000, and so the articles with these titles were linked-to at Pence’s site by no later than that date). 

These are Pence’s whoppers there that struck me as the most blatant:

“Time for a quick reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn’t kill.”

“Global warming is a myth.”

“The blame-ocracy has concluded that social conservatives, read that pro-life, pro-family voters, were the cause of the [Republican] party’s troubles. … It brings to mind the adage of that great Republican President Calvin Coolidge who said, ‘not all Republicans are stupid people but all stupid people are Republicans.’ The idea that relegating 40% of the GOP vote to second class status is a prescription for victory had to have been concocted in the twisted mind of some overpaid political consultant. … The reason I am optimistic is, apart from God’s sustaining grace, quite simple. Republicans, from George Washington to George W. Bush just have better ideas. … Eventually, Republicans will return to the promotion of those great ideas.” 

Get that last one!: George Washington was a “Republican,” and Calvin Coolidge said that “all stupid people are Republicans” — and Pence seconds that thought!

Perhaps I was greatly overestimating the ‘news’media’s motivation to publicize the stupidity of the V.P. nominee of the candidate (Trump) they were trying to defeat, or else was overestimating the ’news’media’s interest at all in truth. But, either way, the ‘news’media ignored those facts that I documented, about Trump’s running-mate.

However, liberal ‘news’media did publicize, as the Democratic Party’s The Nation magazine headlined it, that “Vice President Mike Pence Would Be a Dream for the Koch Brothers”. And, perhaps the reason that this Democratic magazine, during a Democratic Presidency (Obama’s) which was pushing for passage of the (fascistic) Trans Pacific Partnership treaty that Obama was promoting around the world, ignored Pence’s support for Obama’s proposed TPP, was that virtually the entire aristocracy were pushing for passage of that treaty (for reasons that I have explained but which the ‘news’media continue to hide).

So: now, there is a strong campaign by Democrats, both in the mainstream and ‘progressive’ wings (such asKeith Olbermann), to be pushing for Pence to replace Trump.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

News stories of the Ukraine omit any mention of the country’s Roma people, as though the global corporate media as well would exclude them from existence. The group’s conditions of life show a severely oppressed people, which isn’t “news” because the Roma are so deeply persecuted throughout Europe.

According to the “Joint Submission to the [UN] Human Rights Council at the 28th Session of the Universal Periodic Review,” Ukrainian Roma often live isolated in settlements called “tabor”, and because of at-home births, birth certificates are lacking. This deprives the children of citizenship which is theirs under law but only gained through costly court procedures. It is one more way the people are marginalised, denied State benefits, subjected to detention etc. Acquiring citizenship is the current focus of Roma efforts toward having any rights at all. (Note 1 and 2 ).

Roma community members

This norm suggests extreme trouble for all Ukrainian minorities.

Historically Ukrainian nationalism has a propensity for divesting the Ukraine of groups other than nationalist Ukrainians. The Ukraine is in contention with Russia over Crimea and Eastern regions: a large number of Russian-speaking Ukrainians believe the Ukraine wishes to make them second class citizens, “others,” or foreigners. Authorities replace Russian street names with the names of Ukraine’s nationalist heroes best known for the massacres of Jews and Poles. The country’s Association of Holocaust Survivors notes an easing of the government’s habitual anti-Semitism as the current target of hatred is being shifted toward Russians instead.

Canada’s Ukrainian oriented Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland has announced Canada’s support for “sanctioning” (ie. punishing) Russian officials declared guilty of human rights violations. This would involve a law allowing Canada to confiscate any assets and property available, of sanctioned officials. Fortunately Russia has not threatened to reciprocate. The possibility of reciprocation for human rights violations in the ongoing systemic genocidal practices against aboriginal peoples seems beyond the grasp of Canadian politicians.

The web site Dances with Bears reports Foreign Minister Freeland’s recent encounter with her Russian counterpart where she addresses him in Russian and he answers with the news that Ukraine is drafting a law to make Ukrainian the single and official language of the Ukraine. This would violate the rights of Russian speaking citizens and Polish speaking citizens as well. What if Canada decided to outlaw the use of French? Or Quebec allowed only French?

North America’s lack of concern for Nazi influences among the Ukraine’s leadership is powered by the usefulness of the Ukraine as a foil for Russia and as an excuse to encircle Russia. But NATO’s tactical use of the Ukraine for its anti-Russian campaign is mixed with contempt, as suggested by the U.S. / Ukrainian pact to build a nuclear waste dump, the Central Spent Fuel Storage Facility, at the site of the Ukraine’s Chernobyl.

Reports continue of threats and extreme anti-Semitism in high places. This is particularly frightening in the Ukraine which has proven itself historically to be very “hands-on”. One is reminded that in WWII one of four Jews murdered in the Holocaust was Ukrainian. Most Ukrainian Jews were murdered within the Ukraine instead of being sent to less personal extermination practices of labour camps and concentration camps. In the Ukraine the horrific stories from a very few survivors directly involve the local citizenry and militias.

The threats to the Jewish population from those close to power who are either consciously or through the training of their childhoods immersed in a Nazi ideology, seem primitive, personal, unchecked, and are increasingly in need of the State’s damage control. Aware of anti-Semitism as an impediment to Euro-American support the Ukraine has an overtly Jewish Prime Minister who has met with his Israeli counterpart to improve the Ukraine’s defence and security establishments. The cosmetics are challenged by torchlight parades and utterances that might be considered surreal in another country. The Jewish Chronicle reports that Vasily Vovk, a retired general in the country’s security services has announced on Facebook (a post since deleted) that Jews aren’t Ukrainians and he intends to destroy them.

