Global Research

“I am the last President of France. All the next presidents will be accountants,” François Mitterrand once said.

But he would not have been able to imagine the unexpected, tortuous routes that History, or those in need of accountants, would have chosen  to approach their goal.

Perhaps not even a Machiavelli could have imagined them. It would have taken the perverse genius of a Joseph Fouché.

The unthinkable, which they have been preparing for so long, may now be about to happen. Foreshadowing, like so much else that is now occurring, an era of major global shocks…

In France, the country of Voltaire and Robespierre, of the French Revolution and the Commune, of Charles De Gaulle and Jean-Paul Sartre, in France, the daughter of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, the mother of modern Europe and its culture, or whatever remains of it, Marine Le Pen, today’s – admittedly mutated but nevertheless authentic – descendant of a political current with its origins in the disgrace for France that was the regime of Vichy.

But the founder of the National Front, Jean-Marie Le Pen, is not laughing as he sees the movement he himself created coming so close to power. Nor even that his own offspring, for whom he paved the way, could be about to become the President of the Fifth Republic.

Jean-Marie Le Pen is weeping bitter tears.

An abyss separates the present writer’s ideas from his. But in the day that is dawning it is not only the distinctions of Left and Right, of Communist and Fascist, of atheist and believer, of Christian and Muslim, that are significant. It is also of great importance whether an individual belongs to those who have some kind of identity, ideology, religion, ethics or those who have none: the homines oeconomici,  the creatures of putty, the contemporary Fausts who would sell their soul if they had one.

It is in the unusual, the rare, that the information is to be found, was the belief of  Shannon, inventor of the homonymous theory. What is it that Jean-Marie knows or understands that we possibly do not?

Pourquoi Pas?

The National Front has its origins, totally or partially, in the Vichy regime. This, for Marine, is one of the facts she cannot get away from, however hard her “strategist” Philippot tries to sever every link with the Front’s past, whether it be Vichy, the torture of militants, in the attempt to keep Algeria as a French colony, something that cost  hundreds of thousands of Algerian lives and brought their country to ruin.

The Ancient Greeks taught us the meaning of Truth (Alitheia) through the way they constructed the term to describe it, which in Greek means No Lethe, no oblivion. Important things are not to be forgotten…

The Vichy regime was imposed by the Nazi boot and was made possible by the vote of the majority of the elected members of the National Assembly, in the casino of this spa town, in 1940, long before we arrive at today’s “casino-economy” and “casino-politics”.

“No, this is a coup”, said General de Gaulle and he fought it, along with his Free French. He fought it, along with the maquis, with Greeks, Serbs, Britons, the fighters of Moscow, of Leningrad, of Stalingrad until, having paid a terrible price, the Soviets and their Red Army raised their flag over the Reichstag.

At that time France retained the memory of the decapitation of its kings. De Gaulle put on trial the leaders of Vichy, the World War I hero Marshal Petain and his prime minister Laval, whom the judges in their turn sent to the firing squad. They executed Laval to enable France and its Republic to live. France won the right to sit at the table of the victors of the Second World War and to become one of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

Now, in a way, Vichy has made its comeback. Not praising itself, not defending itself, half-condemning itself, depositing wreaths at the grave of de Gaulle, even trying, more or less ostentatiously, to claim the legacy of Napoleon himself. This is particularly true of Marion Lepen, the family’s youngest and very beautiful political star.

How is it possible that History (or its would-be proprietors) could have made possible such an amazing turnabout?

The suicide of the Socialists and of the Gaullists.

Much water has flowed in the Seine to get us where we are now. The three major post-war political families of France, the Right, the Communists and the Socialists (not to put on the list the Trotskyists also, who never became a large organized political force but nevertheless played a very important role) gradually, through the choices they made, cancelled out key elements of their own identity and raison d’être.

I remember, as a young student in France in the 1980s, seeing Jean-Marie bantering on television, accusing everybody of stealing his ideas: socialists taking Atlanticism, the Right-wing liberalism, Communists his immigration policy (a Communist mayor had just sent in bulldozers to demolish immigrant shacks).

He was not entirely wrong, though the most he was really able to do was to highlight their contradictions. The reason they were appropriating some of Le Pen’s ideas was that they were increasingly retreating under the pressure of capital (and the Americans). For decades, both Socialists and the Right did just what they were asked to do. By the end of this process, politicians had been transformed into employees. They had lost  their usefulness, both for those who voted for them and those who utilized them.

Liberalism and Atlanticism

Mitterrand’s leftist experiment with the economy lasted a year before the Socialists changed their course entirely and began to implement in exemplary fashion the most orthodox liberal management of the French economy, exactly what “the markets” wanted.

The Socialists pursued pro-American policies, in contrast to Gaullists, and very typical for European social democracy. It was not until he felt his own end approaching that François Mitterand confessed “we are at war with America, but the French do not know this.’’ They do not know because no-one has told them.

Up to the time of Jacques Chirac and Dominique de Villepin, who took sides with Schroeder and Putin against the war in Iraq, Gaullism retained at least some of its independent reflexes. In 2003 Chirac’s Prime Minister Villepin became the mouthpiece of all the civilized world, denouncing before the Security Council like a latter-day Demosthenes the proposed US-British invasion of Iraq.

But not long after this they appeared to have taken fright at their own courage, perhaps subjected to huge pressures and blackmail, which they lacked the courage of a De Gaulle to resist. They hastened to bury, with even greater alacrity than the way they had announced it, every plan of truly independent European defence. For the rest of his term Chirac dispatched a special envoy to Washington, every week, to avoid any new “misunderstanding”.

Shortly before the end of his term, deeply disillusioned by Sarkozy winning the race to succeed him, he invited representatives of four international newspapers to his presidential Palace to warn of the terrible dangers of a war against Iran. They presented him as someone who had become unhinged.

As for Villepin, by the end of Chirac’s term in office he had already fallen. Not for what he had said in the Security Council but for failing to understand that Gaullism and neoliberalism are incompatible. He provoked a real social uprising in 2006 and was helped to fall through a collegial shove from behind by Sarkozy.

De Gaulle himself understood much earlier the contradiction between Capital and the Nation. Having defeated the revolution of May ’68, he tried to introduce profound changes in the administration of enterprises. The French bourgeoisie concluded that the General had lost his marbles, and overthrew him.

Now we have the lamentable Mr. Fillon, who launched his election campaign with announcements of layoffs, shooting himself in the legs.

From politicians to employees, from employees to actors (The global rise of Finance)

At this point, before proceeding with our examination of the French situation, we deem it useful to include some more general thoughts on international developments, above and beyond events in France. The hope is that this will help us to gain better understanding of what is happening in that country. Readers can choose to continue reading this section, or else skip it.

With the passage of time quantitative change became qualitative change. At first the political forces merely compromised with the powerful, that is to say with unbridled financial  capital. By the end of the process they had become its employees.

Their very nature underwent alteration, imperceptibly, by virtue of their choices and the dramatic increase in the global power  of financial capital,  which went from being a strong component of the system to being the system itself!

Finance has now become a kind of superpower, without acquiring the conventional characteristics of states in the older sense. It has simply bought almost everybody, including political elites, “intellectuals”, media, both mainstream and alternative, information and cultural production, the discoveries of science and technology.

It does not send planes and missiles to impose its will. It sends “the markets”, and also sends the appropriate signals to friends and rivals, to deceive them and set them on the course it wants them to take, in a world where economic power has become more important than military power, intellectual more important than economic. “How many divisions has the Vatican?” Stalin once asked sarcastically. The Vatican is still in its place whereas Stalin’s once so seemingly powerful state has disappeared.

Since the collapse of the USSR, Finance has had less need of states, even the USA. It subordinates them to its logic. It does not comply with theirs. Freed from any restrictions, having abolished the distinction between investment and savings banks, it finds now new ways to reproduce itself through the derivatives industry. Through debt it forces exponential increases in the demands it makes on people, societies and nations. In European integration it has found the instrument par excellence for institutionalization of its domination.

Finance acquires, because it is able to buy, unprecedented means for controlling humans, beginning from our DNA  and moving up to our thoughts and feelings, which are produced by armies of researchers at major universities and research centres, every day, every month, every year, without any social control or regulation. This has been going on since World War II and its aftermath.

In 2011 one of the rating agencies warned the US government and the Congress that they would have their credit rating downgraded if a compromise were not found on the budget. The warning was also the clearest of indications of the correlation of forces between Finance and the strongest state on earth. The assets of the world’s ten largest financial institutions is approximately equal to the total sovereign debt of all nations.

The most stunning of the latest revelations by Assange is not the way in which we are being monitored in our homes.  It is the ease with which these methods were channeled by the CIA to individuals. In Israel there are accusations that millionaires have tried to buy entire arrays of functions from Mossad, one of the best secret services in the world because it has a strong ideological core. In the end Finance will even be able to buy itself because almost everything and everyone can be bought. Turned into property they cease to perform the functions they once performed. Exactly the same as occurs with cancer cells.

It is noteworthy that the exponential increase in the indirect political and social role of Finance has become a source of great confusion (and misapprehension) in so far as our brains are accustomed to analyzing a world where they players are visible states and major powers. We are used to looking upon them, not the powers that may be using them, as the subjects of history.

At the time of the collapse of the USSR, a columnist with the Financial Times suggested that we should go from citizens’ democracy to the democracy of enterprises. Easier said than done. Finance is not legitimized as power is. It must mislead in order to be able to govern. Its power also must remain invisible so as not to be put at risk.

To the same extent that it is freeing itself from any restraint from state or society and losing its last productive functions, finance is turning into a kind of cancer, transforming neoliberalism into a slave economy and “disaster capitalism” (e.g. Greece), transforming the classic imperialism of conquest, control and containment into an imperialism for demolishing peoples and countries (the Arab/Muslim world), and capitalism into a variety of post-modern feudalism.

The program of cancer is death and death has not yet acquired the capacity to be a political program. In order to achieve its aims, a policy of death must hide them. It must, as happens with autoimmune diseases, turn the same cells of the organism that are responsible for its defence against the organism itself. Because we want to live and because we know we are going to die, we need hope and meaning. So, deception, inversion of truth and reality, the use of identities against their real meaning (e.g. socialists destroying societies, nationalists destroying nations) tend to become the dominant political practices and methods. At least until or unless we get to the point described by Kafka in The Trial where we seek our own death as salvation…

This is why in our world we usually have to invert the words of a politician to discover what he is really trying to achieve. As we do with the impressions that the mainstream and alternative media and the  public opinion pollsters are seeking to create.

In this new world information is not what is said. It is what is not said. It is expressed not in the visible, in the Presence, but in the unseen, in the Absence.

Perhaps it is because it is some time since Mr. Barroso submitted to the test of an election, perhaps it was merely from stupidity, that he allowed himself to say: “We all know that the next generations will live worse lives than the present generation.” It is  not possible to win elections saying such things.

Neoconservatives invoke the realism of Hobbes to justify the wars they started in the Middle East. But in fact they are trying to use the philosopher’s “realism” to disown his own objectives. It is not the naivety in the Kantian vision of Perpetual Peace that bothers them but the vision of peace itself. As for Soros, History will deny him the title of philosopher, not because he lacks the intellectual capacity of his teacher Karl Popper but because his financial practices belie the motivations underlying the work of the Open Society’s prophet.

What all of them try to hide behind their analyses is the real moral choice behind their actions and their ideas. They prefer greed to generosity and the god of War to the god of Love. It is as simple as that. They present their choice as the only realistic one. In fact they are writing a requiem for humans and for life in general.

Clashes between civilizations were prophesized (or prepared) by Huntington, and even conflicts between Hispanics and “whites” in the US, long before Trump announced the plan for his wall. Democracy has no future, said Huntington, because of the physical limits to growth. Of course he was not able to come up with anything better than the spectacular explosion of inequalities and the virtual reintroduction of slavery, the transformation of human beings into nomadic animals like the refugees from Afghanistan, Syria, Africa (or the refugee scientists from southern Europe who leave their countries by air) to solve the problem. The Exxon of Mr. Tillerson, who dreams of melting the Arctic ice, striking a perhaps fatal blow to life, is symbolic of the logic to be found behind the chaos. They would like to induce us to come of our own accord to them, the people that have caused the problem, and ask them to establish a dictatorship, so gaining ourselves a temporary reprieve and saving our skins, albeit as slaves.

Three clarifying examples (Perestroika, Middle East, Greece)

The collapse of the USSR provides us with an example of great importance for understanding how these new forces are acting. There were of course very serious problems affecting this state; otherwise it would not have collapsed. Still, this was a necessary, not sufficient, condition. The USSR was not defeated by foreign with intervention in 1919 and 1941, or by the military pressure of NATO. It did not collapse because of a revolution. It collapsed through the actions of its own leadership, who committed a kind of (guided) suicide.

The USSR did not collapse beneath the “hard power”  of foreign armies, nor  even the “soft” power of advanced capitalism, but rather the “smart power” of its rivals.

It happened because the Soviet reformers had been persuaded that their enemies had become friends, and they entrusted them with the production of much of their own reform agenda, an action which by itself transformed the USSR into an object. The ideology of perestroika was developed at Michigan State University. The best informed analysts attribute the architecture of glasnost to George Soros. The West seems to have cooperated with a faction of the Soviet leadership to send Matthias Rust to land unhindered in Red Square, thus offering Gorbachev the perfect pretext to decapitate his own army (as Stalin did in the ‘30s with the help of German Nazi secret services). In the end, the Soviet regime became the first in history to be brought down by its own television, having lost its desire to survive.

President Bush in autumn 1991 even said, commenting on events in Ukraine, that he rather favoured maintaining the USSR, so as not to interfere in the slightest with the process of Soviet suicide. He probably knew by that time that he would be receiving a phone call some weeks later from Boris Yeltsin announcing that the Russian president had taken the initiative to dissolve the Union.

Ten years after Huntington a series of wars began in the Middle East. The United States is accused of starting them but it is doubtful to say the least that these wars were really in the national interest of the USA. The strategic decision to launch them was not taken by the American state. It was taken by the forces that created a range of neocon lobbies and took control of the American state, in the process even bypassing what had been that state’s established mode of functioning.

It is not difficult to discern the influence also of the “Empire of Finance” in the strategic decisions taken by both the German and the Greek governments after 2010, shaping not only the way the EU has responded to the financial crisis of 2009-10 but also determining the very future of the European project. One of the architects of the Euro, Otmar Issing, is the main German authority on monetary policy. In the spring of 2010 he was also one of the fiercest protagonists of the line “Not one euro to the Greeks”, as he wrote in Financial Times Deutschland (10.3.2010). What he omitted to say in his article is that he was also a paid advisor to Goldman Sachs Europe, the bank that contributed heavily to creating the Greek debt bubble in 2000-01 and then organized,  in alliance with the German government, the attack by “the markets” against Greece, while being paid for its services by the government of the victim of the attack.

Is it a German project or a World Finance project that Mr. Schäuble has implemented against Greece, dealing a very serious blow to German political capital and the EU itself?

Perhaps it is time to heed the advice of Plato in his Republic and find the strength to see and face the real reality of our world.

From Sarkozy to Hollande

In every country taxi drivers are one of the best sources for a journalist trying to understand what is happening. In Paris in 2007 one of them told me,

“But Monsieur, is it serious? We voted “No” in the referendum (on the European constitutional treaty). Now, six candidates of “No” have presented themselves for the presidential elections, to ensure a “Yes” President will win”.

Sarkozy won finally. The rejected Treaty was ratified as the Treaty of Lisbon by the National Assembly, without any new referendum.

Before the election Sarkozy had laid wreaths at the grave of de Gaulle, perhaps fearing that the General would wake up and hunt him down. Once elected, Sarkozy got France back into NATO. He did what he could to destroy the last remnants of the social democratic historic compromise of the Communist and Gaullist resistance. He also reversed the entire Middle Eastern policy of France, spearheading the destruction of Libya, on behalf of those who had used the neocons to destroy Iraq.

Hollande won the next election, declaring that his real adversary is Finance (not even  Robespierre had said such things). Once elected, he appointed Rothschild’s banker Macron to his ministry. His economic policy was tantamount to the suicide of the Socialist Party.

Macron sent Hollande into retirement and is now the presidential candidate who, on current  indications, barring surprises, will confront Le Pen.

Both Socialists and “Gaullists”, in the absence of any other credible alternative, opened wide the gate for Le Pen to become the chief expression of popular discontent, painting them with the colours of the French tricolor, channeling it into an amorphous opposition to the EU without any serious proposal for the future of Europe and with a slightly disguised but essentially pro-war preference for the Middle East.

Marine’s weapons

Marine won an important recruit: Florian Philippot. Formerly right-hand man to Jean-Pierre Chevènement, leader of the left wing of the Socialists and of the “souverainistes”, Philippot became Marine’s chief strategist, just as Steve Bannon became chief strategist to Donald Trump. Le Pen is said to take almost no decision without asking Philippot.

Philippot has put at the service of the French extreme right the weapons and the rhetorical flair of the French left, imitating its Cartesian methodology. He is no Jaurès, but he does not need to be in so far as he is playing without an opponent. Impressions overwhelmingly favour him when he is competing on television with the modified mutants of postpolitics who string together commonplaces and appear to have no more resistance to the extra-institutional factors than butter has to a knife.

Philippot has another achievement to his name. A homosexual himself, he has solemnly reconciled the enemies of “permissiveness” with the mighty “LGBT community”. The political strategy of Le Pen is masterly. She has managed to have a homosexual as her chief advisor at the same as the former communist fathers and grandfathers are pushing their children and grandchildren in the direction of the National Front so as to get away from, or wage war against, the “homosexuals” of the Left! So Madame Lepen now embodies macho, tough-minded politics, friendly acceptance of homosexuals and the image of being a dynamic woman. No mean feat!

Le Pen also managed,  in spite of being the representative of France’s only notable anti-Semitic current, to become, like the vast majority of far right-wing movements in Europe, a good friend of both Jews and Israel. This is a phenomenon that requires serious analysis, not least from Jews themselves.

Needless to say, all this would be impossible if critical thinking had not long since been suppressed by various means, including control of universities, mass media, “intellectuals”, the main method being that of buying them off in one way or another. Of course formal freedom of speech still exists in France, but not the real possibility of any critical thinking, in the European country which par excellence, pioneered it and was proud of it. While war was raging in Algeria and de Gaulle’s advisors were urging him to apprehend the Communist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, supporter of the Algerian rebels (who were being tortured at that time by Marine Le Pen’s father) De Gaulle replied: “One does not arrest Voltaire”.

Of course imprisonment and censorship are part of an outdated methodology. The decision makers are confident today that through the noise of virtual news and analysis they can now drown out everything worth hearing.

During the Cold War Le Monde published the texts of Alexander Solzhenitsyn as a means of promoting anti-Soviet propaganda. Today, parodying itself, it publishes front page articles by oligarchs such as Khodorkovsky, to discredit Putin!

Marine’s tactical maneuvering provokes reactions within the National Front, which has its own purists. They have repeatedly gone to find her in order to protest. She listens to them and tries to reassure them: “we are doing this in order to win power, and then we will see how our ideas might be implemented”. The reassurance apparently fails to convince but the prospect of power and the amorphous character of the National Front – indeed of all modern parties now that one mentions it, which in many ways no longer resemble the political parties of the past – are enough to reduce the opposition to silence.

France is the country of Revolution. Through whitewashing its image, as much as possible, and expunging both her own personal past and that of the National Front, raising the banner of struggle against globalization, Madame Lepen has succeeded to a significant extent in harnessing the popular resentment that the Left has been unable or unwilling to express.

She has brought together two fundamental identities of France: the Nation and the Revolution. She has even been able to co-opt, through her own undeniable talent and the Leftist contributions of M. Philippot, the old and strong underlying currents of France’s socialist popular culture.

With her claim to represent the Nation, the Revolution and the People, Marine Le Pen is now entering the final straight.

The golden gift of the Banker to Mme Lepen

The armoury of weapons listed above may or may not be sufficient for the purpose. Who can tell?

There is another weapon, so far unmentioned, and that is her opponent.

Through his decision to stand for election, M.  Emmanuel Macron, a Rothschild banker, provides the ultimate proof, if the French still need proof, that Lepen, as the opposite of Macron, is the candidate to support.

It is only against the hated symbol of the bank of the banks (and also of the EU and globalization) that Marine Le Pen stands some chance of prevailing.

And Macron too can win only against a Far Right candidate!

In all casinos, including the casino of Vichy, the casinos of Trump, the economy casino and the politics casino, there is a fundamental law. The casino wins in every game.

In the case of the French presidential elections, it seems that the French people are invited to choose between Globalization and the Nation.

But their real choice appears to be between two alternative models of financial domination of French state power.

If Le Pen wins, Capital will seek through her to replace the now prevalent model of domination with another one, or least modify the “globalist” model that is now  dominant. If it fails to accomplish that, the extreme right will relegitimize the existing globalist model.

But the cards are marked and Le Pen can collude with the dealer. It is much easier for her to address France’s popular strata, whereas M. Macron’s constituency is confined to the politico-ideologically limited and socially depressed base of “bobos”, the bourgeois bohemian urban middle classes.