As for ‘people of colour ‘ in the Ukraine, news footage insists there aren’t any. Recently a student from Zimbabwe, a star soccer player, received a fracture in his ankle while playing for his Ukrainian university team. Despite the lack of an 800 dollar fee for the operation it was preformed but while recovering, to everyone’s puzzlement he died and the parents paid ten thousand dollars to have his body returned to Zimbabwe. Since Zimbabwe has no embassy in the Ukraine the parents remain without any explanation of why their son died.

A problem with Ukrainian nationalism which is whetted by anti-Russian interests globally, is that its heroes were so often complicit in the Third Reich’s crimes. Substantial evidence is presented (Press for Conversion) that Canada’s Foreign Minister Chrystie Freeland has hidden the Ukrainian Nazi collaboration within her family: the difficulty is in the norms developed through community and childhood. Is she likely to represent Canada’s and sanity’s interests in dealing with a Nuclear Russia increasingly bear-baited by neo-conservative governments?

Partial sources online:

“Chrystia Freeland Exposed by Sergei Lavrov at Arctic council;

Drops ‘Canadian Democracy Destabilization’ Charge Against Russia,” John Helmer, May 14, 2017, Dances with Bears;

“Ukrainian general calls for destruction of Jews,” Sam Sokol, May 11, 2017, The Jewish Chronicle;

“Canada backs sanctions against foreign officials in abuse cases,” David Ljunggren, May 17, 2017, Reuters;

“Liberals brought Nazi vets to Canada: Glorifying Ukrainian-Canadian Veterans of OUN/UPA Terrorism,” Richard Sanders, Dec. 14, 2016, rabble.ca;

“Minister Freeland’s Grandfather, Michael Chomiak, the Nazi’s Top Ukrainian Propagandist…” Richard Sanders, March 22, 2017, Press for Conversion! / Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade;

Ukraine’s Jews walk narrow line between murderous past and uncertain future,” Sue Surkes, May 17, 2017, The Times of Israel;

“Ukraine confident of world-class fuel storage facility,” 17 May 2017, WNN | World Nuclear News;

“Ukraine blocks popular social networks as part of sanctions on Russia,” Alec Luhn, May 16, 2017, theguardian;

“Joint Submission to the [UN] Human Rights Council at the 28th Session of the Universal Periodic Review: Ukraine,” European Roma Rights Centre et al, March 30, 2017, European Roma Rights Centre;

“Sporting hero’ dies in ankle op: Zim student in mystery Ukraine death,” Nqobile Tshili, May 15, 2017, The Chronicle.

The U.S. has signed a major deal with China to ship liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Asia, adding further momentum to America’s hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) boom.

The deal, which includes the export of other commodities from the U.S. to China, was signed about a month after President Donald Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Much of the LNG in this deal will move across a recently expanded Panama Canal, offering a fast-track route to Asia for larger vessels, an expansion for which the oil and gas industry lobbied.

A DeSmog investigation has revealed that expanding the Panama Canal was part of a two-part process, which included an oil and gas industry push to deepen ports in the Gulf of Mexico as well. Emails obtained under the Texas Public Records Act show that lobbyists for ExxonMobil were leading this effort.

In an interview with Fox Business Network, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross touted the deal with China and its implications for the global LNG market.

“We have worked out a new regime for LNG exports. As you probably know, China is the world’s number one importer of LNG [and] we’re just in the early days of exporting,” Ross told Neil Cavuto. “LNG prices have been languishing for quite a little while because, frankly, we have a good deal of oversupply. So it seemed weird, we have too much of it, it’s much cleaner than coal would be, and yet we weren’t really doing a big job of exporting it to China.”

Not long after the deal was signed, Cheniere, a top U.S. exporter of LNG, also declared that it may soon be shipping more of its product to China. However, without Congress taking legislative action back in 2014, pushed by Exxon’s lobbyists, the U.S.-China LNG export deal may have never existed at all.

Art of LNG Deal

In 2014, Congress passed the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (H.R. 3080/S. 601), which gave U.S. ports like the Sabine-Neches Navigation District in Texas the legal authority to deepen their waters.

Deepening ports allows them to receive bigger and heavier tankers that sit lower in the water column, such as those carrying LNG or larger shipments of oil. For ports on the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico, it opens up possibilities for these larger tankers and container ships to pass through the now expanded Panama Canal. Marine commerce is seeing a rise in such “megaships” and ports are rushing to accommodate them.

“As more of the world’s cargo is transported on these massive ships, we’ve got to make sure that we’ve got bridges high enough and ports that are big enough to hold them and accommodate them so that our businesses can keep selling goods made in America to the rest of the world,” Obama said as he signed the bill.

According to lobbying disclosure forms, companies such as ExxonMobil, BP, Sempra Energy, BG Group (now owned by Shell), Chevron, Koch Industries, and others all lobbied for H.R. 3080/S. 601. Section 2106 of the bill, the “Energy Transfer Port” section, calls for a $50 million per year subsidy for ports maintaining 25 percent of business activity related to the energy industry and carrying at least 40 million tons of cargo for this industry as well.

The Sabine-Neches Navigation District deployed lobbyist Milam Mabry to advocate for the cause of deepening this key port and LNG export hub, which is home to both Cheniere’s Sabine Pass LNG terminal and ExxonMobil and Qatar Petroleum’s Golden Pass LNG facility.

Months after successfully lobbying for the bill, which President Obama signed into law in June 2014, Mabry agreed to begin lobbying for Golden Pass Products, the owner of the Golden Pass LNG facility.

Golden Pass received a permit to export LNG from the Department of Energy (DOE) on April 25, 2017. The DOE‘s authorization letter for Golden Pass LNG cites congressional letters of support for the project, which as DeSmog revealed in April 2015, were actually ghost-written by lobbyists for Golden Pass from the firm Harris, DeVille & Associates.

Mabry, who formerly served as a congressional staffer for Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), still lobbies for both the Sabine-Neches Navigation District and Exxon and Quatar Petroleum’s Golden Pass Products.

Back in 2014, however, emails obtained from the navigation district show that Mabry worked alongside the Golden Pass Products lobbyists from Harris, DeVille & Associates as the Water Resources Reform and Development Act moved through Congress. The district’s goal was two-pronged: to get its desired language inserted into the bill and secure federal funding under the bill’s legislative mandate (the latter being the reason the district is still employing Mabry’s lobbying services).

Emails show the strategy revolved around Mabry working his network, with an open line of communications to the Office of Texas Governor Greg Abbott, the Obama White House, the Office of U.S. Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), fellow Exxon lobbyist Kathleen Jackson, and others. Jackson sits on the Texas Water Development Board, and was inititally appointed by former Texas Governor Rick Perry, who currently serves as U.S. Secretary of Energy.

In a February 2014 email to the navigation district’s leadership, Exxon’s Jackson explained how the district could best make its case to Congressional leadership drafting the bill, saying that the soon-to-be-expanded Panama Canal should be part of the pitch.

“We need the large channel users to embrace the work effort, commit their top resources and think creatively so we can capture all possible benefits. And we need an industry champion to coordinate the effort,” wrote Jackson. “[Sabine-Neches Waterway] is uniquely positioned to capture the benefits of the Panama Canal expansion.”

Paul Beard, president of Sabine Universal Products and chair of the navigation district’s board, was also regularly looped into emails about the bill’s progress and strategy around its passage. Sabine Universal describes itself as a

“distributor of specialized products for the commercial marine and offshore rig industries,” which deals with “offshore drilling contractors, inland tug and barge operators, shipyards, and offshore supply boat companies.”

“Start Digging!”

While nudging members of Congress to get the bill passed, the Harris, DeVille & Associates team and Mabry launched a local advertising campaign in support of the legislation’s passage. This included designing and placing billboards, emailing local government bodies about the signs, writing talking points for the media, and pushing LNG as a central pillar in bill discussions.

“In developing the billboards, we focused on two key themes,” Michelle Hultberg of Harris, DeVille & Associates wrote in a February 2014 email to navigation district leadership. “First, as indicated in our previous Facebook ad campaign and as we are also seeing in the ongoing digital ad campaign, our audience responds well to ‘jobs’ messaging. So, we’ll continue to weave that theme throughout our materials. Second, we want to introduce a ‘Dig it’ message that can be used in several ways (‘Let’s dig it,’ ‘We dig it,’ ‘I dig it’) and would be a great way for [Sabine-Neches Navigation District] to get our supporters involved.”

The billboard and accompanying social media campaign included both a pre-bill passage and post-bill passage component, with graphics and talking points prepared for both.

Credit: Sabine-Neches Navigation District

The navigation district also put together and disseminated a fact sheet, discussing how the district serves as a key national hub for oil and gas pipeline infrastructure, including LNG.

Credit: Sabine-Neches Navigation District

After the bill passed in Congress, PR specialist Hultberg drafted a press release celebrating its passage on behalf of the navigation district.

“So many of our local, state and federal leaders and past [Sabine-Neches Navigation District] leaders and staff deserve a huge thanks,” Beard said in the release, “It’s been a pleasure to help lead this once-in-a-lifetime project to this point. Now it’s time to get out there and start digging!”

Traversing Panama Canal

The centerpiece of this particular port deepening project, as the navigation district points out, was ensuring the port could cater to a widened Panama Canal capable of handling LNG tanker traffic.

“A huge benefit to the LNG producers is that it will cut transit time to the Orient from something like 63 days to 47 days, very significant,” wrote Beard in a December 2015 email. “If ever we are allowed to export crude oil again it would provide the same advantage for oil going to the West Coast or the Orient.”

Cheniere was the first company to ship LNG across the Panama Canal and into China. The expanded canal is expected to see 550 LNG ships cross per year by 2021, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Credit: U.S. Energy Information Administration

Signaling the expanded canal’s importance to the oil and gas industry, the Texas Department of Transportation created a Panama Canal Stakeholder Working Group in 2012, which involved contributions from several industry representatives.

The working group had an official member from the Texas Oil and Gas Association, and briefed or received testimony from ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, Chesapeake Energy, and Halliburton, among others. The Sabine-Neches Navigation District was also involved in the working group, which culminated with a report pointing to the business opportunities for the LNG industry from an expanded Panama Canal.

“Currently LNG vessels are not able to use the Panama Canal due to the width limitations in the locks. The new locks will accommodate LNG vessels, thus opening the Asian market to LNG from Texas,” the working group wrote in its November 2012 report. “Cheniere, Golden Pass Products LLC, and other companies are making major investments in LNG plants along the Texas and Louisiana coast, focusing on exporting LNG.”

Half a decade later, it appears that vision has become reality.