Nothing is left to chance. One day Fillon criticized the bankers gathering in Switzerland for decisions to the detriment of French and German banks and the next day went to Germany and said that the sanctions against Russia should be lifted, proposing what amounted to a political axis between France, Germany and Russia!

Immediately the Canard Enchaîné discovered problems between him and his wife. It was nothing to write home about, but it became a grand and terrible scandal from the way it was presented by the oligarchic pro-Macron media.

All things being equal, this will mean exclusion of Fillon in the first round, taking Macron into the second and conceivably ensuring Le Pen’s victory. In the second round a minority of Fillon voters will vote Macron in order to defeat Le Pen, but the temptation will be great to vote for Le Pen as punishment for the forces that excluded Fillon.

For over a year now the big French media have been helping Marine, without directly supporting her, which it would be naïve to do. They do it by framing discussion of the presidential elections as a discussion about who will be in best position to confront Le Pen in the second round. They thus appear to take it for granted that she will be among the winners of the first round. And by leading people to believe that she is more or less unacceptable to them, they encourage the French popular classes to believe she is their friend.

The possibility cannot of course be excluded that all the above represent the workings of chance. We have no proof that what is involved is implementation of a project…

But if it is indeed God that is behind this scenario, He is evidently keeping all options covered. He also seems to be less than a reliable friend to the bankers, who may have been foolish to stand one of their own against the radical Madame.

Huntington against Fukuyama

Could it be that Marine Le Pen is a reincarnation of Joan of Arc? In any case her slogans against globalization seem to be more or less of the same calibre as those of the outgoing president Hollande-Robespierre (or perhaps Hollande-Babeuf), against Finance. By the way, it was Fouché who promoted Babeuf in his campaign, and made use of it, before sending him to the guillotine.

She is most probably the mask Finance believes it must wear, at least in the case of the most radical of its parties, which, perceiving that the survival of globalization is in no way guaranteed, have devised the medicine for the disease they themselves provoked. They resemble the industrialist who, seeing demand for his old products shrinking, decides to launch new ones.

It is now quite possible that the French, thinking they must choose between Nation and Globalization, will choose one of two forms of domination of Finance.

One of these forms draws inspiration from the ideas of Fukuyama, the faded dream of benign globalization, the mixing together of nations in the cauldron of neoliberal politics and Ipad culture.

The other is inspired by the ideas of Huntington and the clash of civilizations. Not the merging of traditions but organization of the division and conflict between nations, using one against the other as in the old Roman custom of Divide et Impera, through violent demolition of entire countries and nations in continuous war and chaos…

The difference between the first and the second reflects differing assessments of the balance of power between the parties.

On the way to becoming an empire, Rome lost its own republic. The repercussions of its civil wars were felt all over the known world of that time.

The same is occurring today with the two wings struggling for predominance in the very centre of Imperial Power. That is the meaning of the ferocious struggles between Obama and Merkel for instance, on one side, and Netanyahu and Trump on the other. And who can know what is happening on the Olympus of finance, between the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds?

The Crisis of Globalisation

With their vote against the European Constitutional Treaty in the 2005 referendum, French citizens overthrew the ideological domination of “Euroliberalism” in their country, delegitimizing the Maastricht Europe, symbol of the new globalized world run by Finance.

The collapse of Lehman Brothers in  2008 exposed the economic impasse of neoliberalism, inaugurating the third similarly profound crisis in the history of capitalism, following those of 1860-70 and 1929. We are still very much within the environment of the 2008 crisis.

The crisis of 1860-70 led to the First World War and the October Revolution. The crisis of 1929 led to the reorganization of America by Roosevelt, to Hitler, to the Second World War, to the Chinese and anti-colonial revolutions. This is the scale and intensity of the events we can expect and which, in reality, have begun to unfold.

The European Left failed miserably to respond to the challenges of 2005 and 2008. It does not have a satisfactory plan for the reorganization of Europe, nor the determination to implement any such plan.  It is conservative, not radical. It is permanently in error in the way it engages the question of the nation. It remains committed to the national framework in which its parties operate, incapable of constituting even a rudimentary European political subject.

US society tried with Sanders to give a first answer to the 2008 crisis, but it has not succeeded for the time being.

Nature abhors a vacuum. The solutions that societies cannot provide are now being proposed by a part of the Establishment itself, employing revolutionary slogans to implement domestic and international counter-revolutionary tasks. There is nothing original in the method. It was used by German National Socialists and Italian Fascists before the war, for all the important differences between them and contemporary far right radicals of the Le Pen or Trump type…

Why Le Pen and Bannon need Islam

A few days before the regional elections in France in 2015, ISIS with its Bataclan attack, performed Le Pen a great service.

“We must confront the new totalitarianism,” Le Pen proclaims. But do not imagine that the reference is to the banks.  No, “totalitarianism” means the jihadists. The same is taking place in the USA. Prior to his election Trump was accusing Clinton of being in the service of Goldman Sachs and of starting, or wanting to start, wars. After his election what did he do? He appointed Goldman Sachs to rule the United States directly, without being obliged to enlist the services of its corrupt political class. Then he issued a decree banning the citizens of a number of Muslim states from entering the USA. Those states were not the states from which the terrorists originated. They were the states included in the list of states to be demolished, drawn up by the Neocons in 2000.

Listening to what many politicians and media say about Islam nowadays, one could get the impression of living at the time of the fall of Constantinople, the battle of Poitiers or the siege of Vienna. One could end up believing that it was not the West that flattened with missiles, bombers and mercenaries, around a dozen countries of the Arab and Muslim world. What is happening is that the Arabs are bombing Europe, and sending new Crusaders in the form of refugees, who drown, along with their children, apparently because they like taking risks, not because their homes are being bombed and destroyed.

Once again, it is masterly. The globalists propose, as a solution to the problem created by Western military policies and IMF world-wide practices, that we should welcome in our countries as many of the displaced populations as possible.

The adepts of Soros and Fukuyama who abet these scenarios are paving the way for Trump, Le Pen and Huntington, offering them the needed enemy, to be exploited both domestically and internationally.

They are preparing the ground for wars inside Western countries, a considerable proportion of whose population is of Muslim descent, and at the same time a new war or wars in the Middle East. They are using the situation not so much to fight against ISIS, which is first and foremost  the creature of the secret services of the USA and its allies, but to curtail political rights and freedoms of the popular classes in the West, making it easier to attack their social gains and employing the Islamic threat to fuel its aggressive agenda in the Middle East.

Speaking three years ago to his “radical right” friends in the Vatican, Trump’s chief of staff Steve Bannon outlined with disarming clarity his international agenda of uniting Christians and Jews against “radical Islam” (**)

A fake friendship with Russia

Bannon also said some other very interesting things. A former employee of Goldman Sachs, he appeared to want to represent healthy against corrupted capitalism, in which Russia and China were also included, thus indirectly but cleared treated as enemies. Russia may not be first priority for the list of enemies, because Bannon’s own President at times styles himself a friend of Putin. Nevertheless, though a colleague of Milo Giannopoulos, Bannon does not seem opposed to the idea of an alliance with the Russians on the basis of “conservative values”.

Mr. Bannon also proved in another way, indirectly but very clearly, in the same speech, that he considers Russia to be an enemy. He presents the 2nd World War as primarily a victory of capitalism, which, as he says, helped the Soviets to survive, completely ignoring the fact that this victory was achieved by the sacrifice of more than twenty million Soviet people. In his description there were only Poles, Italians and Englishmen among the Europeans fighting Nazis. No mention is made of the two nations that put up by far the fiercest resistance to Hitler and Mussolini: the Greeks and the Serbs.

Bannon is courting ridicule when he claims that the 2^nd World War, a war to a large extent between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, was a war between Christians and atheists! But the reasons he has for courting the ridicule are not ridiculous.

Distorting the past, he also revealed the future he wants. The Middle East is important not only for what it is, or for its oil, but because it is a privileged space for the exercise of Imperial Power. The defeat of Arabs and Muslims sends a powerful signal to the whole planet, and in particular countries such as Russia, China and India, and even to Europe.

The future of Europe

Le Pen is not wrong in her many criticisms of the European Union and the Euro. The problem is not the criticism but the answers to the question of what might replace the existing European order.

It is already clear to a large percentage of the European population that the existing European Union is an unacceptable structure. What is not clear is what the possible alternatives might be. The fact that it is unacceptable and in urgent need of reform does not mean that by destroying it one will be left with a better and not a worse European order.

Is the dissolution of Europe into a galaxy of small and medium states, competing among themselves to acquire a part of a shrinking global demand, the best way to ameliorate the situation in the continent?

Is it a way to achieve national independence or a way to justify even bigger attacks against the social welfare state, or what it remains of it, in Europe?

Will European societies, states and nations  be stronger or weaker as a result, as they face the colossal power that has been accumulated by international Finance? Will they be more or less dependent?

An important Russian intellectual and advisor to President Vladimir Putin, Sergey Glazyev, rightly explains that the two World Wars were in their way European civil wars.

The division of continental Europe has always been the prime weapon of outside forces that sought to dominate the continent by taking advantage of its contradictions. The aims of the British were to defeat France. The aims of the Americans were to subjugate the continent. They supported European integration only in so far as it sealed the division between the East and West of the continent and the domination of its western part by the USA.

Their absolute headache would have been the realization of De Gaulle’s dream of a Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, or from Ireland to Vladivostok, if you prefer.

Only the creation of such a Europe can provide a basis for resisting the catastrophic ecological, socio-economic and geopolitical trends dominating our world.

This is the great responsibility of the forces that insist on being called leftist, social, ecological, or pacifist. Do they have a vision for Europe and the world? Do they have a strategy and the determination to face a challenge as great as the one that is objectively placed before mankind? Do they have the necessary independence and the courage to fight against the power of Finance? Or do they represent the light of a star that died, ushering in a long night in the history of mankind, a world that, in the glow of its technological achievements, nevertheless remains more prehistoric and barbaric than ever?

Will other alternative centres besides the West, usually conservative in their psychology but obliged to resist, be able to develop the radicalism that is required of them by such a radical objective situation?  Will they be able to solve their own internal problems by proposing ideas of a more general nature for the solution of humanity’s problems?

We cannot answer this question for the time being.

Fake Radicalism

Both Trump and Le Pen are similar in many ways to pre-war totalitarian movements. But there are also significant differences…

In his poem about Greece and Europe, Günter Grass noticed that Hitler’s soldiers sent to occupy the Acropolis of Athens had the poems of Hölderlin in their haversacks.

Schäuble cannot be compared to Hitler, whatever the catastrophes both have inflicted on the Greek people. Nobody can imagine Hitler implementing the prescriptions of Goldman Sachs and Otmar Issing, while pretending to be a German nationalist.

When Noam Chomsky was asked in an interview whether Trump can be compared with Hitler, he answered that there is a big difference. Hitler and his companions really believed in their ideas, they did not just pretend to believe them.

Those who are using their enormous power and influence to create fake subjects risk discovering in the end that they cannot use them the way they might use real ones.

Dimitris Konstantakopoulos is a journalist and a writer.

Notes

(**) http://www.defenddemocracy.press/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world/

A reader of this blog has spotted a second figure carrying a walkie-talkie in footage from the alleged 26 August 2013 incendiary attack reported by the BBC.

The white-clad male appears from 3 to 6 seconds in this video, striding in the direction of the school in Urm Al-Kubra, Aleppo allegedly struck by an incendiary bomb dropped by a Syrian fighter jet. The ambulance in shot is transporting a female alleged victim of the attack to nearby Atareb Hospital.[1]

The same man is glimpsed later in the same video among a group of men standing outside Atareb Hospital.

Another figure using a walkie-talkie appeared in the BBC Panorama programme Saving Syria’s Children, broadcast on 30 September 2013. In other sequences filmed by the BBC at Atareb Hospital this man can be seen carrying a camera. The editor of Saving Syria’s Children, Tom Giles, has stated that he has “no idea” who this man is.

 

In other video shot at Atareb Hospital on the same day a male wearing a microphone headset is briefly glimpsed. His military attire is of a piece with that of the two men who accompany the female alleged victim referred to above from Urm Al-Kubra to Atareb.

Who are these three men? Who were they in communication with? What was their role in the alleged events of 26 August 2013? 

Update: I have received the following observation regarding the style of dress (Shalwar Kameez) of the first man pictured above:

NOTES

[1] As discussed here, while the woman boards the ambulance by its stepped side entrance calmly and unaided, upon her arrival at Atareb Hospital 13km away she is filmed by the BBC being stretchered out of the tailgate by five men (two of whom were aware that she had required no assistance just a short time earlier), apparently screaming in agony.

 

Cameroon Government Facing Growing Unrest

By Abayomi Azikiwe, April 04, 2017

These labor problems which began in the two former British colonial provinces of the country have now spread to the eight French-speaking areas. A march and rally in the capital of Yaounde on March 28 outside the Ministry of Finance involved hundreds of primary and secondary teachers many of whom were carrying placards saying “no pay, no work.”

News Alert: Simultaneous Terror Attacks in St Petersburg and against Russian Embassy in Damascus?

By Global Research News, April 03, 2017

It is worth noting that this attack occurred less than an hour after an attempted terrorist attack against the Russian Embassy in Damascus at 14.00 (contradictory report yet to be confirmed) (Damascus and Moscow are on the same time zone).

Ecuador’s Progressive Candidate Lenin Moreno Defeats Banker in Presidential Election

By Telesur, April 03, 2017

As Rafael Correa departs after 10 years of consecutive rule and a number of social gains made under the Citizens’ Revolution, the victory for Lenin is seen as key not only for Ecuador but for the wider Latin American region. Ecuador will remain a part of the pink tide that has swept the region in the past two decades, not following the right-wing shift that took place in 2016 in Argentina and Brazil.

The Spoils of War: Afghanistan’s Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 01, 2017

The profits are largely reaped at the level of the international wholesale and retail markets of heroin as well as in the process of money laundering in Western banking institutions.

The revenues derived from the global trade in heroin constitute a multibillion dollar bonanza for financial institutions and organized crime.

“Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

By Israel Shahak, April 01, 2017

Greater Israel would create a number of proxy States. It would include parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai, as well as parts of  Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia has funneled ample funds to the wars before and after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. This country remained to be a major instigator of the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan rather by rolling in millions of dollars.

In the wake of occupation of Afghanistan by U.S. and NATO, many world countries sprang into assisting the war-plagued nation somehow, whether in reconstruction area or military, but Saudi Arabia unlike before 2001 when it stepped in to support Jihadists and later Taliban who ruled the country in an oppressive manner, abruptly disappeared from the ground and has ever since not taken an apparently humanitarian or friendly turn to Afghanistan.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan along with United Arab Emirates were only states that recognized the repressive regime of the Taliban who operated strikingly against human rights.

Saudi Arabia largely financed Mujahideen’s so-called sacred war against Soviet forces in 1980s and thereafter still continued to pour in funds for a ruthless Mujahideen armed infighting in Kabul that claimed 65,000 lives and forced millions to flee to neighboring or Western countries. All this financial aid to Mujahideen and later under U.S. occupation to terrorists [Taliban…] was and is still channeled via Pakistan, a dearest to Washington and Riyadh.

Former director of Pakistani ISI’s Afghan bureau Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf says,

“If one dollar comes from the U.S., the other is received from Saudi Arabia”.

This assortment of funds amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars a year in 1980s was transferred by CIA to special ISI-owned accounts in Pakistan. According to brigadier Yousuf’s accounts, the money provided by Saudi Arabia was quite a lot than that of CIA’s. Saudi princes and Sheikhs, apart from the mainstream funds, would generously offer hefty cashes to various ideal and intimate Jihadists.

All this cash flow was, in hyped words, meant for a “holy Jihad” against alleged Soviet occupation, a war fed by battle cry of beating the “infidels”, even as it was in no apparent reason for Saudi’s Islamic duty or as compassion for Afghan Mujahideens. But we also have to admit that Saudi Arabia has not been in a position to extract enormous profits from wars in Afghanistan or the Middle East and its funding is just part of alliance with the West. Saudi Arabia is well involved in the West’s war games, and denial of its order or a minor retreat in a process could lead to a backfire.

In 2003, Saudi Arabia rejected to support the U.S. and its allies in the invasion of Iraq. In the aftermath, terrorist activity within Saudi Arabia increased dramatically in 2003, with the Riyadh compound bombing and other attacks.

It has to be noted that some Saudi princes dislike the U.S. and NATO presence in Afghanistan, because Saudi Arabia as well as Pakistan as recognizers of the Taliban and Mujahideens had sought broad stakes in Afghanistan before the U.S. occupation and didn’t imagine a collapse of the Taliban regime.

Even so, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are products of Saudi Arabia. The intelligence agency of Saudi Arabia hired and sent Osama Bin Laden as mercenary to Pakistan at the behest of the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI. This is substantiated with Osama’s own remarks, as saying:

“I was appointed by Saudis as representative in Afghanistan to fight (infidel) Russians. I was placed in Pakistan’s border regions with Afghanistan and welcomed volunteers arriving from Saudi Arabia and other countries. I set up my first training camp close to sites where Pakistani officers were training volunteers. Arms were provided by the U.S. and funds by Saudi Arabia”.

Former late prime minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto once opened up and said:

“No one could just blame Pakistan for the [Afghan war] because the formation of the Taliban was a concerted plan which was masterminded by the U.S. and funded by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan put it into effect”.

Former finance minister of the Taliban regime Agha Jan Motasim in a talk with the New York Times remarked how he traveled to Saudi Arabia under the guise of pilgrimage to get financial support from Saudis and others.

He explains how he disguised as a doctor and fled across the border into Pakistan in a Red Crescent ambulance amid fierce U.S. air campaign in 2001 when the Taliban regime fell. He banded together with the other fellow Taliban leaders in Quetta city of Pakistan and later became head of the finance committee of the Taliban movement that still claims tens of lives every day in Afghanistan.

He flew to Saudi Arabia in his first trips. This country was a good rallying point for many other major donors pretending to visit there for pilgrimage. This Taliban leader visited Saudi Arabia two to three times each year from 2002 to 2007. But when asked, Saudis excuse their failure by describing it unlikely to screen and distinguish terrorists from normal pilgrims each year in massive influx.

Saudis supply money to Taliban at a time an Afghan tribal elder and member of High Peace Council of Afghanistan Rohullah Wakeel said that we asked Saudi officials to fund and support the peace efforts of this council, but they [Saudis] indicated no interest. He commented:

“They are deaf, we asked them for help, we just asked for “dates”, but they gave us nothing”.

A former United States Secretary of State Advisor, Vali Nasr had said that Taliban were allowed in Saudi Arabia to extort millions of dollars from hundreds of thousands of Pashtun labors. Taliban would impose “taxes” on these labors and would bully their families in Afghanistan to death if they failed to pay. He asserted:

“No doubt, it was unlikely without green light from the government of Saudi Arabia”.

Afghan officials have revealed that once this money was raised, it was siphoned into Taliban’s hands using unusual channels including local banks in tribal regions of Pakistan and informal money transfers.

Moreover, ex Afghan Intelligence Chief Rahmatullah Nabeel said that last year they discovered families of Al-Qaeda members entering into eastern Afghanistan with a stash of “gold bars”.

While on the contrary, Prince Turki Al-Faisal who led Saudi intelligence agency for 24 years ruled out any allegation that Saudi Arabia has supported Taliban, as saying:

“A single penny has not been given to the Taliban during my tenure as intelligence chief”.

In most recent months, Taliban and other militant groups have embattled a staggering number of 40,000 fighters in almost eight provinces across Afghanistan, the mobilization which, in Afghan official’s accounts, is propelled by an inflow of US$ 1 billion by external elements.

At the same time, Saudi Arabia is offering substantial development and defense agreements to Ashraf Ghani’s government which is widely viewed as pretexts by Saudi Sheikhs and other Gulf region states to beef up certain target organizations, seminaries and universities in Afghanistan in a not-so-subtle attempt to promote Wahhabism and catch up with Iran that has planted the seeds years ago.

At the state level development, Afghan president Ashraf Ghani earlier voiced support of Saudi Arabia’s military campaign in Yemen in his second visit of King Salman which met with extreme backlash inside Afghanistan. In return for this handshake, Ashraf Ghani urged Saudi rulers to block the stream of funds into Taliban’s hand from affluent Sheikhs and get them [Taliban] to negotiation table.

Saudi Arabia’s only important objective in Afghanistan is to subdue Iranian influence which is already in full swing in the Middle East. This Saudi-Iran row and rivalry is largely for hegemony over Islamic world where the two stands in relative firm position. An Iranian diplomat on the condition of anonymity told BBC that latest interventions of Saudi Arabia in Afghanistan may cost as heavy as leading to confrontation with Iran.

As the latest upswing in Saudi-Afghan relationship, Saudi Arabia is reported to build one of the largest Islamic Universities worth of US$ 500 million in south-eastern Nangarhar province of Afghanistan, after Afghan Chief Executive Abdullah was received by King Salman in a heated welcoming ceremony.

The University area is quite close to the Islamic State’s (ISIS) hotspot in districts bordered with Pakistan. Earlier, a BBC team took risk to trek through terrifying deserts to get to the University construction area. It found that it is just a district or two away from the Islamic State; this is while Saudi Arabia could simply afford to lay the cornerstone at a safe place.