We are witnessing an assault by the national security state and its liberal media on a President of the United States that is unprecedented.

Wild and unsupported accusations of treasonous or illegal Russian connections have been the mainstay of the news since Trump’s campaign for president. These accusations have reached the point that there is an impeachment movement driven by the national security state and its liberal media and endorsed by Democrats, the American leftwing which has turned against the working class as “Trump deplorables,” and luminaries such as Harvard Law Professor Larry Tribe. The Washington Post, which was not present at the meeting of President Trump with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, purports to know that Trump gave Lavrov US national security information.

The Russian government has offered the presstitute media a transcript of the meeting, but, of course, the pressitutes are not interested.

The latest story is that Trump tried to bribe FBI Director Comey, before he fired him, not to investigate Trump as part of the “Russian investigation.” Clearly there is no intelligence left in the American media. The President doesn’t need to bribe someone he can fire.

What we are witnessing is the determination of the national security state to keep their prized “Russian Threat” in its assigned role as the Number One Threat to the US. The liberal media, owned by the CIA since the 1950s is in accord with this goal.

The American media is so accustomed to its enslavement by the national security state that it does not think of the consequences.

But Professor Stephen Cohen does. I agree with him that the greatest threat to national security “is this assault on President Trump.”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47076.htm

Cohen said that there is a 4th branch of government, the intelligence community, which obstructs the management of American foreign affairs by the executive branch and Congress.

As an example, he reminded us that

“In 2016, President Obama worked out a deal with Russian President Putin for military cooperation in Syria. He said he was going to share intelligence with Russia, just like Trump and the Russians were supposed to do the other day. Our department of defense said it wouldn’t share intelligence. And a few days later, they killed Syrian soldiers, violating the agreement, and that was the end of that. So, we can ask, who is making our foreign policy in Washington today?”

In the 1960s, President John F. Kennedy thought he was in charge, and he was assassinated for his belief. JFK blocked an invasion of Cuba, the Northwoods project, a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union, and spoke of ending the Cold War.

In the 1970s President Nixon was driven from office, because he thought he was in charge of foreign policy. Like Kennedy, Nixon was a threat to the national security state. Nixon pushed through SALT 1 and the anti-ABM Treaty, and he opened to China, defusing those tensions as well. The military/security complex saw its budget dwindling as the threat dwindled. Nixon also determined to withdraw from Vietnam, but was constrained by the national security state. Nixon, the most knowledgeable president about foreign affairs, was forced from office, because his efforts in behalf of peace constituted a threat to the power and profit of the military/security complex.

It is important to understand that there is no evidence whatsoever against Nixon in the Washington Post “investigation.” The Post’s reporters simply put together a collection of inuendoes that cast aspersion on Nixon, whose “crime” was to say that he learned of the Watergate buglary at a later date than he actually did. Nixon kept the burglary quiet until after his reelection, because he knew that the CIA’s Washington Post would use it in an effort to prevent his reelection.

The “crime” for which Nixon was really removed was his success in establishing more peaceful and stable relations with Russia and China.

Trump, being in real estate and entertainment, was unaware of the landmines on which he was stepping when he said it was time to normalize relations with Russia and to rethink the purpose of NATO.

The US military/security complex sits on a budget extracted from very hard-pressed American taxpayers of $1,000 billion dollars annually. By threatening to normalize relations with the enemy which was created in order to justify this vast budget, Trump presented as the major threat to the American National Security State’s power and profit.

This is why Trump will be broken and/or removed as President of the United States.

Once again democracy in American is proving to be powerless. There is no one in Washington who can help Trump. Those who could help him, such as myself, cannot be confirmed by the US Senate, which is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military/security complex, Wall Street, and the Israel Lobby.

Trump tried to connect the suffering American people to their government, an act of treason against the oligarchy, who are making an example of Trump that will dissuade politicians in the future from making populist appeals to the people.

Commentators are sounding the alarm that tribalism and tribal consciousness have come rushing back in the 21^st century like a viral epidemic.

These commentators are particularly upset about the election of Donald Trump, who rode to power, they say, through the votes of a tribe of conservative white male racists wanting to be saved from hordes of dark-skinned freeloaders, many of them illegal immigrants.

The same phenomenon was feared to break out in France through the presidential candidacy of Marine Le Pen, though in that more “civilized” nation such an outcome was prevented by the election of  “centrist” Rothschild banker Emmanuel Macron.

But isn’t it true that tribalism has been determining the actions of nations and their constituent factions for a very long time? And don’t the self-styled “progressives” who loathe Trump and Le Pen do so from the standpoint of their own tribal perspectives?

Another interpretation of the Trump victory is simply that those who voted for him wanted back the jobs that America’s tribe of oligarchs—enabled, for instance, by Democratic president Bill Clinton and NAFTA—had shipped overseas. So maybe whom you blame for things you don’t like depends on what tribe you yourself belong to.

Nevertheless, tribalism is a peril threatening humanity and the planet today. But it isn’t just the other person’s tribe that’s the problem. Let’s take a deeper look at what is really going on.

TRIBALISM THE RULE, NOT THE EXCEPTION

First, an observation: We cling to timeworn ways of thinking and don’t seem fully to realize how much the world is threatened by modern science and technology. Our machines, electrical systems, methods of mass industrial production, ability to extract resources, the vast amounts of waste we produce, our exponential population growth, the dominant role of computer processing, and our manufacture of huge arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical, and biological—all these have the capacity to destroy life on planet earth many times over, and has evidently already started to do so. A mass extinction of species has begun.

So what does your tribe think of that?

Humanity’s ability to control and put modern scientific processes to intelligent use is obviously stuck at the primitive, tribal level. To exercise control of these forces obviously requires the efforts of organized government. Of course many don’t think so. They seem to believe that Monsanto ought to be allowed to spray Roundup anywhere they want and life will simply sail along as free as the breeze.

But since the start of the Industrial Revolution about 250 years ago, there have been many attempts to come up with systems of governance that can manage human life successfully under modern conditions. One such system is representative government of the type employed by the U.S. and other present-day republics, including countries like the U.K. that are a hybrid between traditional monarchical governance and representative institutions like Parliament.

The other general category is that of a ruling self-selected party or faction that controls or oversees all governing institutions while claiming to act in the name of an entire nation. Examples are the one in communist China—yes, China is still communist even if much of what you buy in Home Depot is made there—autocratic monarchies like Saudi Arabia, countries heavily influenced by a historic caste system like India, those ruled by a dictator or the military, like Turkey or Burma, or apartheid countries run by a religious/ethnic group like Israel.

Other nations transform themselves from time to time from one type into another. An example of a republic that is transitioning from communist party rule to a more representative model is Russia. Others, like Pakistan, go back and forth from a republic to a military dictatorship.

The problem is that all of these systems, republics included, have a tendency to revert to tribal rule, where the benefits of governance do not accrue to the nation at large but primarily to the ruling party. The political process in such countries becomes essentially a power struggle among similar but competing tribes. Often, as with the Republican and Democratic parties in the U.S., you can’t tell one tribal elite from another in any essential way, as their differing slogans and mutual finger-pointing don’t convey much substance.

So presidential elections, at least during the last generation, boil down to the entertainment of watching two elites that bow to the same paymasters engage in a mud-wrestling match. In the end, someone or other is declared the winner, spends a few years enriching his supporters, and life goes on.

In republics in particular it has become extraordinarily easy for the wealthy controllers of industry or finance to gain and keep control by use of propaganda, rigging elections, handing out appointments or favors, writing laws that benefit their monopolies, controlling the intelligence agencies, along with the police and military forces, and dozens of other methods, great and small. A recent example is the influence the Pentagon has on Hollywood in churning out junk movies that glorify war.

In collectivist societies, the same tools of control are applied, though perhaps in not quite such a hypocritical way. At least their elites don’t pretend so much that they are giving citizens a choice. But the ruling power nevertheless grants itself many privileges that ordinary contributors to social welfare do not receive and swiftly marginalizes or gets rid of anyone who complains. China and Israel are good examples.

But in either type of system, the real power stays within a relatively small, compact tribal grouping that usually gives priority to serving its own interests and those of its friends, relatives, and powerful supporters.

 

Leaders who break through these patterns may exist but are exceptional indeed. I believe that one of these may be Vladimir Putin.

INCOMPETENCE OF TRIBES TO GOVERN MODERN NATIONS

The present world catastrophe is partly a result of the total incompetence of insular and corrupt tribal consciousness to manage systems of such reach and potency as have been brought into existence by modern science and technology. Within the U.S., the thought of either of the two ruling tribes controlling the world’s largest nuclear arsenal should scare the sh— out of us.

Another aspect of the dominance of tribalism is the resurgence of religious fundamentalism with apocalyptic overtones. Examples are Christian Zionism, Islamic Wahhabism, Talmudic Judaism, and, in India, the Hindu movement called Hindutva.

All these exclusionary doctrines are essentially violent—ISIS, for instance, espouses fundamentalist Islamic doctrines while it murders people. In Israel, rabbis sign public petitions advocating the bombing of Syria.

All fundamentalists reek of intolerance in their insistence that they possess the only God-ordained interpretation of religion and are totalitarian in demanding the perfect adherence on the part of anyone under their control to every rule and regulation the leaders happen to come up with.

Of course fundamentalism is essentially a fear-based reaction to a world that threatens the individual not armored against uncertainty with annihilation. But how can such groups sanely govern modern nation states? When a fundamentalist ideology takes over a nation, look out. It has happened today in a number of nations, including the U.S.

Every tribe also has taboos, with the fundamentalists having more than anyone. Of course some taboos may be quite rational and protective of important values. An example is a taboo against adultery that most cultures share. But other taboos may be quite irrational, such as the taboo nations have begun to impose against anyone raising questions about the so-called Holocaust.

Today the corporate-owned mainstream media has tribal taboos against certain writers who may write for “alternative” websites or present views not in agreement with the prevailing political dogmas. “Blacklisting” is another name for this type of taboo.

PSYCHOLOGICAL ROOTS OF TRIBALISM

Tribalism has deep roots in the human psyche and may be be part of our evolutionary heritage. Many organisms move in tribal groups, from bacteria and viruses, to ants and bees, to higher mammals that live in herds, hunt in packs, etc.

Some researchers trace the tribal instinct to the fact that humans have a limited number of individuals they are capable of knowing well and having an emotional bond with. This number varies from “Dunbar’s Number” of 150 to the “Bernard-Killworth Median” of 231. In any case, the number is extremely limited.

Social scientists know that for purposes of productivity, small to medium-sized groups work better than large faceless bureaucracies. But there is a downside as well. A functioning tribal group, while comfortable, is also deadly when it comes to encouraging or implementing new ideas. Non-conformism is quickly singled out and punished, even when the organization claims to be open to innovation.