The Saudi Arabia’s picking of this province is not at random, it has a well overview and idea of the favorability of the area for promotion of what it seeks around the Sunni-dominant regions. It seemingly has no fear of the Islamic State in proximity, nor may the terrorist group throw any gauntlet at it.

What pushed Saudi Arabia to invest in large-scale were recent extremist movements at the provincial university of Nangarhar. Last year, the University’s students staged a stark protest against the Kabul regime with clear banners of the IS and chanted slogans in favor of extremism. Experts believe Saudi Arabia seeks to underpin the Islamic State’s strongholds in Afghanistan by the new Islamic University.

North Korea threatens no one. It’s very much threatened by decades of US hostility.

Is Trump spoiling for another US Asia war, again on the Korean peninsula, pitting two nuclear-armed countries against each other?

In an interview with the Financial Times, he said he’ll discuss North Korea with Chinese President Xi Jinping at an April 6 and 7 summit in Mar-a-Lago, Florida.

“China has great influence over North Korea. And China will either decide to help us with North Korea, or they won’t,” he said.

“If they do, that will be very good for China, and if they don’t, it won’t be good for anyone. If China is not going to solve North Korea, we will.”

Options on dealing with Pyongyang were readied ahead of Xi’s visit, the FT explained. Trump is prepared to deal with Pyongyang unilaterally, he said, adding “I don’t have to say any more.”

He likely means more sanctions,  cyberwar, other covert actions, along with pressuring China to cut off economic aid and trade.

During his March Asia trip, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said US “strategic patience (with Pyongyang) has ended” – without further elaboration.

On ABC’s This Week yesterday, US UN envoy Nikki Haley said

“(t)he only country that can stop North Korea is China and they know that. We’re going to continue to put pressure on China to have action.”

Trump predicted a “very difficult” summit this week, notably on trade, South China Sea issues and North Korea.

“(T)he most important conversation will be how we’re going to be dealing with the nonproliferation of North Korea,” Haley ranted.

Last month, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Li expressed concern about “two accelerating trains coming towards each others with neither side willing to give way. The question is, are (they) ready for a head-on collision,” China affected if conflict erupts.

On Sunday, Reuters said Trump may “us(e) trade as a lever to secure Chinese cooperation against North Korea,” adding Beijing is unlikely to agree to anything destabilizing East Asia more than already.

“Although the option of pre-emptive military strikes…is not off the table…less risky” non-military measures are more likely, Reuters said.

Claims about North Korea heading toward being able to strike US cities with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles is over-the-top fear-mongering.

Whatever its current or more developed capabilities ahead, Pyongyang wants peace, not war, normalized relations, not continued US-instigated hostility.

It’s up to Washington to stop fear-mongering about a nonexistent threat. Instead, it uses the country and others to justify its imperial agenda.

War on the Korean peninsula would be disastrous, if launched. The way to “solve North Korea” is by ending decades of bullying and hostility, instead of using the country as a punching bag.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. 

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

It’s becoming clear that there is a far more ambitious strategy behind Great Britain’s exit from the European Union, the so-called Brexit. Far from a reluctant government led by Prime Minister Theresa May, forced to listen to the Vox Populi of the majority of voters in 2016 who voted to exit the European Union, signs emerge of a far more devious well-planned strategy at the highest levels of British power, including the House of Windsor and the powers of the formidable City of London financial institutions. Britain is ditching the EU as a failed option, and seems to be intent on building a new English-speaking Union together with the United States and with the nations of the Commonwealth–the former colonies of the British Empire prior to 1914.

The British have a long and varied history, emerging from their surprising defeat of the mighty Spanish Armada in 1588 to go on over the course of three centuries to become the most powerful empire on earth, until a Great Depression of 1873 followed by two devastating world wars in the 20th Century, forced her patriarchs to swallow hard and accept a junior partner role with the 1945 dominant power, the United States.

Their decision to join the European Monetary Union in 1992 went against that tradition of staying outside the Continental European fray, a tradition of remaining an Atlantic power, utilizing their Anglo-American “special relationship” that had been built during the war years by Churchill with Roosevelt. When the US circles deliberately destroyed the British possibility to join the emerging Euro through the agency of a “lone assassin” hedge fund operator named George Soros in 1992, it was a clear signal that Wall Street and Washington would not permit the enormous financial power of the City of London, fused with that of Germany, France and the Continental economies, to challenge the hegemony of the US dollar and of Wall Street.

Now the Brexit negotiations between the EU Commission and the British government have taken on an air of bitter acrimony from the side of the EU, if not outright sabotage. Not the least because the British precedent is giving others the notion that an exit might be an option. However it seems that Brussels smells a deeper agenda afoot from London, one that could easily spell the end of the misbegotten Euro project and with it, the EU as we know it pre-Brexit.

Stock Exchange Merger Dead

On March 29, symbolically the same day that Prime Minister Therese May formally presented her government’s plan for Brexit, the European Commission in Brussels announced that the planned $31 billion merger of Frankfurt’s Deutsche Boerse and the London Stock Exchange was dead. There is a huge power struggle here as well. The real issue in the merger was where the ultimate control would lie—London or Frankfurt– of what in trading volumes would become a financial trading goliath of a world dimension. The merger would have created a mega-exchange. The Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI), which is produced twice a year on behalf of the Qatar Financial Centre Authority, currently ranks London as number one, ahead of New York. Frankfurt is the largest EU financial center on the Continent.

The proposed merger collapsed in effect when the EU put severe conditions for London in order to allow approval, terms which London refused. The real issue, however, was not that London sell off part of its business in France. It was where the control would reside, and London insisted it be clearly based in London.

Whether by coincidence, the same day Brussels vetoed the London-Frankfurt merger, Britain formally presented its Brexit plan. The EU is making it clear they will make it as onerous for Britain as possible. EU officials suggest Britain may be forced to pay as much as 60 billion Euros on leaving the EU and will be forced to continue accepting EU tax, environmental and labor laws if it wants to have an eventual free trade pact with the EU. The combined volume of the other EU economies comprise by far Britain’s largest trade partner, taking 46% of British exports last year.

I want to suggest there is a far more threatening geopolitical background to the Brexit that’s not being talked about, and that that’s what is really behind a de facto guerilla war going on between Britain and the remaining EU, a war which could decide the future of the Euro single currency itself in the next several years as well as the shape of our geopolitical world power “balance” to use a favored British expression.

English-speaking Union?

The German online newspaper, Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten (DWN), presents an intriguing argument that the Brexit was not only pure democracy at work. Rather, they point out that the most powerful factions within the British establishment were quietly exercising their influence via British media and elsewhere to shape that Brexit vote. They argue, convincingly, that British leading circles had reached a consensus before Brexit to exit the failing EU that was forcing Britain, once the world hegemon, to become an inconsequential player in a drama being shaped in Brussels. Now, argues DWN, Britain will seek to rebuild itself anew as a World Power using its historical British Commonwealth network of nations to be the foundation.

It’s not as far-fetched as it sounds. Britain’s Royal Commonwealth Society is planning to open a branch in the United States, with a view to one day bringing America into the multi-nation group as an “associate member.” According to a report on February 23 in the conservative British Telegraph newspaper, Michael Lake, Director of the Royal Commonwealth Society said he had written a formal letter last December to then-President-elect Trump, hand-delivered by British Brexit leading voice, Nigel Farage, former leader of the UKIP party. Lake told the Telegraph that opening a branch in the US,

“would further Britain’s ties with America, developing new connections between two countries who already share a common language.”

Lake said that Britain seeks to reinvigorate the British Commonwealth as an alternative to the top-down, supranational EU structure. The aim of the Commonwealth is to promote “mutually advantageous” links with “reliable friends” around the world on everything from business to defense.

By leaving the EU, Britain is free to negotiate bilateral free trade agreements with Commonwealth partners such as Australia or the USA free from the constraints of agreements approved by the 28 (then) member states of the EU.

With this new freedom of maneuver, British banks will not be bound by the EU bank legislation such as the onerous bank “Bail-in” law passed last year that could require bank depositors and shareholders rather than taxpayers to bear costs of a new (and inevitable) new EU banking crisis. Further, the British Pound, which is a member of the select IMF Five of major reserve currencies along with the US dollar and Euro, Japan Yen and China Renminbi, will be free to join efforts of Washington and Wall Street to attack and ultimately bring down the highly-vulnerable Euro. Britain’s Pound is the third largest global payments currency after the dollar and the Euro. If Britain, free from the restraints can bring down the Euro, the Pound could become a major gainer–currency war with Britain on the side of Washington against the fragile Eurozone with their Italian, Greek, Spanish and other problems.

Britain, in collusion with the United States, formally or informal, could well present a formidable challenge to world peace. Britain is a nuclear power with full intelligence-sharing cooperation with Washington, something denied Germany. Britain deploys its military around the world in concert with the USA. Britain is historically the geopolitical opponent, in two world wars, of Germany and of Russia and of China going back to the 1840s Opium Wars.

The current machinations of Britain call to mind their project, put forward by one of the more strategic thinkers of the British Empire prior to outbreak of World War II, H.G. Wells. In the late 1930s when the smell of world war was unavoidable, Wells and his friends in the highly influential British Round Table, notably Lord Lothian who went on to become Britain’s Ambassador to Washington, put forward a radical strategy. Wells termed it, an order dominated by a “great English-speaking English-thinking synthesis, leading mankind by sheer force of numbers, wealth, equipment and scope.”

Agreeing with Cecil Rhodes, the founder of the Round Table’s fraternity, H.G. Wells stressed that the coming world order must be based on cooperation, “between all the western peoples and, more particularly, between all the Nordic peoples,” by which he meant Anglo-Saxon and racially kindred peoples. He insisted that “The British Empire had to be the precursor of a world-state or nothing,” and that that world state must also be one in which, “Britain must draw the United States into a closer accord,” into a new great English-speaking union. Will it work in 2017? Not likely given the hollowed-out state of both the British and US economies, the hollowed-out quality of the respective national politicians. That doesn’t mean the British won’t give it a go. Maybe boosting US designs in Yemen with SAS and other special UK forces as an appetizer, then on to Putin’s Russia and China?

Yemen is proving what should be clear by now: President Trump may never make good on his bold campaign promise of less senseless wars overseas. Watch as Trump defers to ‘the Generals’ to double-down on a bad Obama bet.

This week, we learned that the US Department of Defense, led by General James Mattis, would like to increase its support for Saudi Arabia and its Gulf accomplices, in their effort to continue to further destabilize and bomb Yemen, followed by the installation by force of a US and Saudi-friendly regime in that country.

Following over 2 years of hostilities against Yemen, Mattis has also decided to ask Congress for help in drafting some sort of authorization to give the US some legal standing in its continual involvement with this war. Mattis is erroneously bundling the issue of Yemen into both Syria and Iraq, claiming that this is somehow part of the “the fight against ISIS“.

What is it about Yemen that makes it such a gaping blind spot for members of the US government, its diplomatic corps and the US mainstream media?

Fact: On its face, the joint Saudi-US War on Yemen is illegal under both US and International Law (see US legal analysis below).

With that in mind, shouldn’t every person in the US, from the Obama Administration forward and including the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the CIA and so on, who has been involved in prosecuting this illegal, undeclared war of aggression – be indicted and charged with high crimes?

Is the United States not a nation of laws, as so many politicians and pundits proudly proclaim to their public over the airwaves each and every day? Are we really a nation of laws?

Or is Washington DC merely a nation of self-inflated, self-reverential hypocrites? 

“In a nutshell the Saudis, Emiratis and the USA are inflicting a war of genocide against the Houthis,” – (University of Illinois Professor of International Law, Francis Boyle)

So what is the Trump Administration’s solution to this collapsing situation? Of course, more sanctions. 

Because this war was initiated under President Obama, left-leaning and liberal media outlets and Democratic Party operators were bound to an unofficial regime of silence on the issue  of Yemen – hence, almost zero media coverage or commentary throughout 2015-2016. It was sufficient to focus only on Syria, and even then to streamline all mainstream media talking points with foreign policy directives from US State Department. With Syria, just look at the media coverage over the last 6 years and overlay it with the US State Department and British Foreign Office narratives. Totally seamless.

For the US political right-wing and the Pentagon-oriented news outlets like CNN, the War on Yemen was simply reduced down to a binary argument, blaming the entire affair on Iran, claiming that the “Iranian-backed Houthis” were the primary antagonists. By framing it in the Iran-centric geopolitical context – and not the true context of US-Saudi aggression and a battle to control some of the regions most lucrative untapped oil and gas reserves – it served to somehow justify the organized, international crime which has been taking place. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer was always careful to inject the correct qualifier (as he always does) of “Iranian-backed Houthis” when covering Yemen. By framing it as an Iranian plot, US neoconservatives also reinforced the operation as “good for Israel,” which by extension means its in US national interest by virtue of the neoconservatives doctrine.

Since the War on Yemen began in March 2015, rather than reporting on the carnage and pressuring the US government to recuse itself from its daily military role backing of Saudi Arabia, the mainstream media foreign policy gatekeepers and CFR members like CNN’s Fareed Zakaria have instead opted to ignore the conflict as much as possible, opting instead to continue pushing more fake news and extravagant lies spun regarding Aleppo along with other aspects of the other illegal US operation arming international terrorists in Syria.

Members of the media should be ashamed of themselves, but that assuming the word shame still exists in their lexicon. By now, it should be clear that they simply do not care. 

Yemeni resident in Taiz, who lost everything after another Saudi airstrike.

While the establishment and auxiliary CFR public relations mascots like George Clooney have been crusading for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to ‘take urgent action’ against ‘the bad guys’ in places like South Sudan (a CIA project from the onset) and fawning over the US-UK government joint project and pseudo-NGO fraud known as the White Helmets in Syria, the United States government and its partners Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and of the course the United Kingdom – have been allowed to get away with one of the most obvious and egregious, mass violations of international law and collective murder in modern history.

In short, all the establishment and Deep State players; in Washington, the UNHRC (bought-off by Saudi Arabia), the mainstream media, Hollywood, and across the billion dollar think-tank industrial complex – have all colluded through their collective inaction and media censorship – in perpetrating an long-running and obvious international crime against humanity in Yemen. Add to this, holding in contempt the concept of the modern nation-state as it pertains to Yemen, by colluding in a violent, neocolonial fashion with the express intent to deny the Yemeni people their right to sovereignty.

“To compare Saudi Arabia’s belligerent actions in Yemen to Nazi Germany’s undeclared wars of aggression prior to WWII is no exaggeration. In fact, one could make the argument that this Saudi-US joint venture is much worse, and a far more dangerous precedent. Likewise, the failure of a corrupt UN (who effectively sold Saudi Arabia its seat as the head of the UN Human Rights Council ), led by an impotent Secretary General in Ban-ki Moon, to censure Saudi Arabia for its flagrant violation of international law, the Nuremberg Principles and the entire Geneva Convention content and implied framework – leaves the UN in the exact same position as the League of Nations in 1938. This is most certainly the case on paper, and with each passing moment we are nudging ever closer to geopolitical déjà vu.” (Vanessa Beeley, 21WIRE, Oct 13, 2016)

 

Suzuki Yūichi (56) was born to a farming family in Namie, Fukushima in 1960. Namie was one of the areas most devastated by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, as well as the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami of March 11, 2011. Besides 565 deaths from the earthquake/tsunami, because the town was located within the 20 kilometer exclusion zone around the damaged nuclear power plant, the entire town was evacuated on March 12.

The government of Namie continued to operate in Nihonmatsu-city 39 kilometers from Namie. At the time of the nuclear accident, Mr. Suzuki was working in the Citizens’ Affairs Division of Namie and was immediately assigned to the Disaster Management Division established to assist citizens in finding missing family members, locating temporary housing, and evacuating families. Suzuki was subsequently responsible for decontamination efforts, return policies, and establishing clinics for prospective returnees. In the summer and the winter of 2016, I visited Namie with my colleagues Professor Yoshihiro Amaya of Niigata University and Yoh Kawano, a PhD candidate at UCLA, to interview Mr. Suzuki.

Mr. Suzuki contends that the majority of former residents of Namie are unlikely to return to the town even after the Japanese government lifts the restriction on residency in certain areas on March 31, 2017. Many families have already settled in new villages, towns and cities in and outside Fukushima and continue to fear internal radioactive exposure and other dangers associated with decommissioning the damaged reactors. As a city official who led decontamination efforts and return policy,

Suzuki remains skeptical of Japanese government programs for “reconstruction” or “revival” of the affected areas. He anticipates that the area will become a “no man’s land” after the elderly returnees pass away. Namie’s population was 21,400 at the time of the nuclear accident. He estimates that 10 percent or less will return. The interview is an important testament to the ongoing rift and dissonance between Tokyo and Fukushima over the policies and slogans of “reconstruction” and “return”. K.H.

Suzuki Yūichi, Photo by Kawano Yoh

***

Hirano: Mr. Suzuki, thank you for agreeing to do this interview. You have been promoting decontamination work as a town official until recently since the 2011 disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

It is said that even after decontamination is completed, the radiation level will rise again. Do you think that “residents’ return (kikan, 帰還)” and “reconstruction (fukkō, 復興)” are possible under such conditions? For example, through experimental planting of rice and vegetables, the possibility of reviving agriculture has been explored in Namie. How many people do you think plan to return here to resume agriculture?

Suzuki: I used to work in the decontamination control division, and as far as I know from what I learned there, once decontamination work is completed, radiation levels should not return to the high levels prior to decontamination effort. However, I have heard various doctors voicing concerns about whether the dose rates, even after decontamination, have actually dropped to safe levels, so I personally feel uncertain about this although I am not a specialist in the field.¹

I believe, however, that as long as radiation levels stay below 0.2 – 0.3 microsieverts per hour in Namie, there may not be much difference between the evacuation areas and Namie. In fact, in Nihonmatsu, where my family and I are now living, the radiation level is 0.2 or 0.1 and many people are living there.

Hirano: Some people claim that decontamination is not very effective.

Some evacuees from Namie currently living in my hometown in Ibaraki prefecture made a one-day trip to Namie last October, and were joined by a group of professors from Ibaraki University, who have been collecting and monitoring data on radiation doses in that area. They sampled soil in the area around one of the evacuees’ houses, which had been declared decontaminated. In some areas the level had dropped to the national and international standard (1 millisieverts per year or 0.23 microsieverts per hour), but in the backyard and in a forest area just behind the house, the radiation level was actually extremely high.²

The Japanese government has announced that it is lifting evacuation orders in the green and
orange zones on March 31, 2017. This image is taken from the website of Fukushima Prefecture.

Suzuki: It seems that it has not yet been completely decontaminated . Well, I have to say, we can’t decontaminate forest areas. That would require cutting down all the trees and then scraping up all the topsoil. Otherwise you wouldn’t be able to see any effect. But as far as areas around houses are concerned, all the soil has been stripped away, so the radiation level has dropped significantly. For example, my parents’ house is in a so-called “zone in preparation for lifting the evacuation order.” At first the radiation level was 3.0 microsieverts per hour, but after decontamination, it has dropped to less than 0.5.

Hirano: I see. But the entire contaminated region in Fukushima is richly forested– it’s all surrounded by forest, not just Namie. If it is impossible to decontaminate forest areas, it means that radioactive material could easily blow in from the forest, causing radiation levels to increase in decontaminated areas. Some residents say that the radiation level has in fact risen since the decontamination. So does it mean that decontamination is effective only in urban areas where there are few forests? In other words, there is a gap between places where decontamination has been working well and places where it has not.

Suzuki: It is okay in areas where the soil has been properly stripped away, but nobody has done anything in mountain areas behind homes（urayama, 裏山）. We town officials have been asking the Ministry of the Environment to decontaminate such areas properly as well, since they are not just nameless wooded hills. Rather, they are Satoyama (里山), wooded areas surrounding people’s homes that are a part of their everyday lives. We’ve said that if we don’t decontaminate those areas we wouldn’t be able to bring people back home.

Houses in wooded areas (satoyama) are not decontaminated. Radiation levels remain high and residents are not allowed to return.

However, if we cut all of the trees down in order to decontaminate, we will lose water retention capacity, which could result in a natural disaster. So that’s another reason we can’t clean up mountains and forests. We have considered just asking people to stay away from forest areas. If you take a radiation dosimeter and find 0.2 in your garden and then that same dosimeter indicates 1.0 in another place higher up, you will have to acknowledge that you have a hotspot and stay away from it. People will have to make those judgments as they go about their lives.

Hirano: It sounds psychologically stressful, doesn’t it? We have to live our lives constantly telling ourselves it is okay here, but not there.

Suzuki: I know what you mean, but that is all we can do to deal with the Satoyama areas. And then there are rivers. Before the nuclear accident, we used to go to a river to pick up pebbles or take our kids there to play in the water, but the Ministry of the Environment doesn’t deal with rivers so they decided not to decontaminate rivers. They have not done anything to remove radiation from them. I’m talking rivers that have a levee on either side. Their reasoning probably is that once a river is flooded, it will be contaminated again. That is my guess. But rivers are also a part of everyday life, so we have been asking that they be properly decontaminated as well, but…

Hirano: Do they have a plan in place?

Suzuki: Probably not. I don’t think so.

Hirano: Well, so is your town planning to prepare for residents who return, such as setting up public signs for high radiation areas to warn people not to come close to those areas? Or is it something like ‘let’s leave it up to people’s “common sense” once they return home’?

Suzuki: I think it will likely be left up to their common sense. That’s why I believe it is necessary that schools give children radiation awareness training, so that they can learn how to avoid internal radiation exposure by measuring doses of what they eat, or they can learn to stay away from dangerous places where they live. Now, this is not limited to only Fukushima, but should apply to people throughout Japan.

Hirano: In other words, from now on this kind of so-called self-responsibility will become an essential part of life in Fukushima, won’t it? Later I would like to return to this topic and ask about education on the risks of nuclear power plants, and external and internal radiation exposure.

But I would like to ask you a little more about the “return policy”. When I interviewed you last summer, you mentioned that under the return policy probably less than 10% of residents would come back. Has your estimate changed?

Suzuki: No. It is about the same. Regarding the estimate, we briefly had a program called “special case overnight stay” (tokurei shukuhaku, 特例宿泊) to allow former residents to stay in Namie during the month of September for 26 days. The only participants after all were elderly couples and some single guys, who really wished to return. That was about it.

Namie town center. Decontamination work has been completed and the streets have been cleaned up. However, it is expected that most shops will not reopen. I saw about a dozen people preparing to move back during my visit to Namie in the winter of 2016.

Also we have begun a program called “preparatory overnight stay” (junbi shukuhaku, 準備宿泊) since November, which allows residents who notify us to stay in evacuation areas until the evacuation orders are permanently lifted. It is still going on, but the only participants in the program have been elderly couples. We have set up a temporary emergency clinic, but only the elderly couples, who participated in both programs, the special case overnight stay and the preparatory overnight stay, visit the clinic when they’re feeling sick.

We are building a medical facility now that will be opened once the evacuation order is lifted in Namie, but it will provide nothing beyond primary and secondary medical care, so we won’t have an actual inpatient facility. It means that anyone who needs to be admitted to a hospital, will have to go to a neighboring town, but these hospitals are already struggling with a shortage of doctors and nurses, so I am doubtful that they will be able to accept outside patients any time soon.

In my opinion, if you remain wherever you’ve evacuated to, you can always be admitted to a hospital and receive necessary medical care. I always tell people to think about these things before they decide to return home. The clinic doctor also explains this to his patients, but elderly couples really want to come back to Namie. The doctor believes they should individually decide. I ask them, “so after you return to Namie, what are you going to do if you feel sick and need to be hospitalized? You won’t have a place to go.” They say, ”I will go to a hospital in so-and-so town.” Then I ask, “what if they can’t admit you there? Even after you are discharged from a hospital, where are you going?” “I am going to a nursing home.”

But in reality, even the nursing homes are understaffed and unable to accept new patients. There are facilities, but there isn’t enough staff to run a facility and give adequate care.

When I ask what they are going to do, they have no concrete answers. They just have a vague idea about going there and maybe being admitted to a hospital. They just want to come back home. That is their strongest feeling. It seems that they just don’t want to stay where they have been since evacuation. That was the case of an elderly couple I dealt with recently.

Hirano: Had they been living in temporary housing for quite a while then?³

Suzuki: Yes. Also lack of employment opportunities for a generation of breadwinners is another reason why I think that less than 10% of evacuees will come back. In addition, many have children attending school in the places they evacuated to, so it is not possible to think about returning.

I had my children with me when the evacuation order came, and I ended up sending them to school in the town where we settled. As you know, I did it not because they wanted to change schools but because they had to. It is possible for my children to graduate from the schools they are currently attending. No matter how much you say that it’s safe, that it’s okay to go back, parents need to think about the considerable burden placed on children by switching schools, as this poses another risk to children.

Also it’s been almost six years since we were forced to leave our town. The reality is that children no longer have friends from Namie. This is the same with my children. All of their friends are the ones they met after we evacuated to Nihonmatsu, and once they go to high school, they only hang out with friends from their high school. At the time of the evacuation, one of my children was a 4th grader in elementary school, but she does not see any of her classmates from that time. She has no connection with other children from Namie. Even if you move back here, you will need to find a job, but there will be no employment other than reconstruction-related work.

Hirano: While we’re on that subject, would you say something about lifting the evacuation orders? I understand this applies only to limited areas of the town and not to the entire town.

Suzuki: Yes, the town is divided into three areas, the “zone in preparation for lifting the evacuation order,” “restricted residence area,” and “difficult-to-return zone.” This is divided according to radiation levels, and according to the government report submitted to the town, there are plans to lift evacuation orders in the first two zones sometime in March 2017. As for the third zone, the difficult-to-return zone, no plan has been announced.

Hirano: Does it mean that residents who have a house or property in the town except for the difficult-to-return zone, are allowed to return if they wish?

Suzuki: Yes, that is right.

Hirano: But as you mentioned earlier, even in the areas designated safe to return, various facilities, which returnees will need to restart their lives, are not in place yet, so they are likely to face multiple hardships. But if they choose to return no matter what, the municipal government will support them. Is this the current situation?

Suzuki: Yes. We have been working to restore infrastructure to its pre-earthquake and tsunami state. Concerning the water supply goes, restoration work is nearly complete, and the sewer system has been restored in areas where the evacuation orders are expected to be lifted to the point that we can operate, although I can’t say it is 100% yet.

Concerning infrastructure, a few businesses such as commercial and medical facilities, the post office, and a banking facility have resumed operation. One financial institution opened a branch office in Namie sometime last year, however it’s not as though everyone uses that one bank, so I don’t know what to say about that.

Hirano: A moment ago Mr. Kawano and I stopped by the temporary shopping arcade, which is set up next to the town hall. It houses 11 stores now, and we spoke with some of the owners. They are truly concerned about the prospects for their businesses. They believe that only a few will come back to town and that they won’t be able to sustain their businesses.

Right now they keep their stores open experimentally with financial support from the local government, but they know that the support won’t last forever. They seem to be struggling with the long-term prospects for their businesses. I wonder what the point of this trial exercise is without a prospect for the future.

Suzuki: Well, more than a trial exercise, it is rather to show people that there are at least places to buy food, hardware, daily commodities, dry cleaning. It is to show that we have a place to at least get basic necessities, though these stores are very small.

The prosperity of these stores will probably depend on how many people eventually move back. I don’t think evacuees will bother coming here all the way from where they are currently staying to go shopping. But when you drop in at Namie, as long as there is a convenience store, you can get almost everything, except for hardware. They have drinks, food, first-aid kits, laundry detergent and even cigarettes and some little luxury items. There are also some small restaurants, and I heard that they are the top-selling businesses. And the Lawson convenience store in the temporary shopping arcade carries a bit of fresh food.

I have a feeling that even the participants of the preparation stay program brought a lot of food with them when they came back. So among the 11 stores in the temporary arcade, I heard that only the restaurants have been successful. Instead of buying food and cooking, people will get a box lunch from a convenience store or order meals for home delivery. It seems that this is the current situation.

Kawano: The store owners at the shopping arcade I spoke to also said that considering the lack of enthusiasm for the movement to return in town, it is hard to believe that the evacuation orders will be lifted sometime in March here in Namie.

Suzuki: Yeah. We have some estimates that 500 or 1,000 residents might move back, but even if they do come back, they are likely to feel that they are the only ones or the only families living in Namie since they can’t expect to have many neighbors around them. Especially at night, you usually see lights on in every house by 7pm or 8pm, but you won’t be able to see that. So if you have next-door neighbors on both sides when you return, you might feel as if you’ve finally returned to your hometown, but the reality is that with people evacuated to locations all over the country, it is not easy to coordinate your return with other families.

The best way might be to move into public housing built for evacuees or disaster recovery public housing. All of the units might not be filled, but you would have some other families living in the same complex, so it might feel more reassuring.

But I don’t think it will be that easy. In fact, it has been a year since neighboring towns, such as Hirono-machi, Naraha-machi, and Odaka-ku of Minami Sōma, lifted their evacuation orders, but most evacuees who have returned are elderly people.⁴ Some of them have been encouraging others to return, something like “oh, so and so is back, so we should return, too.” Watching how those other towns are going, I feel it might be possible for some evacuees from Namie to decide to return home encouraged by their pioneering neighbors.

It is also true, however, that while such efforts are being made, some elderly evacuees will probably pass away in 10 or 15 years. Elementary or junior high school students at the time of evacuation will be almost in their 30s, won’t they? Namie will be just a place for a little bit of memory and nostalgia, “oh, I remember there used to be a house I used to live in when I was little,” but no more, no less. That’s why it will be extremely difficult to bring people back to town after all these years. I am not surprised at all if places like Namie-machi or Odaka-ku will become a “no man’s land” 20 or 30 years later.

Hirano: In Odaka-ku, where decontamination work has been completed, some farmers have begun experimentally planting a few crops and exploring the possibility of reviving agriculture. How many farmers are really thinking about returning to restart agriculture? How likely are they to be able to sell their rice or other crops once they prove to be free of radioactive substances? Also does the government have any plans to support these farmers?

Suzuki: In order to eliminate harmful rumors (fūhyō higai, 風評被害) against produce from Fukushima, the governor has been disseminating information about safety of food from Fukushima to the whole country. Our mayor has also been promoting safety of our produce by taking rice grown here to the Ministry of the Environment for testing.⁵

But the farmers participating in this test planting are all elderly people. After all, there are few young farmers in Namie, and the majority of people engaged in agriculture here are older people. Before the accident, their adult children used to help in the field as part-time farmers, but they had to abandon their fields due to the evacuation, and as a result they have ended up losing their connection with agriculture.

I believe those who want to come back and resume agriculture now will be mostly retired people, the elderly, so I am not sure how long they will be able to continue with agriculture considering they won’t have help from the younger generations. Even the younger people I am talking about here, who might consider returning to engage in agriculture, will probably be in their 50s, so I would say most farmers will be 75 or older.

Hirano: So it sounds like even if the experimental planting succeeds, these farmers are not actually pursuing an operation to make a living. Like the elderly couples you mentioned earlier, these farmers really want to return home and as long as they can grow enough to feed themselves, they will be happy.

Suzuki: That’s what I think. They feel terrible about leaving the land they inherited from their ancestors unattended for such a long time. The decontamination work has been completed, and all the weeds in their fields have been pulled. Now that their land is back to normal again, they probably want to at least cultivate it and harvest crops they can eat in the land their ancestors passed on to them.

Nemoto Sachiko and Kōichi run organic farms in Odaka of Minami Sōma. They moved back to their home as soon as the government took Odaka off the designated hazard zone in April 2012. The Nemoto family has been farming land here since the early 17^th century. Kōichi has been working with researchers at Niigata University to grow rice and vegetables since 2012 and his crops have been confirmed free of radiation. Their neighbors and friends have not returned, and they think that they will not return. Photos by Yoh Kawano.

Of course, I cannot say for sure that they have no intention of earning income by selling their produce. I am sure it will make them happy if they can do so, but I don’t think that it will be a high priority in their mind right now.

Speaking of rice produced through test planting, as long as it is certified to be safe, it is can be sold in the market. It is true that the rice is tested on a bag-by-bag basis to ensure the radioactive cesium level does not exceed the limit, and the contaminated soil has been treated with zeolite. The deep plowing method has also been applied to the soil so that the upper layer soil can be replaced with a lower layer.

In my opinion, however, some radioactive substances still remain in the soil. It means it is possible that there are still some risks of farmers being exposed to radiation in their fields. Right now there is no technique that has been established to remove zeolite from the soil. The best way would be to scrape off the soil completely, but this would also remove the compost, which would probably affect soil fertility and crop growth. In fact, rice yields have decreased considerably compared to before the accident. So I guess we need to figure out how to deal with these problems associated agricultural land in the future.

Amaya: I believe it is very important to establish control measures to minimize radiation exposure to farmers.

Suzuki: I also think the government needs to properly communicate the risks, educating farmers about the risks caused by radiation instead of giving them a go-ahead based only on whether or not radioactive substances are detected in their produce. For example, before the accident it was not uncommon for them to roll up their trousers and enter a rice paddy barefooted if they needed to fix some small thing. But now they need to be advised to avoid doing so because radioactive substances may still remain in the soil. Although the level of airborne radioactivity has been reduced, it does not mean the substances have been completely removed. The radioactive compounds have been buried deeper in the soil by deep plowing and also remain with zeolites in the soil.

Amaya: What zeolite does is absorb radioactive cesium in the soil, so it makes crops less likely to absorb cesium, but as long as zeolites stay in the soil, radioactive substances will remain in the soil as well.

Hirano: Is there any way to remove zeolites from the soil?

Amaya: As far as I know, there is no way to remove zeolites that have absorbed radioactive cesium from the soil selectively or efficiently at low cost.

Hirano: The only option is to leave them in the soil.

Amaya: Some researchers have been trying to develop technology to remove radioactive cesium from zeolites. In fact, it is possible in principle to dissociate cesium absorbed into zeolites with acid, but you would need a lot of equipment to treat a large amount of soil, and a facility to store radioactive cesium. The cost for all of this might pose a big problem. Also during the process of dissociation, mineral nutrients in the soil are likely to be removed, so it might also become a problem when it comes to growing crops.

Hirano: That means that we have to remove all the soil, doesn’t it? It sounds like it may be extremely difficult to revitalize agriculture, which had been the mainstay of Fukushima.

Suzuki: Well, it won’t be easy for sure. First of all, we need to figure out how to solve the problem of manpower. I think we can recruit people, but as I have mentioned before, those who are interested in engaging in agriculture and actually have the agricultural skills to do it are mostly elderly people in their late 60s and 70s. It will be hard for them to remain active for the next 10 or 20 years. So the future of agriculture is an open question. I don’t think it will be easy to revive it.

Hirano: Namie has wonderful mountains and ocean, and before the nuclear accident, it was known as a place where you could harvest not only rice but any food you want. It used to be surrounded by rich, beautiful nature.

According to surveys of city dwellers before the accident, Fukushima was always one of the most ideal places to move to enjoy the country life in retirement. In your view, what had most attracted people to Namie before the disaster?

Suzuki: Well, to put it briefly, a lot of it is the rustic atmosphere. Namie is not really urban, but it’s not just a narrow-minded backwoods town, either. We have traditional crafts like Obori Soma ceramic ware, and both fishery and forestry were active. There were farmers who grew pears and other fruit. Rice, fish, fruits, seasonal foods like mushrooms and vegetables– all these were within our reach. Namie was a comfortable and easy place to live.

Hirano: All such things have been destroyed, haven’t they? That’s where things stand now in Namie.

Suzuki: That’s right. There is no doubt that the nuclear industry was one main factor that made this town prosperous. All the regions throughout Japan where nuclear power stations were located, were very poor. There was nothing to develop. This was true for Namie where Fukushima Daiichi (Fukushima No.1 Nuclear Power Station) and Daini (Fukushima No.2 Nuclear Power Station) are located.

But remember, we were always lectured with the myth of nuclear safety, and I was taught it since I was little. We visited the nuclear energy information center on a social studies school trip and learned about how it would work and how beneficial it would be, like how it could create energy at a low cost. I do not recall any discussion about radiation at all. That’s why we never thought it could cause such a danger.

That’s how we grew up here. It is also true that we had a low unemployment rate in this town because there were a quite a few people engaged in nuclear power-related work. Our tax revenue also had been going up, and the nuclear industry had promoted our local economies significantly. So economically the town and the industry maintained a mutually beneficial relationship.

Namie High School before the Nuclear Disaster

Hirano: So residents here had a very positive impression of the economic effect brought by the nuclear industry?

Suzuki: I think they did. At least I did.

Hirano: So while the safety myth had been accepted widely by residents, neither the central government nor TEPCO had explained anything about nuclear related risks.

Suzuki: No, they didn’t talk about risk. We were told that accidents could not happen.

Hirano: That means they didn’t explain that if an accident were to happen, how serious a disaster it could cause, or even how much of the community could be destroyed. Nothing like that at all…

Suzuki: I don’t think so. There is a PR facility nearby the power stations, and there might have been some kind of explanation concerning nuclear risks there, but I don’t remember it, even if they had anything. So I think probably not at all. This must be true for other communities with nuclear power plants nationwide.

Hirano: I agree with you. My hometown is close to Tokai-mura, and I heard the same thing from residents there, as well. This is probably how the safety myth spread through all these communities. The residents were told how it would bring positive economic effects and significant wealth to their community. That it’s nothing but a win-win situation. This was how they came to accept the nuclear power plants in their community. Was it the same in Namie?

Suzuki: Yes, I think it was the same here. At least that’s how I feel. I am 56 years old, and I was 50 at the time of the accident. I believed what they had told us.

I did not even realize that a cooling system failure could cause the kind of situation that it did. So at the time of evacuation, I imagined that the accident at the power plant would lead to an explosion, that is, an explosion like an atomic bomb. That was the image I had then about the accident.

However, at the time of the accident, plant workers I talked to said that the loss of power supply and the failure of cooling system in one unit would cause problems with all four units. They all said that. Obviously those who were engaged in the plant work knew so much more about radiation, such as the limit of radiation exposure, since they worked in a strict radiation-control environment. I am sure they had been educated well through numerous lectures about radiation.

I have a feeling that only a handful of officials in local government had knowledge about radiation at that time. I gradually learned all about how much exposure we received, and about radioactive substances Cesium 134, 137, Strontium, etc. I came to learn these things after the nuclear disaster. I had no knowledge whatsoever before then.

Hirano: Let me ask you some specific questions. What was the percentage of Namie residents who worked at TEPCO or its affiliated companies before the accident? You mentioned that the industry stimulated the local economy.

Suzuki: I would say at least 50% if we include all its subcontractors’ businesses, and factories, and all the companies below them. In fact, my uncle also ran a small subcontracting company, which was about two or three steps down from the general contractors. My uncle’s company dispatched workers, and he himself worked with them to make a living. So if we include all the businesses related to the TEPCO operation, such as catering, entertaining, and gift-giving, I would say at least 50% of residents here had worked for TEPCO and related industries.

Hirano: I would guess that many companies located in Namie relied heavily on TEPCO.

Suzuki: I think many of them did. I can’t give you an exact proportion, but many businesses were affiliated with TEPCO.

Hirano: I would like to ask about the return policy. Are there are any discrepancies between plans at the national, prefectural, and local level regarding the policies for “residents’ return” and “reconstruction”?

Suzuki: My feeling is that right after the disaster, the central government was willing to listen to us and to try to help with whatever we needed, but recently I feel that they have turned everything toward lifting the evacuation orders.

Their attitude is “we’ve heard you enough, and we’ve dealt with you enough during the concentrated reconstruction period. (2011~2015) What else do you want? More money?” You might remember a cabinet member (Ishihara Nobuteru) saying, “the bottom line is they want money.”⁶

The government should just contribute money – this was the feeling I got. I understand that it isn’t that easy for them to dispatch officials to a local government at the spur of a moment just because we had an emergency and needed more people and help. I know the central government hires many officials as needed, so it is hard to deal with our request for more people to handle the extra work related to the evacuation.

However, it is easier to provide funds to the disaster-stricken areas. That’s why they had such strong preferences for coming up with a budget rather than sending staff.

Also I feel that people who haven’t been the victim of a disaster, including politicians and bureaucrats, won’t be able to understand the predicament of the evacuees who were forced to flee. Here we thought that victims of the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake of 1995 must have resumed normal lives after a few years of living in temporary housing.⁷ To me that was just something that happened far away in the Kansai area. Unless you experience it yourself, it’s difficult to understand what it’s really like.

Hirano: What the media has been saying is that for Namie, in particular, after lifting its evacuation orders, full-scale reconstruction can begin. I feel that what the Japanese government is trying to do is to send the message that the nuclear crisis in Fukushima has been finally settled. The government believes that it is necessary to do so in order to create an image of Japan rising like a phoenix from the ashes at the Tokyo Olympics of 2020. That’s what it hopes to achieve by putting aside the thorny predicament of more than 100,000 evacuees and the difficulty of rebuilding communities.

I don’t feel that the Japanese government is looking at reality from the standpoint of the locals. That’s why they simply can’t accept how much the pre-accident life in Namie has fundamentally been destroyed, as you described earlier, and that, even for residents wishing to return, the current situation here is far from ready for them to come back and that there is no way to fix the situation. Mr. Suzuki, how do you feel about this sense that the government has conveyed that the situation in Fukushima is now under control, that reconstruction has been going well, and the return policy has been successful?

Suzuki: Well, I don’t think it will be possible for the reconstruction to be completely finished even 100 years from now. We can say the reconstruction is 100% complete only when everything has been restored to the way it used to be before the evacuation. But of course, there is no way to really restore the life we had before.

So I don’t think 100% reconstruction will be possible, but I think it would be nice if each family passes on its own stories of what Namie used to be like from generation to generation, from mothers and fathers to sons and daughters, and to their children, including lessons of what we learned from this nuclear accident. In fact, some NPOs and other organizations have been working hard to facilitate events so that stories about Namie may continue into the next generation.