Given all these limitations, it is no wonder that tribalism stands in the way of our being able to resolve today’s threats that call humanity’s very existence into question.

The term tribalism was invented by Western social science around 1861 and is defined as,

“loyalty to a tribe or other social group especially when combined with strong negative feelings for people outside the group.” (www.merriam-webster.com).

The word “tribe” is derived from the Latin tribus, used in Rome to indicate a grouping of Roman people.

The ancient Hebrews and other peoples also divided themselves into tribes, though the more enlightened Greeks were evolving beyond that. They had begun to see social life through the lens of citizenship in a polis where all shared both rights and responsibilities.

“Tribalism” as a modern word was utilized in the study of so-called primitive peoples that Westerners were encountering in their colonization of remote parts of the world. Obviously, we Westerners felt superior to these people, and not only because of our more advanced material culture.

For instance, there was also the “pure” whiteness of our skin. But we failed to realize that we are just as susceptible to the influence of tribal attitudes and customs as the non-Western cultures we despised.

Despite their pretensions, Globalism and the New World Order are not steps up from tribalism, or even from nationalism, which is tribalism writ large. What Globalism and the New World Order are is a takeover of the world by a small, conceited, and very wealthy tribe of international bankers that seeks to destroy all common human values for their own wealth and power.

THE DANGERS OF TRIBALISM

The opposite of tribalism is not uniformity of materialistic habits. Rather the opposite of tribalism is the understanding that the natural diversity of individuals, nations, religions, occupations, etc., can be brought into positive and productive relationship only by the mutual respect among people that acknowledges universal human values.

This respect has been fostered at times in history by the world’s great religions and also by such documents as the U.S. Declaration of Independence. This document was representative of the religion of Deism. It speaks of “entitlements” based on “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” It says this of our common Creator:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Though it took time for these principles to start to be applied to all members of society, the intent was clear.The basic rights of man do not apply selectively to individuals depending on membership in any particular tribe. Rather they apply to everyone on earth as our common birthright.

Both Deism and the Declaration of Independence were products of the best thinking of the Enlightenment. It is when religions and nations revert to tribal consciousness that their founding principles are forgotten.

One reason tribalism is so dangerous is that it needs an enemy to thrive. Whenever we see a politician, a group, a media outlet, or other party scapegoating or demonizing another group, blaming someone else for its problems, trying to organize hatred into a political movement—we can be certain that tribalism is at work.

Not everyone gravitates toward a tribe of course. Many people feel suffocated in a tribal environment. Introverts may be content to be loners. Other people are traumatized by the tribal atmosphere.

Modern tribalism never looks at itself; it takes itself as a “given.” It takes pride in its lineage, its history, its virtue, its heritage. It sees itself as “chosen”—by history or by God.  It elevates its culture heroes above those of other tribes. It always points to the “Other” as being to blame or setting a bad example. It uses lies, scorn, sarcasm, and ridicule as weapons.

Tribes boast about their superiority to other tribes. Hitler’s Aryan superiority and Obama’s American “exceptionalism” are cut from the same cloth—both self-delusionary. Every tribe is “exceptional” until its next humiliating defeat—or its annihilation, which many tribes in history have suffered.

An example of rank tribalism in history is the Pharisees of Israel. The portrait of the Pharisees in the Bible, up to and including their role in the crucifixion of Christ, is a masterpiece of art. Jesus’s response still rings true:

“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Tribalism may have had its place in history. As a way of organizing collective life, it was the next step up from an extended family, clan, or kinship group, often with its own identifiable language within the larger context of a language family.

Native American tribes in the eastern U.S., for instance, belonged to three language families—the Iroquoian, the Algonquian, and the Siouan. But membership in a tribe was fluid. New members could be adopted, including, on occasion, a few white captives or frontiersmen who preferred Native American life.

While tribes often fought each other, both within and outside language families, the more enlightened leaders advocated unity within and across tribal lines. This became especially important as pressure from the whites increased, causing Native Americans to de-emphasize tribal distinctions in order to present a united front.

The Iroquoian Confederation—the Six Nations—was an example. So was the alliance led against the U.S. Army by the Shawnee war chief Tecumseh in the late 18^th-early 19^th centuries. Tecumseh’s brother “The Prophet” advocated unity across tribal lines through the creation of a common Native American consciousness.

In all parts of the world, tribal identity tends to evaporate as the bureaucratic state extends its reach across all aspects of life, and particularly as local or native languages recede or disappear. In nations where diversity among races, religions, and nationalities are common, groupings with tribal characteristics may remain, but their importance for individual member identity is lessened. It has always been state administration by the bureaucracy that held empires consisting of diverse peoples together.

Thus recognition of diversity offers a way out, though regression is often the norm. As discussed above, the two major political parties in the U.S.—the Republicans and Democrats—have become narrow-minded tribes. For the Republicans in the 2016 election, their standard-bearer Donald Trump demonized immigrants. The Democrats, when they lost, saw Hillary Clinton blaming Russia, totally without evidence, and without any acknowledgement of her own shortcomings.

President Donald Trump became president in 2016 through the votes of 19.3% of the total U.S. population. His opponent, Hillary Clinton, received more votes but lost the election due to the anachronism of the Electoral College.

By no stretch of the imagination can this election, or this system, be called “democratic.” It is clearly a case of one tribe eking out an advantage over another through whatever underhanded means were available.