Also, since the budget from the central government won’t last forever, I think they want to lift the evacuation order to continue the next step of settling the other remaining issues in the next few years. Considering the fact that money comes from limited financial resources and the burden falling on taxpayers, I understand the situation even from the standpoint of a beneficiary.⁸

The most important thing we need to do, I think, is to figure out how to support evacuees who are struggling to put their lives back together. More than people like me who have been able to keep a job, I’m concerned about people without jobs and unable to work because of various health issues, and those who have lost their homes to the earthquake or tsunami and have no place to return to and no idea what to do.

They have managed to live so far with the compensation they receive from TEPCO for mental stress, but it is vital now more than ever to think about how to financially support these people.⁹ For example, instead of giving the same flat amount of financial support to all evacuees, we need to establish a system to grant support based on individual needs and circumstances. Unfortunately it is true that there are some who are not willing to support themselves even though they are capable, and are using the compensation to lead an idle life.

We appreciate the compensation since those who have been affected by the disaster have been suffering mental distress, but I think the time has come to reach out to and focus on the people in real need of help. Those capable of working should get jobs and stand on their own feet.

Hirano: So you think it is necessary and important to carefully differentiate individual needs and give assistance and support on a case-by-case basis.

Suzuki: Yes, I believe so.

Hirano: Have there been any discussions about this between the central and local governments?

Suzuki: No. Well, as the local government, I think it is very difficult to pursue. There will be residents who will complain, “so you are going to cut our compensation. You are going to abandon us. We are all residents of this town.” We will have to deal with problems like this, so it’s not going to be easy. I think it would be difficult for the local government to carry out such a policy.

If it is really true that it is now safe to return and restart life, as the central government has said, I believe they should come up with a policy to encourage people to return by creating employment in Namie. If they do and provide job opportunities, I do think that more people would come back.

The best way to do so would be, I think, for the Japanese government to build national facilities in the evacuation areas, in Namie and elsewhere. Then former residents will be assured that the government decision to build indicates the safety of the area. But in reality there no government facilities have been built in this town. Since the accident, not a single facility has been built here. That leads residents to think that it is still not safe to live here, especially with Fukushima Daiichi not yet decommissioned. They feel that the absence of government facilities confirms this.

Hirano: It makes sense. If the central government insists that it is safe to return, if Prime Minister Abe’s pledge that Fukushima is under control is true, they need to take the initiative to show people that in fact it is now a safe place to live. Otherwise residents won’t be convinced.

Suzuki: Exactly. They should buy land from the town and actively start building government facilities to conduct research or to work on developmental plans. They should build housing for national government employees. Residents would then be reassured. I am not sure if it has something to do with evacuation orders or instructions, but right now there is a branch office of the Ministry of the Environment in Minami Soma city, far north of our town. The nearest office to the south is in Hirono town.

Hirano: In addition, as you mentioned before, it is also important to implement policies to educate people about the risk of nuclear power. In order to achieve that, both the central government and TEPCO need to end their cover-up culture. They need to explain all the possible risks to residents who wish to return, and let them decide. Is that what Namie town local government hopes to do for its residents?

Suzuki: Yes, exactly. Part of what we call “risk communication” (risukomi,リスコミ) is, in a way, to give people some “negative” information. The government has been reluctant to pursue this, but it is crucial for people to be informed of any risks even if it has a potential negative impact on them, so that they can make their own decisions. We had been fed only positive information, but if something bad happens, we will know what to expect.

But as long as the reconstruction plans come from a Tokyo-centric perspective, Namie will have neither hopes nor dreams. As I’ve said many times, the only people coming back to town are elderly. Without young people, I believe, a town can’t be revived and reconstructed. The current policy seems to focus on merely bringing back people, but unless government can recreate a safe environment for young people, including children, beginning with complete decontamination, it’s hard to see any future. I’m not even sure, to be honest with you, if it’s possible to actually create a safe environment. Remember, it was the central government that told us that it would take responsibility to decontaminate and reconstruct.

For the local government that was forced to evacuate, it would have been much better and less stressful if we had been told not to live in this area for, say, the next thirty years and to find some other place to start a new life. They could have given us some money to cover initial cost of moving and later compensation for losses. That way, we could transfer our resident certificates to a new town and receive full public services and benefits like other residents there. It would have been much better financially, as well.⁹

But the central government that took the initiative to promise that it would take full responsibility for decontamination and would bring us back to our hometowns. That’s why I believe it should put itself in the position of evacuees and take responsibility for what they are supposed to do to the end, instead of relying on the power of money.

Hirano: The evacuation orders will be lifted at the end of March 2017. This interview has revealed that there is still much more work to be done and many problems to resolve, and that the prospect for the future still remains unclear. It also gave us a chance to think again about for whom and for what the policies and slogans of “reconstruction” and “return” exist. We greatly appreciate your valuable time and opinion.

Notes

¹In April 2013, two years after the disaster, the Japanese government changed the limit of radioactive exposure dose from one milli-sievert per year (mSv/yr) or 0.23 micro-sievert per hour (μSv/h) to 20 mSv/yr or 3.8 μSv/h. This standard was roughly 6 times higher than that for “Radiation Controlled Areas.” The Labor standards act prohibits those under the age of 18 from working under these conditions. This new standard has been used only in Fukushima for determining evacuation zones as well as school grounds, buildings, and residential areas. The policy of zoning left (607) 743-2421out over 260 “spots” in areas such as Minami Sōma-city, Date-city, and Kōzu-village whose radiation levels exceeded 20 mSv/yr. The government initially announced that the new standard would be used as an emergency measure and soon be lifted. Contrary to this announcement, however, 20 mSv/yr has virtually become the new standard for safety measure and return policies.

On December 28, 2014, the Japanese government removed 142 areas in the city from the list, noting that annual radiation exposure had fallen below the 20 mSv/yr threshold. On April 17, 2015, some 530 residents of Minami Sōma filed a lawsuit demanding that the government revoke a decision to remove their districts from a list of radiation hot spots. This decision meant the ending of their entitlement to receive support in the form of subsidized medical treatment and “consolation” money. The plaintiffs argued that by international standards, the upper limit for radiation exposure was 1 mSv/yr, and thus the government’s decision to delist the hot spots based on a 20 mSv/yr standard betrayed its responsibility for protecting the safety of citizens. The government insisted that its decision was based on scientific findings.

The government is now carrying out the return policies based on the same rationale. Evacuees who have lived in areas that are under 20 mSv/yr and expressed concerns about safety are regarded as “voluntary” and thus can receive very little financial support and compensation. With the lifting of evacuation orders in parts of Namie, Ōkuma, Iitate, and Tomioka at the end of March, 2017, they will not be allowed to stay in temporary housing. Even those who were originally ordered to evacuate will be considered “voluntary” after March 31, losing Fukushima prefecture’s financial aid for housing. Many critics refer to the government’s return policy as “forced return policy” as well as “kimin seisaku” or the “policy of abandoning people.” See more details, Hino Kōsuke, Genpatsu Kimin (原発棄民), (Tokyo: Mainichi News Press, 2016).

²When I visited Namie in the summer of 2016 with a group of researchers of Niigata University, the radiation level in some backyards and a forest area ranged from 5~10 microsieverts per hour.

³In 2012, Fukushima prefecture promised to build “reconstruction public housing” (fukkō kōei jūtaku, 復興公営住宅) in Iwaki-city, Minami Sōma-city, and Fukushima-city for evacuees. The temporary housing (kasetsu jūtaku, 仮設住宅) was originally expected to be in use only for 2 years until the construction of public housing. But due to central government hesitation to implement this plan as well as the increase in the cost of construction materials and worker outflow from Fukushima to Tokyo for the 2020 Olympics, the construction of the public housing was delayed and over 30,000 people are still living in the temporary housing. As reported in many media outlets, the conditions of temporary housing are far from desirable. The walls are paper-thin, and apartments are small. Furthermore, about 50,000 people are either living with relatives or renting apartments, unable to find new homes. According to the 2015 survey conducted by Fukushima prefecture, 62.1% of the 80,000 evacuees have health problems. 61.6 % are worried about the wellbeing of their families and themselves, 43.2% about their housing, 42.7% about their mental conditions, and 39.0% about the uncertain future and financial problems. When I interviewed evacuees from Namie at one of the temporary housing sites in Nihonmatsu, they expressed similar concerns. Now, with the lifting of evacuation orders, they will be forced to decide whether to return to their hometowns or find a new home within or outside Fukushima.

⁴Hirono-town is about 20 kilometers from Fukushima-Daiichi. The Japanese government lifted the evacuation order in 2015. As of 2017, 2,897 out of 5,490 people have returned. Naraha-town is 16 kilometer from Fukushima-Daiichi and the evacuation order was lifted in September, 2015. 767of 8,011 Haraha residents have retuned to the town. Odaka-ku of Minami Sōma-city is also 16 kilometers from Fukushima Daiichi. The order was lifted in July, 2016. 1,329 of 12,842 Odaka-ku returned to the area.

⁵The so-called “damages created by rumors” have become a major point of political contention since the nuclear disaster. Many farmers and businesses, not only in relatively unaffected areas of Fukushima but in other prefectures in northeastern Japan, have suffered substantial financial loss due to widespread concerns about being exposed to radiation. On the other hand, Liberal Democratic Party politicians and conservative media outlets have used the “rumor-caused damage” charge to silence criticism, warning against discussion of the real danger of external and internal radioactive exposure. Residents of Fukushima continue to live under the pressure of being accused of encouraging rumor-caused damage even though their concerns are legitimate and their efforts to raise awareness about radiation should be taken very seriously. Some right-wing internet bloggers call those who raise concerns about radiation “unpatriotic” or “anti-Japanese.”

⁶Ishihara Nobuteru, a son of former Tokyo mayor Ishihara Shintaro, then Minister of the Environment, made the infamous remark in June, 2014 during a Q and A session at the House of Councilors with regard to slow progress in persuading towns and villages to build intermediate nuclear waste storage facilities.

⁷The Great Hanshin-Awaji earthquake occurred on January 17, 1995 in the southern part of Hyogo prefecture, Japan. It measured 6.9 on the earthquake magnitude scale, claiming 6,434 lives, most of which were in Kobe, a major urban center with a population of 1.5 million.

⁸In 2016, the Abe administration has decided to use taxpayer money for decontaminating affected areas in Fukushima. The decision marks a fundamental shift from the current policy that obliges TEPCO to pay for the decontamination work.  The 2017 decontamination work is estimated to cost 30 billion yen. Behind the adminstration’s decision for the use of taxpayer money is the rapidly expanding expense of decontamination, with the latest estimate rising from the original 2.5 trillion yen to 4 trillion. This estimate does not include the no-return zones. The government expects the planned work in those areas to cost roughly 300 billion yen over five years. The Abe administration’s decision not only increase people’s financial burden but also blur TEPCO’s responsibility for the irretrievable damages it caused.

⁹Each person receives from 100,000 to 120,000 yen per month as compensation for mental anguish in addition to compensation for the loss that varies significantly. The former compensation will end in 2018.

¹⁰As stated in note 2, the Japanese government was reluctant to support the building of “reconstruction public housing.” This was mainly because it was concerned that this would slow the return of evacuees to their hometowns and home villages. Hino Kōsuke writes in Genpatsu Kimin that Tokyo’s reluctance indicates it is prioritizing the return policy over respecting evacuees’ needs and concerns. Suzuki Yūichi’s statement here expresses the same view.

Teachers throughout the West African state of Cameroon have been striking and protesting against the non-payment of salaries.

Younger educators who have begun their work within the last seven years are claiming they have never received a paycheck.

A special meeting convened by top governmental officials during late March agreed to establish a task force to address the issue. However, educators will not be satisfied until they are paid in full for their services.

The meeting of government officials and representatives of the teachers union released what was said to be a joint communique on March 29. The cabinet ministers present agreed to move as quickly as possible in resolving the problems.

According to the statement released at the conclusion of the talks, the prime minister’s office said:

“After frank and fruitful discussions which helped to explore the current situation, the participants agreed on the following points: (1). the rapid and integral financial absorption of all teachers concerned as from the month of April 2017; (2) the setting up of a consultative platform bringing together representatives of Government departments involved in the processing of teachers’ absorption files and those of the”Collectif des Enseignants Indignés du Cameroun” to: (i) accurately determine the number of teachers effectively concerned; (ii) propose lasting solutions to the late processing of files observed; (ii) prepare a plan for the settlement of arrears owed the teachers concerned; and (iv) define ways of rapidly taking charge of allowances and other bonuses.”

These labor problems which began in the two former British colonial provinces of the country have now spread to the eight French-speaking areas. A march and rally in the capital of Yaounde on March 28 outside the Ministry of Finance involved hundreds of primary and secondary teachers many of whom were carrying placards saying “no pay, no work.”

Just the day before on March 27, teachers refused to end their strike at the urging of the government. The Ministry of Secondary Education human resources director Moussa Djafarou told the media that some 11,000 authenticated personnel files from the educators had been compiled and forwarded to the Ministry of Finance for processing.

Reports indicate that up to 20,000 teachers are impacted by the non-payment of salaries out of a total of approximately 80,000 educators. Those affected appear to be people who have graduated over the last several years and entered the profession.

The protesting teachers attribute administrative disarray for their plight. They say that repeatedly the Ministries of Education and Finance have failed to carry out its duties.

Rogers Kiven, a 27-year-old educator, traveled to Yaounde from Mokollo located on the border with Nigeria. Kiven was quoted in a Voice of America report saying he had not received one pay check since starting his career four years ago.

The young teacher emphasized that:

“We discovered that two years, three years, four years after that we still have not [received] a franc. We communicated [with] our minister and he communicated with his colleague from finance. From those communications, we were able to deduce that our moneys were with the minister of finance. Inasmuch as we are not paid, we are not going to leave this place.” (VOA, March 28)

Another teacher, 30-year-old Zudom Calvin, noted that this was not the first time governmental officials had promised to pay the arrears of their salaries. Calvin said:

“They ask us to compile documents and even when we compile those documents, sometimes they get lost. So we do not want that system to go on like that. He [the finance minister] must pay us.” (VOA)

Colonial Origins of the Unresolved National Question in Cameroon

The plight of teachers across Cameroon first surfaced within the context of the problems in the areas that were previously dominated by British imperialism. Since independence in 1960 the divisions fostered by the partitioning of the country between France and England in 1919 has never been fully resolved. Although officially Cameroon is not a so-called “francophone state” those residing in the former British colonial regions of the northwest and southwest assert that their rights are routinely violated in the legal and educational sectors.

For six months unrest has spread in the English-speaking areas. Lawyers went on strike complaining about the imposition of French-speaking administrative judges in their courtrooms making their work almost impossible. This discontent spread into the school system triggering a strike among educators in the latter months of 2016.

All of modern-day Cameroon and other neighboring territories including areas within Togo were initially colonized by Germany on July 5, 1884 even prior to the Berlin West Africa Conference of 1884-85 where the imperialist states divided the continent based upon their own economic and political interests. The German colonial authorities instituted a system of forced labor used to build the railroads throughout the country.

Germany maintained colonies in Southwest Africa, East Africa in Tanganyika and in West Africa where tens of thousands of Africans were subjected to genocidal policies of slave labor, systematic beatings and starvation. These brutal acts also resulted in widespread deaths in Cameroon and Togo.

One description of the character of German colonial repression says:

“Jesko von Puttkamer, one of the governors of the colony, was most responsible for this brutality in Cameroon. He described the Duala people of Cameroon as ‘the most lazy, false, and base rabble the sun ever shone upon, and it would certainly have been better if, during the conquest of the land in 1884, they had at least been kicked out of the country if not exterminated.’ Under his governorship (1895–1906) the natives were also severely flogged, property was confiscated, villages were burned, natives were murdered, chiefs were imprisoned, and labor was forced and unpaid. These were some of the complaints of the native chiefs against Puttkamer. The German government, however, found such charges unworthy of investigation. It was only due to the efforts of a coalition of missionaries and large companies that Puttkamer was replaced as acting Governor.” (Article by Bill Johnson published at www.creation.com/African-holocaust, Nov. 28, 2013)

During World War I, the British invaded German colonial Kamerun taking control of the territory. Germany’s defeat in the first imperialist war ended its colonial project in Africa rendering the people of Togo and Cameron to British and French domination.

Independence Struggle and the Triumph of Neo-Colonialism

In December 1956, the Union of the Peoples of Cameroon (UPC), a revolutionary anti-imperialist national liberation movement launched an armed struggle against France to gain independence. The UPC called for the unification of French and British dominated regions of the country. The French colonial authorities suppressed the liberation movement resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of Africans.

Later Ruben Um Nyobé, the Secretary-General of the UPC was killed in combat on September 13, 1958. Felix Moumié, UPC president, was poisoned in Geneva, Switzerland in October 1960 at the aegis of the French secret service.

UPC cadres continued an armed struggle until the arrest in August 1970 of Ernest Ouandié, who was executed six months later on 15 January 1971. Another leader of UPC, Osendé Afana, was killed in the south-east on 15 March 1966.

Cameroon’s first post-colonial President Ahmadou Ahidjo collaborated with the French imperialists against the UPC and won the favor of imperialism. Ahidjo ruled the country from the time of independence in January 1960 until 1982 when he voluntarily relinquished office. His prime minister, Paul Biya, took control and soon clashed with Ahidjo supporters. The former president went into exile in 1983 and never returned to the country. The Biya government implicated him in a failed attempted military coup in April 1984.

The divisions between the former English and French dominated areas of the country were officially resolved at the time of independence in July 1961 at the Foumban Conference. Ahidjo became the first president of French Cameroon and subsequent referendums divided the state between Nigeria and Cameroon. Northern Muslim-dominated areas were federated with Nigeria, a former British colony. The western areas controlled by Britain were incorporated into the modern-day state of Cameroon.

Biya has remained in office for thirty five years. There have been numerous elections since the 1980s where Biya succeeded in maintaining control through his Cameroon People’s Democratic Movement (CPDM) ruling party. The party has a majority in the legislative branch of government.

The country has also been subjected to threats from the Boko Haram Islamic group based in neighboring Nigeria. In a recent video the Boko Haram leader threatened to assassinate Biya.

These developments in Cameroon will undoubtedly test the strength and viability of the state amid calls from some leaders of the English-speaking regions to secede from Yaounde. Nonetheless, the further balkanization of Africa, a product of imperialist rule from the 19th century, cannot provide a solution to the unresolved nationality and language questions.

15:47 (local time)

The National Antiterrorist Committee (NAC) reported on the deaths and injuries of the explosion in the metro of St. Petersburg. “Today around 14:40 Moscow time, an explosion of an unknown explosive device occurred in a train carriage on the runway between the metro stations Technological Institute and Sennaya Ploshchad in St. Petersburg, resulting in deaths and injuries,” the NAC said.

15:47

Federal medical institutions will provide all the necessary assistance after the explosions in the metro in St. Petersburg, said an official representative of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation.

15:43

Russian President Vladimir Putin expects that the investigation will soon find out the causes of the explosion in the St. Petersburg metro. According to the head of state, various versions are currently being considered – both domestic and criminal, connected with the manifestation of terror. “The reasons for the explosion are unknown, so it’s too early to talk about it, the investigation will show,” Putin said, starting a meeting with Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko. “Naturally, we always consider all options – both domestic and criminal, primarily manifestations of a terrorist nature.” Let’s see, the investigation will soon provide all the answers to what happened, “the president said.

15:43

All metro stations in St. Petersburg are closed – underground.

photo RT

It is worth noting that this attack occurred less than an hour after an attempted terrorist attack against  the Russian Embassy in Damascus at 14.00 (contradictory report yet to be confirmed) (Damascus and Moscow are on the same time zone).

According to Fort Russ:

At around 14:00 local time, terrorists, belonging to the group Hayat Tahrir Al Sham started to fire mortars and rockets towards the Russia Embassy building in Al Mazraa district of Damascus, Syria’s capital city.

About 20 shells are rockets are said to have been fired, none, however, hit the target. There are no reports on casualties either.

In a response, Russian Air Force launched intense strikes on Hayat Tahrir Al Sham positions in Jobar, located in the eastern countryside of Damascus.

The Fort Russ report is unconfirmed. It is not corroborated by other news agencies. No targets were actually hit according to the report.

agencies, Michael Werbowski reporting from Moscow

Progressive candidate and renowned disability activist from the ruling Alianza Pais, Lenin Moreno has won the Ecuadorean presidential election Sunday.

With 98.45 percent of the official vote counted, Lenin defeated former banker Guillermo Lasso, candidate for the right-wing CREO-SUMO alliance with 51.14 percent to 48.86 percent, according to results issued by the country’s National Electoral Council on Monday morning.

In what many had already predicted, right-wing vice presidential candidate Andres Paez has called for a recount, even though the CNE said it was a transparent and successful election process, calling for everyone to respect the results.

Moreno is set to continue and expand social programs introduced under outgoing President Rafael Correa, for whom Lenin served as vice president from 2007 to 2013, before working as the U.N. special envoy for Disability and Accessibility.

Moreno who has been wheelchair bound after being shot and paralyzed in 1998, is well known for his advocacy work for people with disabilities and supporting public education. Jorge Glass, who also served in the Correa administration will now serve as vice president. The new administration will be officially inaugurated on May 24.

As Rafael Correa departs after 10 years of consecutive rule and a number of social gains made under the Citizens’ Revolution, the victory for Lenin is seen as key not only for Ecuador but for the wider Latin American region. Ecuador will remain a part of the pink tide that has swept the region in the past two decades, not following the right-wing shift that took place in 2016 in Argentina and Brazil.