Both parties have largely abandoned real issues to engage in “identity politics” and hot-button issues. That is, there are certain types of people whom we recognize as “us” and other types who are “them.” For instance, while conservatives are vehemently against abortion, progressives favor gay marriage. Politics based on narrow social issues is also tribalism.

Many other types of groups in modern society, besides political parties, have tribal characteristics. There are tribes associated with graduation from particular schools and universities, academic honor societies, holders of professional degrees or certificates, employment groups such as companies or non-profit organizations, labor unions, economic cooperatives, trade associations, military units, social clubs, secret societies, religious institutions, readers of various periodicals, sports teams and their fans, and many others.

Some such groupings may offer mutual aid to members or help those in trouble. They often provide material sustenance, along with spiritual guidance and comfort. In later life some provide a place for members to live upon retirement. At times these groupings have defined and enforced ethical standards for their members. The possibilities are endless. But when ego and fear enter in, tribalism rears its head.

Such groups are often the glue that holds society together, but all such groups give birth to constant temptations to tribal members, especially those in leadership positions, to lord it over the rest. The pecking order is found everywhere, even among prisoners in jail. Bullying is also common, as is passive aggressive sabotage by members who need to vent their anger toward the leaders but are afraid of being found out.

Also, even though such groups define and enforce ethical standards, they also cover up transgressions or help give their members “cover” when things go wrong or when other parts of society are fleeced. An example is the Western industrialized medical professions which, in collusion with Big Pharma, are often more interested in furthering the profit motive in allopathic medicine than finding ways to prevent illness.

Often the tribe descends to the level of a cult, where it is even more secretive and destructive. Modern industrialized healthcare has many characteristics of a self-serving cult.

Virtually everyone in society is a member of one or more tribal groupings. Even nuclear or extended families may have tribal characteristics. While families provide the core constituent of society, they are often so immersed in their own affairs that the outside world scarcely exists for them.

The activities of some tribes, though limited in scope, may have a positive tenor up to the point where they feel threatened. Or it can be the opposite, depending on how quickly outside forces are deemed a threat. When a family or other grouping is a healthy, functioning part of society, though, it is not really a tribe.

There are also tribal groupings of criminals. Tribal pathways in the world of organized crime are notorious and have been written about in depth. Double-crossers of the tribe may be killed in a gruesome manner.

Cult books like The Godfather glorify the tribal habits of crime bosses to the extent that the top man, the enforcer, is a hero because he takes care of his underlings and their families. Of course to get to the top you must have a long personal record of murders and other crimes in addition to your personal charm.

By the way, one reason we don’t hear so much about the Mafia anymore is that they were able use their ill-gotten wealth to send their children to prestigious universities. Now the kids are running banks, hedge funds, and investment companies. Or they have joined the tribe of lawyers.

Meanwhile, other crime syndicates have stepped in, such as the so-called Russian Mafia. The larger syndicates have the ability to operate internationally through the cooperation of corrupt officials in the nations and among the business operations they infiltrate or control.

Intelligence agencies that should be fighting organized crime are often in cahoots. These agencies are also tribes—MI6, the CIA, the Mossad, etc. There is not much difference between these and criminal gangs. Rare are the brave individuals who disclose inside information about these agencies and their misdeeds.

For instance, much has been written about possible collaboration between the CIA and the Mossad in both the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and bringing down the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, but not one person has come forward in all these years with first-hand eye-witness information. (See Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy by Michael Collins Piper.)

Of course members of intelligence agencies are selected on the basis of their ability and willingness to keep secrets, and their ideology is such that they believe, no matter how horrendous their actions, that they are fully justified. Members are also well-paid and face prison or death if they “rat out” anyone.

Another type of criminal activity that has been alleged, and where the CIA has admitted its involvement, at least to some extent, has been participation in worldwide narcotics and illegal arms dealing. But here again, little has been entered into the public record due to tribal loyalties, pride in being part of a secret inner circle, and fear by participants of reprisals.

Nevertheless, whistleblowers occasionally come forward. A whistleblower is almost always a person who breaks the code of silence to disclose misdeeds of a tribe that are being kept secret. Notable examples are Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. I had my own experience of being a whistleblower after the Challenger disaster. Rarely, if ever, does a whistleblower escape reprisals.

Tribes can be tremendously mean-spirited. The White Anglo-Saxon Protestant tribe—WASPSs—that runs the U.S. has historically set out to destroy other tribes. They attacked Native American tribes with the U.S. Army, confined them to reservations when they didn’t simply annihilate them, and kidnapped Native American children to send them to schools designed to turn them into whites.

Later, under “urban renewal,” the WASPs who controlled government destroyed ethnic areas in large cities like New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago—including Catholic, African-American, and Jewish neighborhoods. Their real estate lobbies also connived to eliminate low-cost housing coops.

The actions of American WASPs show that tribes are often genocidal. The phenomenon of one tribe enslaving or killing off another still goes on today and not only in less-developed countries. Just ask the Palestinians.

Tribes are also extraordinarily conservative. They stick to the habitual ways that have worked in the past. Change almost never comes from within. Change either is forced from outside or is an adaptation to outside conditions.

Tribes cannot reform themselves, as a rule. Those who try to reform a tribe lead lonely lives. Many are the reformers who die in obscurity with only their conscience to keep them company.

So why are people so caught up in tribal structures if they inflict so much misery and pain? The answer is simple. The predominant human emotion is fear. We participate in a tribe because we are hoping it will alleviate that fear. But we carry our fears with us. This makes us easy marks for manipulation by the tribes to which we belong.