After decades of social and economic instability including the frequent changing of presidents, Alianza Pais under Correa lifted more than a million people out of poverty, tripled tax income and expanded the country’s universal health care and education

Sunday’s election was the second round of voting after Moreno fell short by less than 0.7 percent on Feb. 19 to win in the first round.

Close to 12.5 million Ecuadoreans in the country, along with almost 400,000 emigrants around the world, were eligible to vote in Sunday’s election. Polling stations were set up in Miami, New York, London and Madrid.

Moreno voted in the north of Quito, accompanied by hundreds of his supporters. Lasso voted with his family in his hometown in the port city of Guayaquil. Correa also voted in the capital along with other government ministers.

“It’s a decisive moment for the region because of the extreme right-wing’s reaction in the last years. Ecuadorean elections are very important,” said Correa while voting.

Moreno’s supporters who gathered from the early afternoon celebrated in the central north of Quito, outside the headquarters of Alianza Pais.

The election was overseen by international observers including former Uruguayan President Jose “Pepe” Mujica, working with the UNASUR electoral mission. Mujica confirmed that the voting had been transparent.

Despite the CNE and international observers announcing that there were no issues with voting, similar to the first round of voting in February, rumors of voting fraud were circulated on social media by the opposition.

Defeated CREO vice presidential candidate, Andres Paez had threatened earlier to protest outside of the CNE offices over fraud claims, urging his followers to come out into the streets.

US War Strategy: Destroy, Partition, Occupy and Control

By Stephen Lendman, April 03, 2017

Imperialism is dirty business – nations raped and destroyed to achieve objectives. Millions of casualties and unspeakable human suffering go unreported.

The REAL Syria Civil Defence, Saving Real Syrians, Not Oscar Winning White Helmets, Saving Al Qaeda

By Vanessa Beeley, April 03, 2017

The REAL Syria Civil Defence has none of the funding of the their US, British, NATO intelligence shadow state counterpart, but they have ten thousand times the integrity. They are recognised and respected by the Syrian people as the ones they call when they are in trouble. They are the officially recognised Syria civil defence that has received accolades for its global humanitarian excellence.  In Syria, they are irreplaceable, despite the best efforts of the US, British, NATO and Gulf state organised crime syndicate.

Iraqi WMDs Anyone? Washington Post Makes Unfounded Claims Of Iranian Supplies To Insurgencies

By Moon of Alabama, April 03, 2017

There is no evidence that Iran provides for a Shia insurgency in Shia majority-Sunni ruled Bahrain just as there is no evidence that it supplies Zaidi fighters in Yemen who fight Al-Qaeda and its Saudi sponsors.

Mainstream Media: Fake News Through Lying by Omission

By Gideon Polya, April 02, 2017

The taxpayer-funded ABC and BBC not only lie by omission, they also lie by omission about their lying by omission. Indeed, in an endless iteration of falsehood, the ABC and BBC are lying by omission about their lying by omission about their lying by omission …

US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II

By James A. Lucas, April 01, 2017

The causes of wars are complex. In some instances nations other than the U.S. may have been responsible for more deaths, but if the involvement of our nation appeared to have been a necessary cause of a war or conflict it was considered responsible for the deaths in it. In other words they probably would not have taken place if the U.S. had not used the heavy hand of its power. The military and economic power of the United States was crucial.

“When the [REAL] Syria Civil Defence are working, attending a rescue, they must divorce from their emotions in order to be 100% effective. When we see the White Helmets ‘working’ they are acting, performing for the camera..it is not real” ~ Colonel of the Damascus Head Quarters of the REAL Syria Civil Defence.

While the multi-million-NATO-Gulf-state-funded White Helmets were scooping the Oscar for the Netflix documentary depicting their “heroic” rescues in “war-torn” Syria, the REAL Syria Civil Defence was continuing with its daily routine of saving Syrian people in Syria, under attack by the same, US, NATO & Gulf state, funded, armed and equipped extremist factions rebranded multiple times to obfuscate their terrorist roots and ideology.

“The RAND Corporation’s recent piece titled, “Al Qaeda in Syria Can Change Its Name, but Not Its Stripes,” all but admits what was already suspected about designated terrorist groups operating in Syria – that they are undergoing a transition in an attempt by their state sponsors to bolster their legitimacy and spare them from liquidation amid the shifting tides on the battlefield.” ~ Tony Cartalucci

21st Century Wire has been exposing the, primarily, UK Foreign Office funded, White Helmets, since their creation in 2013. This faux first responder organisation, established in Turkey and trained by an ex British military mercenary, a “private security” expert, James Le Mesurier, has been taking public perception by storm in the west and successfully “disappearing” the more-than 4000 fully trained paramedics and firefighters who make up the REAL Syria Civil Defence.

Compilation of a number of articles on the White Helmets: WHO ARE SYRIA’S WHITE HELMETS?

In western perception, that has been entirely controlled by corporate media and NATO aligned NGO spin, the White Helmets are the ONLY first responders, saving Syrians from the rubble of bombed buildings. Not true. The reality is, the REAL Syria Civil Defence worked in areas controlled by both Syrian Government and NATO/Gulf state militants until very recently. In 2016, a decision was taken to protect the REAL Syria Civil Defence from terrorist attacks and their operations were limited to the Syrian Government held zones. This was revealed to me by the Colonel of the REAL Syria Civil Defence in Damascus on December 20th 2016.

However, even if the REAL Syria Civil Defence do only operate in Syrian government held areas of Syria, effectively that means they are servicing over 80% of the Syrian population including a huge number of IDPs (internally displaced people), over six million, who have fled the terrorist occupied areas for cities and zones under the protection of the Syrian state.

The following map taken from Wikipedia, was updated three days ago, it shows the huge majority of the populated areas of Syria are under the control of the Syrian state and the Syrian Arab Army..and therefore serviced by the REAL Syria Civil Defence, and not by the NATO & Gulf state-funded White Helmets who operate exclusively in the terrorist and extremist held areas, shown in green and white (and grey) on the map:

It is therefore not surprising that the majority of Syrians living in the heavily populated areas of Syria have never heard of the White Helmets. A fact, that might shock White Helmet supporters in the UK, EU and US who have been deceived into believing that these “saviours of all humanity” are omnipresent in Syria and responsible for the bulk of the humanitarian work being provided to the beleaguered Syrian population.

This is another one of the many fallacies sold to an unsuspecting public by the corporate media, in particular, who have unquestioningly promoted the White Helmets with blatant disregard for the many opposing views presented by independent media and the Syrian people, themselves. The most recent dismissal of the White Helmet myth came from the many testimonies of Syrian civilians emerging from almost five years occupation and imprisonment under a Nusra Front-led terrorist and extremist regime in East Aleppo.

EAST ALEPPO

I was in East Aleppo during its liberation in December 2016, by the SAA and allies, and I was able to speak with these Syrian civilians who had endured a NATO & Gulf state funded, terrorist, regime of torture, abuse, sectarian executions and ideological tyranny. When I asked them if they knew of the White Helmets, they all said no. When I asked them if they knew of the “civil defence”, they all nodded furiously and said, “yes, yes – Nusra Front civil defence”. Most of them elaborated and told me that the Nusra Front civil defence never helped civilians, they only worked for the armed groups.

This video was compiled from many of those testimonies. Syria White Helmets Hand in Hand with Al Qaeda: WATCH ~

Pierre Le Corf, a young Frenchman, working, independently, as a humanitarian volunteer in Aleppo, on the pre-liberation borders of East and West, also filmed the main White Helmet centre, post evacuation, of the various terrorist and armed militant groups under the Syrian government Amnesty agreement, that allowed the armed groups to leave peacefully in buses provided by the Syrian state, destination Idlib.

In this short film, Le Corf shows us that the White Helmet centre, the main one in East Aleppo, was integrated into the Nusra Front compound [Al Qaeda in Syria] and that this White Helmet centre was adorned with a variety of graffitti and flags affirming the White Helmet affiliation to the various terrorist groups, including Nour Al Din Zinki, responsible for the public beheading of 12 year old Palestinian child, Abdullah Issa, in July 2016. Documents were also discovered, further linking the NATO state funded White Helmets to the NATO state terrorist and extremist factions, White Helmets Living Next Door to Al Qaeda in Aleppo: WATCH ~

I also met with various members of the voluntary organisation, the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, that were on the streets of the freshly liberated districts of East Aleppo, providing humanitarian assistance, long after the White Helmets had been evacuated alongside the Nusra Front-led armed groups. I asked them if they had ever seen the White Helmets providing humanitarian aid or rescuing civilians, or even, had they ever worked alongside the SARC that had been able to enter East Aleppo at various points during the almost five year occupation by the armed groups, armed & equipped by NATO and Gulf states via the borders with Turkey. Their response was also, an unequivocal, “no“. WATCH ~

KHATTAB, HAMA

In a recent series of new military fronts, opened by the various US Coalition armed groups, a number of villages and towns in Hama came under pressure and sustained attack. One such village was Khattab that was temporarily taken and occupied by Nusra Front and allies, until the SAA stormed the area and successfully drove the terrorist factions out of the vicinity.

However, during the brief victory for Nusra Front aka Al Qaeda, a video was released by one of their many supporters showing a Nusra fighter crowing over their victory alongside..none other than a White Helmet operative, being described as “greater than the government” and being shown to have taken over the office of the SAA commander: WATCH ~ 

THE REAL SYRIA CIVIL DEFENCE

The number you call for the REAL Syria Civil Defence inside Syria. (Photo: Lattakia Civil Defence)

During my three trips to Syria in 2016, in July, August and December, I met with the REAL Syria Civil Defence crews in West Aleppo [many originally from East Aleppo], Lattakia, Tartous and Damascus.

My interview with the West Aleppo, Syria civil defence crew is reported at 21st Century Wire: The REAL Syria Civil Defence Exposes Fake White Helmets as Terrorist Linked Imposters

Damascus is the headquarters of the REAL Syria Civil Defence and I met with them in August and December 2016. The compound is about 700 metres from Nusra Front and Jaish al Islam occupied Jobar, on the eastern outskirts of Damascus. The extremist factions in Jobar have extensively tunneled underground but are still responsible for many of the daily mortar attacks, targeting only civilian areas of Damascus city. Fierce battles are currently underway between the SAA and NATO/Gulf state funded extremist factions, following a recent spike in terrorist attacks in Damascus, including the devastating suicide bomber attacks that laid waste to the Court House in central Damascus, leaving many civilians, including children, dead and hundreds maimed and injured.

Map of Damascus, showing districts, including Jobar.

The proximity of the Damascus HQ to the armed groups, including Al Qaeda aka Nusra Front, has led to their being targeted by the terrorist factions, by regular mortar attacks and ground attacks. The REAL Syria Civil Defence compound is well walled and protected but in 2013 the centre came under heavy attack from mortars and Jaish al Islam-led ground forces, according to the Colonel of the Damascus civil defence. In 2014, according to the same colonel, the training tower in the centre of their compound was targeted by Jaish Al Islam mortar fire that damaged part of the tower.

“We have no weapons on site, but the terrorist groups still target us as if we are military.” ~ Commander of the Damascus RSCD

The REAL Syria Civil Defence are genuinely unarmed, unlike the NATO state White Helmet organisation that has been filmed, carrying weapons, and working & celebrating alongside extremist organisations, particularly Nusra Front. Hundreds of photos of White Helmet operatives carrying various weapons have been extensively archived by activists and independent journalists, monitoring and investigating the White Helmet social media emporium.

Training tower in REAL Syria Civil Defence HQ, Damascus. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)

The colonel in charge of the Damascus RSCD centre told me that since the “crisis” began, six years ago, there have been many invasions of RSCD centres across Syria. Crews have been massacred or kidnapped, ambulances, fire engines and equipment stolen by the invading extremist groups, including Nusra Front, Ahrar al Sham and ISIS.

Raqqa RSCD was attacked in early 2014, the majority of the crew were massacred and ambulance, fire-engines and equipment were stolen. Deir Ezzor RSCD was attacked in 2013, crew members were killed or kidnapped, equipment stolen. Idlib  RSCD was attacked in August 2015, crew members were killed or kidnapped, equipment stolen. Much of this equipment, according to the Colonel, was later appropriated by the NATO state funded White Helmets. Many of the RSCD crew members who escaped during these attacks, are now working in RSCD centres in Hama and Homs. Some remained in Deir Ezzor and continued to operate, saving civilians, under the long running ISIS siege and attacks.

The vehicle yard of the RSCD in Damascus. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)

“The White Helmets are armed militia, they are the same as the Free Syrian Army (FSA) but with the ideology of Nusra Front, they are sectarian and extremist” ~ RSCD commander in Damascus.

For this RSCD centre, the White Helmets represent the propaganda war that is being waged against Syria, threatening to erase all existence of Syrian state institutions like the RSCD that has been in existence for over 63 years compared to the 3 year old White Helmets, proven time and time again to be an integral part of the NATO and Gulf state regime change apparatus and supporting the multitude of extremist and terrorist groups operating inside Syria, funded by the same colonialist state actors. The White Helmets are largely responsible for the stream of propaganda that is used to maintain the demonization of the elected Syrian government, its President, Bashar Al Assad and the Syrian Arab Army.

The commander at the RSCD in Damascus, told me that he believes the terrorist groups were deliberately targeting their crews when they were on a rescue mission, hoping to destroy their ability to help civilians. He told me the armed groups would often pick off the most experienced members of the crew, as if they knew that by doing so they would weaken the crews by reducing the experience within the team.

Truck targeted by NATO state terrorist groups in Homs, killing 3 RSCD crew members instantly. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)

In April 2014, the Damascus RSCD took part in an emergency call out to Deir Atiyah near Homs. The area had been under attack from Nusra Front and civilians were buried under the rubble of shelled buildings and homes. The fire engine was despatched with full crew, as they neared the site of the shelling, where many civilians were injured or already dead under the rubble, a guided missile fired by the Nusra Front led armed groups, hit the fire engine, killing three crew members immediately. One of those crew members had over 40 years experience in Urban Search and Rescue (USAR). That kind of loss is irreplacable for these humanitarian organisations.

“They were unarmed, they drove to the area in the knowledge that the terrorists would attack them, but their priority were the injured civilians. Their only weapons are their equipment and their skills” ~ Commander of the RSCD, Damascus

From 2011 to the end of 2015, 77 RSCD crew members have been killed, in Syria, by the various NATO/Gulf state armed groups. Others have been kidnapped and are still missing, there are no official numbers of the kidnapped rescue workers.

Engineer Saad and Engineer Al Masry were two crew members of the Damascus RSCD who were injured by Jaish Al Islam-led attacks on the operations centre close to Jobar. The following are their brief testimonies of those attacks: WATCH ~

I asked the commander what mechanisms were in place to care for injured RSCD members if they are no longer able to work. He told me that there are two levels of care, first level is the Syrian government that provides the primary financial assistance, the second level is local NGOs who also provide financial and social assistance. The Syria Civil Defence, itself, also cares for retired or injured workers but is in need of greater support to be able to provide optimum care to their employees, according to the commander.

“We need greater support, whatever we do for these people, its not enough to compensate for their loss or their suffering. I lost my own son, a Captain, fighting with the Syrian Arab Army, killed in battle in Daraya, he left behind two young children. Everyone in Syria is coping with loss.”  ~ Commander, RSCD Damascus

The commander went on:

“The original headquarters were close to Al Abassiyn square in Jobar, an area that has been intensively targeted by the terrorist factions, Jaish al Islam and Nusra Front. We were constantly under attack. One day I was leaving the buildings and going to my car. A mortar hit near the car. Three RSCD members were killed in that attack, my driver received a serious head injury and was paralysed..eventually he was discharged. After that attack we vacated that building and moved to this building. The Syrian Arab Army took over the old building and turned it into a defence against the terrorist factions in Jobar, Jaish al Islam, Nusra Front and others”

Entrance to the old HQ of the RSCD in Al Abassiyn, Jobar. Now an SAA outpost containing the Jaish al Islam, Nusra Front occupation. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley) 

Trenches had been dug to prevent NATO state funded terrorist groups digging tunnels under the SAA compound and detonating them. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)

The entire RSCD building had been converted into a military outpost with all rooms sandbagged and windows turned into sniping points. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley) 

Room with a view of Jobar through one of the SAA sniper slits in the windows overlooking the Jaish al Islam/Nusra Front occupied 4 km sq of Jobar. 

INTERNATIONAL CIVIL DEFENCE ORGANISATION, GENEVA

It has been mentioned in previous articles that the RSCD is a founder member of the ICDO, the official UN and Red Cross affiliated International Civil Defence Organisation, based in Geneva. The RSCD in Damascus told me that prior to the conflict, so pre 2011, the RSCD participated in all official ICDO conferences and international seminars. Between 1999 and 2003 Syria was an active member of the EuroMed/Arab country project that fostered co-operation between these nations on the humanitarian, USAR fronts.

Syria had one of the best records for training disaster evacuation and USAR techniques globally and had won awards through its membership with the ICDO. I was shown documentation of many of these awards. In 2010 Syria was involved in the training of UN staff and was again awarded medals for the excellence of its training and the extent of its expertise.

Just prior to the announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize, 2016, I was informed by Joaquin Flores that the ICDO website link to the REAL Syria Civil Defence had been re-routed to the White Helmets who were making their famous, and heavily corporate media supported, bid for the Nobel prize. The following morning I called the ICDO to ask them why the link had been tampered with.  During this brief conversation, the ICDO confirmed the following points to me:

1: The White Helmets are not recognised by the ICDO & are not members of the ICDO

2: The White Helmets are not even “concretely” a civil defence organisation

3: The White Helmets is the “wrong” civil defence

4: The only civil defence recognised by the ICDO and the UN is the “official” Syria Civil Defence.

The full audio recording is here: 

Despite the best efforts of the White Helmets, their sponsors and the NATO aligned media promoters, they failed in their bid for the Nobel Peace Prize although this did not stop them immediately producing a campaign to raise the money they “would have won” had they been given the prize for “peace”.

The White Helmets Nobel fundraiser to compensate them for not winning the 2016 peace prize. (Photo: Screenshot)

Nor did it prevent the White Helmets and their marketing campaign managers immediately launching the bid for the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize:

“We cannot compete with the publicity that the White Helmets have. We are surviving on a meagre government salary. We don’t have the millions at our disposal that have been given to the White Helmets. How do they receive this money, when we struggle to even replace essential equipment because of the US/EU sanctions?” ~ RSCD commander, Damascus.

The commander told me that, while the ICDO will not issue a public statement in support of the REAL Syria Civil Defence, citing its neutrality as the reasoning behind this decision, it does however still demand the full annual, financial contribution from the RSCD, 20,000 Swiss Francs ($ 20,000). The US/EU sanctions mean that the RSCD cannot pay from inside Damascus as no bank transfers are allowed, instead they are forced to send a delegation to Geneva with the cash funds.

This somewhat humiliating procedure for a member state organisation that has won awards for its contributions to global humanitarian campaigns is even more astounding when one considers the equipment and finance that seemingly pours over the Turkish border into the White Helmet account, as they work side by side with Nusra Front, Ahrar al Sham, Nour al Din Zinki, to name a few among many other extremist, sectarian, US coalition-armed groups who depend upon the White Helmets for amateur paramedic treatment and propaganda cover for their criminal activities, including the execution of SAA prisoners of war.

In fact, funding for the White Helmets seems to bypass all controls placed upon even the most insignificant fundraiser for Syria under the US/EU sanctions. The White Helmets “give everything” according to their promotional memes, but in reality, they are receiving a mind-blowing level of funding for an ostensibly ordinary NGO comprising 3000 employees maximum, who take a documented, monthly stipend of $ 150.

One of the many White Helmet public funding campaigns that run in parallel with the estimated $ 250m that is being provided by their US, UK, EU, NATO and Gulf state backers.

An example of how the US/EU sanctions affect the RSCD is the ambulance that was parked in one of the many bullet holed and shell damaged hangars in the Damascus compound. This ambulance had been gutted in Hama by the armed groups, the vehicle itself had been recovered but it was devoid of life saving equipment and under the sanctions, the RSCD has been unable to replace any of this equipment, rendering the vehicle useless in a rescue operation. Prior to the crisis, Holland and Germany had been primary suppliers to the RSCD, now that supply chain is frozen. Both countries, however, have redirected their funding to the UK, US intelligence agency construct, the White Helmets.

“On the margins of the UN General Assembly, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has met with representatives of the White Helmets to discuss the situation in Syria shortly they were presented with the” Alternative Nobel Prize “. He expressed his great respect for their courageous and dangerous work. The Federal Foreign Office is supporting the White Helmets and has recently increased the funds made available for this purpose by two to a total of seven million euros this year. ” ~ translation of the statement from German FO

Holland donated 4.5 million euros, to the Al Qaeda civil defence aka White Helmets,  in 2016.

So, while the RSCD services over 80% of the war-torn Syrian population on a shoestring budget, under punitive sanctions, the White Helmets exclusively service territory governed by the US coalition [NATO & Gulf states] funded and armed terrorist and extremist groups carrying out all manner of sectarian atrocities against the Syrian people trapped in those areas. No wonder the UK Government has labelled it “non humanitarian” aid.

“I’m proud to say we’re giving them I think £32 million [US$39.78 million] funding as part of a wider £65 million package for non-humanitarian aid,” ~ Boris Johnson

RSCD ambulance stripped of essential equipment by armed groups in Hama. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)

The RSCD has always specialised in helping refugees and working in all evacuation situations. In 2008 they had prepared to house and rescue more than 100,000 civilians in the event of an earthquake or other natural disaster in Syria. Warehouses had been built to store blankets, mattresses and equipment. The majority of these warehouses have been looted by the various armed gangs.

Since 2011, the RSCD has trained more than 6000 women in first aid and wound care. During a 15 day course, the women spend one week at the RSCD headquarters and then a further week in local hospitals to be trained in basic paramedic procedures. This is never mentioned by the western corporate media, all too keen to promote the suddenly emerging female White Helmets who are replacing their male counterparts in the advertising for this US/UK/EU Gulf state funded organisation.

UK FUNDING FOR WHITE HELMETS

A recent development in the funding pattern of the UK government with regards to the very British affair of the White Helmets needs further investigation. Should UK Taxpayers not be asking why they are being persuaded to give public donations to the White Helmets via various funding campaigns, including the Jo Cox fund, when the White Helmets are being funded, at least £32m and a possible further undisclosed amount under cover of the UK regime’s Conflict, Stability and Security fund as “Non-Humanitarian aid.”

“A £1bn-plus British conflict, stability and security fund (CSSF) is so secret that a committee of senior MPs and peers meant to be scrutinising it can’t even be told the names of the 40 countries where it is spent.

The problem was raised on Monday with the home secretary, Amber Rudd, by a former Conservative defence minister Archie Hamilton, who said MPs had been told the names of the countries had to remain secret because those that received funds would be embarrassed and those that didn’t would be jealous.

Rudd told the joint committee on national security strategy that the fund was spent on 97 programmes in 40 different countries. “They do a great job in reaching out, addressing UK interests in unstable areas,” she said. “They include groups such as the White Helmets in Syria, who do a great job.” The White Helmets are a volunteer civil defence force that operates in rebel-held areas in Syria.” ~ The Guardian 

Perhaps the answer lies in this statement made by the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Philip Jones and reported by UK Column:

CONCLUSION

The REAL Syria Civil Defence are the real Syrians helping real Syrians in Syria. This fact is indisputable, all logical, rational thinkers must draw this conclusion based upon analysis of the evidence that has been supplied by many independent sources, on the ground in Syria or in contact with reliable, non NATO aligned or funded, sources inside Syria.

Perhaps one of the most egregious crimes of this dirty war being waged on Syria for the last six years, is the ferocious undermining of the Syrian state’s ability to take care of its own people. Against all odds, the Syrian state has persisted in providing services, food, water and essential supplies to its population, even to those areas occupied by the assorted armed extremist groups.

The White Helmets are responsible for the maintenance of the US coalition war on Syria. They produce the desired propaganda when needed to, either to distract from the criminal operations  of the US coaliton as when it bombed the SAA soldiers in Deir Ezzor, for over an hour in September 2016, killing over 70 Syrian soldiers fighting ISIS in that area, or when there is a requirement for renewed interest in a No Fly Zone to enable NATO states to, once more, reduce a sovereign nation to scorched earth.

The following incident was instigated by the White Helmets as a smokescreen for the US coalition war crime committed in Deir Ezzor. This false flag was triggered 24 hours after the US coalition bombing of the SAA soldiers:

“In September 2016, the White Helmets were also instrumental in trying to assign blame for an incident where a UN Aid Convoy was attacked outside of the town of Urm al-Kubra, west of Aleppo. The west were quick to blame it on the Russian and Syria militaries – despite the fact there was no evidence to implicate them.” ~ Forget Oscar: Give The White Helmets the Leni Riefenstahl Award for Best War Propaganda Film

One of the original funders of the Netflix Documentary on the White Helmets pulled its funding because of the White Helmet propensity for No Fly Zones. The Threshold Foundation withdrew considerable funding for the project and issued this statement:

“We have since learned that the subject of the film (the White Helmets organization) and others involved in this film are advocating for strategies that could entail international military force and escalated violence.”

PDF of the Threshold Foundation statement here.

The White Helmets are one of the biggest propaganda heists ever seen in recent colonialist history. To suggest this organisation is “unarmed and neutral” is fraudulent. To suggest they are humanitarian is inaccurate and misleading as their videos demonstrate minimal paramedic expertise and maximum cinematic exploitation. They are a rag tag collection of armed fighters, co-opted into the terrorist and extremist gangs that are occupying areas of Syria and persecuting the civilians of those areas. In East Aleppo, civilians told us, ‘they left injured Syrians under the rubble to die, only performing when the camera was turned on.’

The REAL Syria Civil Defence has none of the funding of the their US, British, NATO intelligence shadow state counterpart, but they have ten thousand times the integrity. They are recognised and respected by the Syrian people as the ones they call when they are in trouble. They are the officially recognised Syria civil defence that has received accolades for its global humanitarian excellence.  In Syria, they are irreplaceable, despite the best efforts of the US, British, NATO and Gulf state organised crime syndicate.

The REAL Syria Civil Defence are the REAL heroes for the Syrian people and no amount of international deception or Hollywood glamour will ever enable the White Helmets to take their place in Syria.

The USS America LHA-6 successfully completed combat systems ship qualification trials (CSSQT) on February 3rd, in preparation for its first overseas deployment at the head of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit/Amphibious Ready Group (MEU/ARG). The vessel went to sea several times in January to conduct training exercises in the run-up to its future deployment, testing different mixes of aviation assets to be fielded on the new class of ship. The USS America is classified as a Landing Helicopter Assault (LHA), and lacks a well deck to launch and recover LCACs or AAVs. The U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps have to determine exactly how to best utilize the new vessel as an integrated component of an MEU/ARG.

There was no small amount of controversy over the new vessel when it was first proposed. Many senior officers in the USMC argued that an amphibious assault ship meant to head an MEU/ARG must have amphibious assault capability. Without a well deck, the new LHA cannot launch and recover marines via LCAC hovercraft, LCU landing craft or AAVs, and thus it possesses no inherent amphibious capability. This renders the vessel less flexible than a Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) of comparable size, such as the USS Wasp Class. This new class of LHA will use the added space traditionally taken up by a well deck and heavy vehicle stowage for increased aircraft hangar space, and storage for aviation maintenance and fuel. The America will allow for the accommodation of an Air Combat Element (ACE) that is larger in number and of a different mixture of aircraft than a traditional MEU/ARG.

In apparent recognition of the need to remedy the lack of flexibility inherent in the current design, and to bring the America class back in line with the traditional USMC mission, only the USS America LHA-6 and the USS Tripoli LHA-7, which is currently under construction, will be built absent a well deck. Although larger in dimensions and displacement, the remaining six vessels planned will be brought more in line with the USS Makin Island LHD-8 from which it was originally based; however, their well deck will be smaller in size. In order to make up for the lack of amphibious capability of the USS America, the smaller amphibious vessels comprising the MEU/ARG will have to bear the responsibility of transporting the heavy equipment that marines may need to bring to any potential fight. Although equipped with some internal cargo and vehicle stowage space, the America can only discharge vehicles and stores while docked at a prepared shore facility.

Lessons learned from the first overseas deployment of the vessel later this year, may result in the decision to add one additional LPD to any MEU/ARG fielding an LHA to bring amphibious strength up to an acceptable standard, or mandating that the LHAs must only be added to a traditional MEU/ARG if the mission calls for supplemental aviation capability.

The controversy surrounding the USS America LHA-6 and USS Tripoli LHA-7 is only exacerbated when considering the aviation elements that the vessel was designed to employ. The flight deck, internal hangars and elevators were designed to accommodate the V-22 Osprey and the F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. Both aircraft have been the source of controversy for a multitude of reasons. Both aircraft programs have incurred massive cost overruns, have failed to perform as promised, and in the case of the Osprey, have achieved an infamous safety record. A total of 36 fatalities are associated with the aircraft, although 30 of these occurred in incidents and crashes prior to the aircraft becoming operational in 2007. After almost two decades of development, which incurred a cost overrun of 40% more than originally budgeted, the V-22 Osprey costs approximately $100 million USD per aircraft. By contrast, an MH-60S Seahawk or CH-53 Sea Stallion each costs roughly $28 million USD per unit; however, the V-22 achieves three to four times the range of either traditional rotary wing aircraft and can carry a far larger payload than the MH-60S.

The controversy surrounding the F-35 JSF is well known. The cost overruns, faulty systems, and poor performance of this $1.3 trillion USD and climbing aircraft program are embarrassing enough; however, flight testing of both the V-22 and the F-35 on the flight deck of the USS America have revealed that the deck may not be strong enough to withstand the high heat unleashed by their engines during continuous flight operations. This shortcoming will have to be remedied by strengthening the America’s flight deck and reengineering the flight decks of all following vessels in class, adding significant cost. The AV-8B Harrier, used by the USMC for over 30 years, has one Rolls Royce F-402-RR-408 vectored thrust turbofan that produces 23,500 lbf. of thrust. The F-35B Lightning II uses the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, which can produce a maximum of 50,000 lbf. of thrust. The aircraft uses approximately 40,000 lbf. of thrust when taking off vertically.

The USS America will have to prove that it is not a dead-end in naval design. As the premier fighting force of the U.S. military services, and true to the unofficial motto, “Improve, Adapt and Overcome”, the USMC will work with any assets at their disposal. They will most likely excel, but until the vessel is proven in an actual military or humanitarian operation, the efficacy of such a design will be hard to determine. A return to a more balanced and flexible LHA design with the completion of USS Bougainville LHA-8, will eventually give the U.S. Navy and USMC a chance to compare the two vessels, put them both through their paces, and decide if the USS America was worth her $3.4 billion USD price tag.

The wisdom of providing a very specialized platform to carry U.S. Marines, who train to excel at all forms of warfare, whether by land, sea, or air, is questionable. The USMC has proven the most resistant of all U.S. military branches to misguided Department of Defense mandated changes in recent decades, and will undoubtedly continue to resist changes that they deem counterproductive to the Corps and their mission. In the meantime, they will do the best job they can with the tools they have been given.

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

Since the 1990s rape of Yugoslavia, US wars were waged to replace independent governments with pro-Western puppet ones.

Strategy involves  destroying, partitioning, occupying and controlling one country after another. 

Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo is America’s largest European military base since the Vietnam War era – established for regional control, US bases in other war theaters for the same purpose.

Washington intends a permanent military presence in all its war theaters. The Brookings Institution’s policy paper laid out a strategy for Syria, applicable for other nations America attacked, titled “Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederated country.”

It’s a diabolical destroy, divide, partly occupy and control scheme – unknown to the public, unexplained by media. 

Other countries America attacked face the same possible diabolical fate, part of a grand plan to redraw the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia maps.

More wars are planned besides ongoing ones, millions more lives at risk, greater vast destruction than already.

Trillions of dollars are spent for Washington’s aim to achieve unchallenged global dominance, including homeland police state harshness and information control to quash dissent.

US regime change plans in Syria failed so far. Russia’s vital intervention at the behest of its government prevented Washington from controlling the entire country, including its capital Damascus, puppet rule replacing Assad. 

Objectives haven’t changed, just strategy, intending destruction of northern Syria, occupying, partitioning and controlling it – on the phony pretext of combating ISIS America created and supports, along with virtually all other terrorist groups in the region and elsewhere.

Thousands of US forces are in northern Iraq for the same purpose – destroying Mosul, not liberating it. Most area ISIS fighters were redeployed to Syria.

It’s unclear how many remain. It’s unknown how many US special forces and other combat troops operate in northern Iraq and Syria, or elsewhere in both countries.

According to Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon,

“(i)n order to maintain tactical surprise, ensure operational security and force protection, the coalition will not routinely announce or confirm information about the capabilities, force numbers, locations, or movement of forces in or out of Iraq and Syria.”

Washington doesn’t want information revealed about the strength of its military presence, intention to increase it, or diabolical strategic plans – unrelated to combating ISIS or other terrorist groups.

Deployments and missions are permanent, not temporary, everything done secretly.  Officially, around 5,300 US forces are in Iraq, around 1,000 in Syria.

Actual troop strength may be much larger, likely greater numbers to be deployed.

In March 2016, Reuters said

“(t)he United States has nearly finished setting up an air base in Kurdish-controlled northern Syria and was proceeding with the construction of a second base for dual military and civilian use” – construction illegal on occupied Syrian territory.

In congressional testimony, CENTCOM commander General Joseph Votel said

“as we continue our military objectives in Syria, we are going to need more direct all-weather fire support capability for our Syrian…partners.”

Translation: Greater numbers of US combat troops will be deployed to northern Syria to aid anti-government terrorists seize and control territory, permanently separating it from Damascus control if things go as planned.

Days earlier, Sergey Lavrov expressed concern about continued foreign support for al-Nusra terrorists in Syria.

Evidence shows Washington and its allies are “us(ing) al-Nusra and the IS (ISIS) to weaken and finally overthrow” Assad, despite comments claiming otherwise.

Strategy appears to be destroying, partitioning and occupying northern Syria first, likely later again pursuing regime change.

Washington wants control over the entire country, Iran isolated, ahead of a similar strategy to replace its government with a pro-Western puppet one, giving America and Israel unchallenged regional dominance if successful.

Imperialism is dirty business – nations raped and destroyed to achieve objectives. Millions of casualties and unspeakable human suffering go unreported.

Media scoundrels ignore what demands explaining. Most Americans and Europeans have no idea about their governments’ diabolical plans.

They’re pursuing a world unsafe and unfit to live in, nightmarish ruler/serf societies enforced by police state harshness if successful – a pure evil agenda.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. 

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

It’s been more than a week but they are still out there– machines and people –pushing it, chopping it, lifting it– moving it, somehow, out of the way, out of our routine pathways. Under attack by salt, sand and sunrays, the mountains of snow slowly retreat. Although early April forecasts warn this may not be the end. We groan at the thought.

People will be talking about Storm Stella for a decade. I had never seen so many plows— lumbering monsters, lights flashing, orange twelve-foot-wide metal wings lunging through the whiteness; plows with sand and salt sprayers follow the heavier machines. Narrower roads are tackled by ATVs, shovels and buckets newly fixed to their bumpers. Snow blowers of all sizes are ferried by truck to inaccessible homes and office buildings.

As we dig ourselves out, we are uncertain if another day of snow is due. Do we have enough food? What if electricity fails?

Following the dig out, neighbors exchange memories of the last blizzard in upstate New York. Gregg says it was 2003; others claim 1996 was the worst in memory.

I don’t remember the winter of ’96. Where was I?

Now I recall: in Iraq documenting the staggering impact of the United Nations sanctions (a U.S. initiated and policed blockade) against the country. (An action which Washington forced the UN to endorse.)

By 1996 the blockade on Iraq had been in effect for almost six years. By 1996 its people no longer waited for the isolation and shortages and illnesses and deprivations and heart attacks to end. By 1996 they ceased expecting any change in the United Nations position or fair treatment from waves of rude inspection teams. So many agencies were making millions (funds allocated by the U.S. from Iraq’s frozen bank accounts) from monitors and conferences, reviews and reports about the crippled nation’s poverty, sanctions compliance, and human rights accounting, there was no incentive to end the embargo.

The assaulted, besieged population adjusted, if adjust is the right word for survival. If anyone can adjust to personal losses and war, deprivations, indignities and manifold injuries. “Whatever we suffer today, we know only that tomorrow will be worse”, she noted. I don’t remember her name, but I know her voice—low and angry, lips pressed together. She was no more than 20. Her words slap against my brain cells, again and again, twenty years later.

Along with millions of other Iraqis she waited day after day, year after year. (And they still wait.)

Even though the embargo ended after 13 years and elections were held, many millions perished or moved abroad. Except for planning how to get whatever crumbs one may manage to suck out of the government, the only thing to look forward to is escape. A quarter century of uncertainty– under dictatorship, under occupation, under democratically elected governments–persists.

Feeling the (temporary) assault and isolation created by Storm Stella’s engulfing New York last month, it occurred to me:

Suppose it doesn’t stop? Suppose another one hits before we have cleared this away; suppose all available plows are diverted to the city and we are forgotten? Suppose this goes on, the snow accumulating day after day, until May, and then suppose a week of rain follows? Suppose the melt-off and the downpour trigger floods, and roads are washed out? I didn’t feel panic; but for the first time, I really imagined what the accumulation of year after year after year of war could create.

I’d been in war zones. In Iraq observing crumbling infrastructure, closed hospitals, abandoned clinics, no flights, no medicines, no milk powder, heading for summer, I was nevertheless able to escape every time slipping in June away to avoid the searing heat. I had moved through Occupied Palestine, hearing tanks rumbling through a neighborhood, witnessing curfews and endless check points, school cancellations, shops shuttered, playgrounds locked. Since 2011, I’ve followed Syria’s trauma, with families and houses isolated from one another, declining services each month, utility cuts, shortages, one hardship piled on anther, no one to call for help.

Spring is suspended indefinitely in all these places. For all these inhabitants, all these souls.

A dystopian winter image set off by barely three days of interruption in my routine created by Storm Stella, brings me closer than anything else I had experienced to what millions are living inside those endless wars where the cruelness of winter storms goes on and on and on.

At least 19 U.S. states have introduced bills that attack the right to protest since Donald Trump‘s election as president, an “alarming and undemocratic” trend, U.N. human rights investigators said this week.

Maina Kiai and David Kaye, independent U.N. experts on freedom of peaceful assembly and expression respectively, are calling on lawmakers in the United States to stop the “alarming” trend of “undemocratic” anti-protest bills designed to criminalize or impede the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and expression.

“The trend also threatens to jeopardize one of the United States’ constitutional pillars: free speech,” they said in a statement, calling for action to reverse such legislation.

“From the Black Lives Matter movement, to the environmental and Native American movements in opposition to the Dakota Access oil pipeline, and the Women’s Marches, individuals and organizations across society have mobilized in peaceful protests, as it is their right under international human rights law and US law,” Kiai and Kaye said.

• The Arizona State Senate in February voted to expand racketeering laws to allow police to arrest anyone involved in a protest and seize their assets, treating demonstrators like organized criminals.
• Portland, Oregon activists organizing against police killings of Black men, white nationalist politicians, and the countless systems of racism throughout our local, state, and federal governments are now considered “domestic terrorists” by Department of Homeland Security.
• In January, North Dakota Republicans proposed legislation to legalize running over protesters if they are blocking roadways. (The legislation failed, for now.)
• Missouri lawmakers want to make it illegal to wear a robe, mask or disguise (remarkably, a hoodie would count) to a protest.
• In Minnesota, following the police shooting death of Philando Castile, protests caused part of a highway to shut down. Then, at the beginning of the state legislative session, Minnesota legislators drafted bills that would punish highway protestors with heavy fines and prison time and would make protesters liable for the policing costs of an entire protest if they individually were convicted of unlawful assembly or public nuisance.
• Republicans in Washington state have proposed a plan to reclassify as a felony civil disobedience protests that are deemed “economic terrorism.”
• Lawmakers in North Carolina want to make it a crime to heckle lawmakers.
• In Indiana, conservatives want to allow police to use “any means necessary” to remove activists from a roadway.
• Colorado lawmakers are considering a big increase in penalties for environmental protesters. Activists who tamper with oil or gas equipment could be, under the measure, face felony charges and be punished with up to 18 months behind bars and a fine of up to $100,000.
• A bill before the Virginia state legislature would dramatically increase punishment for people who “unlawfully” assemble after “having been lawfully warned to disperse.” Those who do so could face a year in jail and a $2,500 fine.

The experts took particular issue with the characterization in some bills of protests being “unlawful” or “violent”.

“There can be no such thing in law as a violent protest,” the experts said. “There are violent protesters, who should be dealt with individually and appropriately by law enforcement. One person’s decision to resort to violence does not strip other protesters of their right to freedom of peaceful assembly. This right is not a collective right; it is held by each of us individually,” the experts stressed.

“Peaceful assembly,” they added, “is a fundamental right, not a privilege, and the government has no business imposing a general requirement that people get permission before exercising that right.”

The experts also emphasized that legislators should be mindful of the important role that the right to freedom of peaceful assembly has played in the history of American democracy and the fight for civil rights.

“We call on the US authorities, at the federal and state level, to refrain from enacting legislation that would impinge on the exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, expression and opinion,” they concluded.

NATO’s devastating terror bombing missions against civilians in Mosul, Iraq have diverted the attention of observers from other developments that could be more devastating.

Similarly, the US public policy announcement that Assad doesn’t “need to go” serves a strategic purpose of providing cover for covert war crimes that are advancing beneath the radar.

The advancing war crimes take the form of an escalation of US forces on the ground in Syria.

As Denis Kucinich, former Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives for Ohio, explained in a March 18 global Facebook post,

This is an illegal war. The Administration has no legal nor Constitutional authority to attack Syria. Syria has not declared war on the US. It has neither the intention nor the capability of attacking the US. There is no imminent threat from Syria. Congress, according to the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, has the sole authority to take this country into a war, yet congressional leaders are silent. Yet the US is preparing to put more “boots on the ground” in Syria, and, apparently escalate the war from the air, no matter the costs borne by innocents.