TRIBALISM AND TRUTH

I am convinced that in today’s world, most tribes, as characterized here, are tempted, to a greater or lesser degree, to be doing the Devil’s work. By contrast, groups that join together on the basis of positive values have an opportunity of forming a genuine community. But to form and maintain a community requires dedication, commitment to service, self-sacrifice, and adherence to truth.

Jesus said, “The truth shall set you free.” Truth supports community and makes it possible. But truth is the enemy of tribalism.

Tribes hate the truth, because it might challenge their assumptions. A search for truth means a willingness to change. Tribes never want to change and never can change. Most just die out or are exterminated by other tribes.

What then is the antidote to tribalism, especially when those who break away may merely try to form their own alternative tribes?

Written constitutions were believed at one time to be a bulwark against tribalism—both top down from a ruling caste and bottom up from ignorant masses. Certainly the U.S. Constitution has provided some degree of protection against tribal tyranny, but, as noted previously, it is easy for factions to seize and hold power.

People have also thought that religion can protect against tribalism, though they all seem to end up with their own tribal hierarchies. This is especially the case where the religion is run by professional priests, the most highly structured being the Roman Catholic Church with its lifetime celibate clergy.

The question that is forgotten is whether the religious elite are any closer to achieving the aims of religion than simple believers, a question to which there is no unequivocal answer. While no one can doubt the right of an organized religion to define its belief system, this does not of itself make that religion more right—or give it more rights—than any other. And it doesn’t eliminate tribalism in its midst.

When religions that to outsiders appear more or less equivalent in their fundamentals fight or persecute each other, including Christians vs. Muslims or Jews vs. everyone else, it is clearly tribalism at work, not a search for right and wrong. When one is secure in one’s own beliefs, it is not necessary to attack others.

My own belief is that all the world’s religions are pretty much the same. This short essay is not the place to explain that belief in detail, so I will simply refer you to the writings of one of the world’s great geniuses, a man that Ralph Waldo Emerson saw as being on the same level as Plato; that person being Emmanuel Swedenborg (1653-1735).

Not only did Swedenborg (picture on the right) state that a sincere follower of any religion had an opportunity for salvation equal to any other, but he said he had paid many visits to Heaven and Hell where he saw that proposition proven.

Swedenborg was an independently wealthy scientist, not a churchman, though his father was a bishop in the Swedish Lutheran church, the same church that declared Swedenborg himself guilty of heresy for his teachings.

Swedenborg published numerous theological volumes anonymously in Latin. English translations began to appear in the 1780s, with Benjamin Franklin a subscriber to the first American edition. Among those influenced by Swedenborg were Robert Frost, Johnny Appleseed, William Blake, Jorge Luis Borges, Daniel Burnham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ralph Waldo Emerson, John Flaxman, George Inness, Henry James Sr., Carl Jung, Immanuel Kant, Honoré de Balzac, Helen Keller, Czesław Miłosz, August Strindberg, D. T. Suzuki, and William Butler Yeats.

Swedenborg’s main point of contention with the Christian churches was his belief that merely having faith in one’s salvation through belonging to and paying lip service to the doctrines of organized religion was not enough. Swedenborg actually believed what Jesus Christ taught:

that a man must repent of his sinful deeds and be reborn to a new way of life. He said, however, that if one does this, it is much easier than many people think to walk on the good path.

Swedenborg made clear that real religion means that I look at myself first before criticizing others. This is in contrast to the tribal fundamentalist who takes himself as being finished or completed because of the creed he espouses, the race he was born to, his social caste, or any other surface identifier he associates himself with.

Actually, there are thousands of attributes to which people can cling in order to make themselves appear “not as other men.” Not one of them means a thing when we look at life from a spiritual perspective.

Swedenborg said he received his mission through a visitation from Jesus himself. By implication, we can conclude that it is quite possible for a person to be a follower of a religion’s founder without belonging to a church or other organization claiming descent from that person.

At the same time, churches do exist that are based on Swedenborg’s ideas. See, for example, the website for the General Church of the New Jerusalem.

I personally have found many similarities between Swedenborg and the teachings of Native American prophets of the 18^th and 19^th centuries, who said they were taken to Heaven in trance and given teachings by a figure they called “the Master of Life.” These prophets have had a profound influence on modern Native American life.

Studying Swedenborg has helped me understand that spiritual practice, belief in God, efforts to lead a good life, and conviction that one’s true reward will come in the next world combine to give a person the courage and understanding to make a stand on the side of conscience when the tribe that expects one’s allegiance is demanding that one “go along to get along.”

As one writer on spirituality said,

“God and one person together make a majority,” no matter what compromises the tribe may be insisting on. I believe that to be true.

Please note that I am not saying that the existence in the world of a corrupt tribal consciousness explains everything; but I am saying that consideration of it can be a useful conceptual tool. It casts light on many things we fail to understand.

Above all it shows that warring tribes in possession of modern communication technology and weapons of mass destruction result in a peril unimaginable in past ages. For the ruling tribes to become even meaner, more dishonest, and more insular, as appears to be happening today, does not seem to provide the answer.

In fact I think it is fair to say that tribes today may destroy the world.

In this light the teachings of humanity’s great spiritual prophets gain a new urgency and may motivate us to ask what they were really talking about, as Swedenborg did.

This article is the fourth in a series. The next installment will take up the question of “Production and Profit.”

Richard C. Cook is a retired U.S. federal government analyst and the author of numerous articles for Global Research and other venues. He may be reached at [email protected].