By putting more “boots on the ground” in Syria, Washington is betraying American citizens as well as international law.

And the additional “boots on the ground” policy aims to further the covert agenda of manipulating a minority Kurdish population to serve as instruments to balkanize and destroy Syria.

Historical and present memory of Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, the former Yugoslavia and beyond should inform all Syrians that the US seeks to be perceived as a “saviour” by (illegally)“helping” the Kurds so that it can later use the Kurds’ new found “liberty” to fuel intra Syrian divisions, and to weaken and destroy the country.

The “balkanize and destroy” agenda is further revealed if reports that the US and its allies are criminally blocking the SAA from attacking Raqqa are true. Such a development would suggest that the imperialists and their allies seek to control the battlefield, and to secure Raqqa (and NATO proxy terrorists) with a view to serving an imperial agenda of destruction rather than any stated agenda of “defeating ISIS”.

Clearly, if NATO sincerely wanted to destroy ISIS, it would have allied itself with Russia, Syria, and their allies years ago. But the agenda has never been to destroy ISIS.

Political commentator and co-editor of the on-line site BS News, Mike Raddie, explains the covert imperial agenda here:

Trump had offered to Paul Ryan, on January 26th, a postponement on offering an Obamacare-replacement until after Obamacare collapses of its own accord after the new (much costlier) premiums come out late in 2017, but perhaps Ryan said no to that; it’s not what happened. They didn’t take that road. 

In any case, House Republicans — and this includes Ryan their leader — naturally didn’t like Trump’s suggestion

that “the Dems would come begging to do something because ’17 is going to be catastrophic price increases [which is already set to happen in the Obamacare exchanges], your deductibles are through the roof, you can’t use them, and they will come to us,” which would then mean that those same House Republicans wouldn’t be the people writing the legislation; Trump and “the Democrats” would do it and get the credit for it, which was a real fear they had about this new President, who was well known for saying that he would work with either Party or both Parties in order to get his legislation passed. So, Trump was quoted as having told these congressional Republicans, on January 26th, “But I think, congressmen, we have no choice, we have no choice, we have to get it going,” and then Paul Ryan issued his plan on March 7th, and it promptly busted. 

Trump, then, yet again, in an interview published on April 2nd in Britain’s Financial Times said,

“If we don’t get what we want, we will make a deal with the Democrats and we will have in my opinion not as good a form of healthcare. … But we are going to have a very good form of healthcare. It will be a bipartisan form of healthcare.”

He was repeating his implicit threat to House Republicans — his threat to Paul Ryan.

What would happen, in such a case, if the most-supported Presidential candidate, the most popular American politician of all, Bernie Sanders, told Trump he’d endorse Trump’s opening Medicare to all U.S. citizens funded through taxes? Trump has already acknowledged that it would be vastly more cost-efficient than is the existing hodge-podge:

On September 27th of 2016, while campaigning against Hillary Clinton, Trump told CBS “60 Minutes”:

Donald Trump: By the way. Everybody’s got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, “No, no, the lower 25 percent that can’t afford private.” But —

Scott Pelley: Universal health care?

Donald Trump: I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.

Scott Pelley: The uninsured person is going to be taken care of how?

Donald Trump: They’re going to be taken care of. I would make a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people. And, you know what, if this is probably —

Scott Pelley: Make a deal? Who pays for it?

Donald Trump: — The government’s gonna pay for it. But we’re going to save so much money on the other side. But for the most it’s going to be a private plan and people are going to be able to go out and negotiate great plans with lots of different competition with lots of competitors with great companies and they can have their doctors, they can have plans, they can have everything.

He was describing there the Swiss system, which instead of America’s for-profit insurance companies uses non-profit ones and then lays out in detail the criteria for all health plans that will be approved by the government, so that now there are 60 insurers there, all of which offer one or more of the authorized types of plans; insurers don’t supply any dividends and profits to investors (there are no investors) but only meet the requirements of the law, the government, so that all Swiss citizens can rest assured that the insurance company makes no difference — only the different categories of the government’s authorized plans do. Everything is the same within a given plan, except that the insurers can and do vary from one-another on price, on all but the basic plan. I’ve further described elsewhere the Swiss system, and its well-proven superiority — in every way — over America’s. More details about the Swiss system can be found here. The history of the Swiss system is here.

If such a plan were to be proposed by Sanders and endorsed by the President using his White House bully pulpit to sell it to the public, and yet fail to get almost all congressional Democrats and at least enough Republicans behind it to pass it, then both Trump and Sanders would look golden, and everyone who had voted against it would then look lousy; so, it would probably pass. And, in either case, Sanders — for his leadership in this — would be ideally positioned to beat any Democrat in the 2020 Presidential primaries, and (if polling thus far is any indicator) he’d easily beat Trump (or especially Pence) in the general election. But it wouldn’t be only his plan; it would be a compromise between his original proposal, Medicare for all, and the one that Trump described to Scott Pelley on September 27th. But that’s what any “bipartisan” plan necessarily would be: a compromise.

Sanders wouldn’t get Medicare for all, and Trump wouldn’t get preservation of the existing — i.e., for-profit — insurance companies. Instead of Sanders’s governmental insurance system, or Trump’s for-profit corporate-offered insurance system, it would be a strictly regulated non-profit insurance system — which would be based upon the Swiss model, which is already proven to be vastly superior to the American model.

If Sanders would want to propose to Trump something along these lines, he could add for special appeal to Democratic healthcare-consumers — i.e., for patients who favor the Democratic Party — in his proposal a public-option (i.e., a government-provided) insurance plan, so long as it won’t be competing against the other (the non-profit) ones, but perhaps instead it would be paying a fixed percentage of any year’s excess of income over and above expenses, into the general revenue, that’s to say, into taxes. The government, then, would be serving like a residuary charity, whose beneficiaries are the general public — which is what any government is supposed to be, regardless. Then, if Trump won’t accept that proposal, Sanders could ask Trump what in Trump’s proposal Trump would be willing to sacrifice in order to get Sanders to sacrifice such a public option. And together, they’d offer the negotiated plan to both Parties in Congress, as a truly bipartisan compromise.

The instance where Trump told Pelley that Trump wants a government-funded universal health insurance system, isn’t the only instance where Trump had proposed a taxpayer-funded universal U.S. healthcare insurance system. On January 15th, he told the Washington Post:

“We’re going to have insurance for everybody. … There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”

The Swiss system is neither socialistic (government-provided) nor capitalistic (for-profit and investor-based) but is instead non-profit and strictly regulated by the government; and it’s already proven to work far better than the capitalistic American system, and equally well (overall) as do the more socialistic health care systems that are provided in all industrialized countries except for the (bottom-of-the-barrel) United States (which is by far the most-capitalistic — investor-corporate-“private” as opposed to governmental-“public” — of all systems in the industrialized world).

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.

Gibraltar is famous for its 426m high limestone ridge and tax haven status. It is also famous for having Europe’s only wild population of monkeys – all 320 of them. It boasts a total area of just 6.8 square kilometres or 2.6 square miles, a total area approximately one third smaller than Bicester Village Shopping Mall in Oxfordshire. Most of the population of this peninsula live in flats, crammed on land at the base of the rock where around 12% of the workforce is employed by Gibraltar’s big online gaming industry, who are there to evade taxes – quite legally of course. There is no inheritance tax, no VAT, no capital gains tax and low income and corporation tax. GDP is approximately $2 billion dollars, or 300 per cent per head of the average British citizens output back home in good Old Blighty.

Gibraltar even has its very own Mossack Fonseca offices; the very same company involved in the global Panama Papers scandal.

OffshoreCompanyFormationPro is a company that offers company formations, and by the looks of it, mainly to Russian clients. It boasts that

“Gibraltar as a tax haven provides excellent and proficient non-resident company services. Tax haven Gibraltar has all the characteristics of a good tax haven whilst offshore clients can be guaranteed that they will save on tax and at the same time receive asset protection.”

It talks like a tax haven, it taxes like a tax haven, my guess is – it’s a tax haven!

There are 32,000 Gibraltarians organised into 11,400 households. Extraordinarily there are more registered companies than households, including 8,464 registered offshore companies.

The Government of Gibraltar’s own website is notably candid about its tax haven activities. It urges you to establish there so you can take advantage of:

Highly-developed business services infrastructure where it is possible to passport an EU licence in financial services such as insurance and re-insurance, EU-wide pensions, banking and funds administration, amongst others.

Distribute competitively priced VAT-free goods and services to the markets of the EU and Africa.

Conduct business in a quality low-tax jurisdiction with a profit oriented capital base at low levels of corporate tax, all in a stable currency with few restrictions in moving capital or repatriating dividends.

It is no wonder Gibraltar voted 96% pro-EU. Its entire economy rests upon the use of its anomalous status to undercut the tax regimes of genuine EU members. Remarkably for a population the size of Ramsgate, there are 17 registered banks in Gibraltar, including Credit Suisse, the money laundering giant raided by combined European police forces yet again yesterday, and RBS/Natwest’s tax avoidance entity.

Gibraltar was occupied by England (yes, England) in 1704 when it was sacked by the Hessian Prince George (wry smile Hessian – sacked) and 90% of the Spanish population fled after being subjected to mass rape.

Britnats have been all over twitter this last 24 hours shouting that Gibraltar was given to Britain “in perpetuity” by the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713. Thankfully the world has changed since 1713. The Treaty of Utrecht also gave Brazil to Portugal, much of Italy to the Hapsburgs and gave Britain the monopoly on the shipping of African slaves to South America. Thankfully none of those turned out to be perpetual and the British occupation of Gibraltar is equally immoral and anachronistic. That the Foreign and Commonwealth still quotes the Treaty of Utrecht is evidence of the moral bankruptcy of the British government’s position.

There is a key point here. Empires cannot cloak their continued Imperial possessions under the “right of self-determination” of Imperial client populations. Still less is there a “right of self-determination” for an entire Imperial client population to leech off tax avoidance activities by virtue of their Imperial possession status. The right of self-determination does not apply to the colonists of Gibraltar, who like the Falklanders are an introduced Imperial population – contrary to myth the large majority of Gibraltarians are not descended from the original Spanish population. Gibraltar is plainly listed by the UN as a Non Self Governing Territory. Self-determination is not applicable in international law. UN General Assembly Resolution 2353 specifically asserted that Gibraltar is a colony which impinges on the territorial integrity of Spain and thus on Spanish right to self-determination, and that a referendum of the colonial population could not change that.

Britain’s fervidly jingoistic attempts to hold on to its remaining colonies are pathetic. I have a memory as a very small child of watching Rolf Harris on TV dressed in union jacks singing “Please Don’t Alter Gibraltar” to the tune of Land of Hope and Glory. Google has just reassured me this really happened and was not a nightmare. I now realise from the timing that was a riposte to the UN General Assembly discussions. That it was Rolf Harris gives the perfect pointer to the grossly immoral British position on Gibraltar.

Ironies abound.

Irony 1
It is the Little England Brexiteers who are frothing at the mouth over the EU saying it will take heed of Spain’s position on Gibraltar – despite the fact the Gibraltarians voted 96% in favour of the EU. They cry, how dare the EU take into account the position of the United Nations and of its member state, Spain, against what will be a non-member state? Who could have seen that coming?

Irony 2
Gibraltarians of course voted in favour of the EU in order to benefit from the opportunity to continue undermining EU tax regimes.

Irony 3
The Daddy of them all. The Britnats who crowed repeatedly at Scots, extolling alleged (and improbable) Spanish desire to veto Scottish EU membership, are shocked, shocked that Spain may veto a Brexit settlement over Gibraltar.

The Washington Post falls back into its 2005 mode of blaming Iran for the capabilities of a local insurgency. This time it is not Iraq where Iran is allegedly providing to insurgents, but Bahrain.

Old and debunked claims are hauled up and propaganda from the U.S. proxy Sunni dictatorship is cited as “evidence”. It is a top-right front-page story in the Sunday edition and thereby “important”. It is also fake news.

The headline: U.S. increasingly sees Iran’s hand in the arming of Bahraini militants. The core:

The report, a copy of which was shown to The Washington Post, partly explains the growing unease among some Western intelligence officials over tiny Bahrain, a stalwart U.S. ally in the Persian Gulf and home to the Navy’s Fifth Fleet. Six years after the start of a peaceful Shiite protest movement against the country’s Sunni-led government, U.S. and European analysts now see an increasingly grave threat emerging on the margins of the uprising: heavily armed militant cells supplied and funded, officials say, by Iran.

The authors insert caveats:

While Bahraini officials frequently accuse Tehran of inciting violence, the allegations often have been discounted as exaggerations by a monarchy that routinely cites terrorism as a justification for cracking down on Shiite activists.

But after noting that Bahraini authorities notoriously lie the authors regurgitate approvingly the claims of exactly those authorities:

… the country’s investigators said in a confidential technical assessment … a copy of which was shown to The Washington Post …

That is supported, the authors say, by:

… interviews with current and former intelligence officials …

Surely, “current and former intelligence officials” are paragons of truth and veracity and whatever they claim MUST be true.

At issue is the detection of one basement workshop in Bahrain where someone is using “$20,000 lathes and hydraulic presses” to produce shaped charges and also stored a pile of C4 explosives.

A $20,000 lathe is at the lower end of low-quality professional tooling. Hydraulic presses can be made from car jacks. How to make hollow charges and explosive formed penetrators (EFPs) is described in the CIA’s Explosives for Sabotage Manual which the U.S. translated and distributed for decades in Afghanistan and elsewhere. C4 explosives of various origins, including from Iran, are available on black weapon markets throughout west-Asia.

Source: CIA Handbook

Nothing of the above points to the conclusion that these are “cells supplied and funded .. by Iran”. The only connection to Iran the Bahrani police found and which is noted in the piece is:

One of the six caches “involved C-4 in its original Iranian military packaging,” the report said.

The piece does not note where the C4 in the other five caches came from. A detailed chemical analysis will be able to find the “signatures” of the chemical production facilities. If only one of six explosive caches comes from an Iranian manufacturer the problem Bahrain has on hand with the C4 is hardly of Iranian origin. So why are the manufacturing origins of the other five caches of explosives not mentioned at all? Did those caches come from the U.S. or from Saudi factories?

But the problems with the piece do not end there.

After noting how unreliable Bahrain official claims are, it discussed at length such Bahraini claims.

After describing the cheap equipment used to make shaped charges in Bahrain it goes on to explain how Iran, and only Iran, gives those to insurgencies. It quotes some guy from the Zionist propaganda shop Washington Institute who:

saw echoes in Bahrain of Iran’s practice of supplying tank-crushing EFPs to Iraqi Shiite militias, which used the devices in an effort to create no-go zones around Shiite strongholds.

Iran did not and does not supply EFPs to Iraqi insurgents. The Iraqis made those themselves. That was documented here and elsewhere even ten years ago:

For quite a while this story has been debunked by reports about EFP manufacturing in Iraq. These were substantiated, while the “Iran provides EFPs” meme was never proven by any evidence.

There were pieces in the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times and by Reuters. Doubts about the Iran origin of EFPs have also been raised in the New York Times. NBC news had U.S. officials at least partly walking back their claims. The Columbia Journalism Review, Inter Press Service and Newshogger Cernig ran good summary stories including many sources. We also discussed the ‘evidence’ here.

The WaPo story, though on today’s Sunday paper’s frontpage, has a (web-)dateline of April 1. That is probably the only reliable claim it carries.

There is no evidence that Iran provides for a Shia insurgency in Shia majority-Sunni ruled Bahrain just as there is no evidence that it supplies Zaidi fighters in Yemen who fight Al-Qaeda and its Saudi sponsors.

But there is by now a steady stream of Saudi and U.S. propaganda that makes such claims. These claims sound awfully similar to the claims made before the war on Iraq of (non-existing) Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. To find such again on page one of the Sunday edition of a major newspaper is more than disturbing.

“You could send Congress to space.” –Senator Ted Cruz, Mar 21, 2017

The NASA authorisation bill was another Trump huff and puff show, brimming with the usual air of minted if misplaced confidence.

“My fellow Americans, this week in the company of astronauts I was honoured to sign the NASA Transition Authorization Act right into law.”

The bill was meant to “renew our national commitment to NASA’s mission of exploration and discovery, and we continue a tradition that is as old as mankind. We look to the heavens with wonder and curiosity.” Ever hackneyed, always banal, and fastidiously clichéd – Trump’s touch of the reality show cannot be faulted on that level. The heavens may be gazed at, but what matters in Trumpland are earthbound desires fueled by conventional concerns for finance and what sells.

Packaging is all in such promotional endeavours, even if it supposedly entails the same gift that has been provided for years.

“The bill will make sure that NASA’s most important and effective programs are sustained and orders NASA to continue… transitioning activities to the commercial sector where we have seen great progress.”

Delivered over YouTube, the video featured the Apollo 11 moon landing and that interplanetary conquistador, Neil Armstrong, taking his “one small step” for a US-led mankind. Naturally, celebrations subsequent to gracing the lunar crust were also incorporated.

The Trump bonanza also reflected in his words on the Hubble Space Telescope.

“In that tiny patch of sky, the Hubble Deep Field showed thousands of lights. Each brilliant spot represented not a single star but an entire galaxy. The discovery was absolutely incredible.”[1]

The theme of annexation and conquest, ever natural to the Trump instinct, is to push the US juggernaut into a messianic gear, driving exploration (or conquest?) further. The sense here is that Mars is up for grabs, a patch of real estate to be acquired sooner rather than later. Commerce is there to be embraced, and national space agencies such as NASA are the front running agents. 

The mission here is less one for humanity as one for US business, though much of this direction will become evident with the role of the National Space Council, which has made another appearance.

“So many people and so many companies are so into exactly what NASA stands for. So the commercial and the private sector will get to use these facilities, and I hope they’re going to be paying us a lot of money, because they’re going to make great progress.” 

Very terrestrial, is Trump, and the organisation is hardly going to be getting funds to be scientific so much as aspiringly entrepreneurial. For that reason, he sees sense in encouraging NASA’s Commercial Crew program, an agency initiative involving sending astronauts to and from the International Space Station using commercial spacecraft.

In a structural sense, the astronaut fraternity are at odds about the usefulness of a re-established Space Council.  Without backing from other White House offices, argues Marcia Smith of SpacePolicyOnline.com, it would merely be “a waste of resources” (Space.com, Dec 29, 2016). Having been tried from 1958 to 1973, and again from 1989 to 1993, disposition to such a body has been fickle at best, seen often as more of a political instrument than a holistically dedicated one. 

Much of that sentiment is driven by bureaucratic friction, the sort of fractiousness that instills adversarial dispositions rather than cooperative ones. To get to space in a coordinated fashion is a difficult business, given the range of commercial, civilian and military ingredients that make up the policy. 

The report card on that subject drawn up by James Vedda, senior policy analyst at The Aerospace Corporation’s Center for Space Policy and Strategy in Arlington, Virginia, is far from glowing. Mistakes are bound to be repeated “if the administration establishes a space advisory mechanism that is too cumbersome, too far removed from senior decision makers, or poorly staffed.”

Scrapping over the budget pie and available resources tends to encourage that sort of sentiment. In the words of Apollo astronaut Harrison “Jack” Schmitt, such a council, chaired by the Vice President,

“might add clear White House support for the program, but it also would add another layer of bureaucracy on top of the [Office of Management and Budget].”

Buzz Aldrin, the second member of humanity to take steps on the moon, slants it differently, seeing such a body as

“absolutely critical in ensuring that the president’s space priorities are clearly articulated, and effectively executed.”

Senator Ted Cruz may have been teasing with his remark to Trump about sending Congress to space. But Trump is exactly the sort of person who would approve. He might even approve keeping them in astral isolation and deaf to the world, whatever the actual scientific merits of NASA’s next grand mission. Things on the ground are ugly, and there are going to get more acrimonious. No agency is going to spared bruising in the era of Trump.

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

Note 

[1] http://www.space.com/36219-president-trump-nasa-weekly-address.html

Iran is a bright and shining light for other countries to follow, like Venezuela, Brazil, North Korea – even Europe, those in Europe who are tired of the Washington dictate, but so far haven’t dared taking the actions needed to gain back their national sovereignty.

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. In an exclusive interview with Khamenei.ir, Mr. Koenig answers questions on Iran’ economy of resistance, its economic progress, US sanctions against Iran and more. The following is the full text of the interview:

Q: How do you think the United States uses economic leverage to harm Iran?

PK: The only way Washington can sanction anyone in the world, including Iran, is through the fraudulent US dollar monetary system, which has been designed totally privately and for the benefit of the Zionist banking cabal. The Federal Reserve Act in itself a fraud, prepared by a few Wall Street bankers and presented under false pretenses to the then President Woodrow Wilson. When President Wilson signed it in December 1913, the Act converted into the Federal Reserve Bank, acting as the US Central Bank, a totally privately owned institution.

Mr. Wilson has been quoted as saying (1919): “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

Ever since the dollar has wreaked havoc around the world, especially as it became de facto the world’s reserve currency. Once the IMF – by orders of the US Treasury – abandoned the gold standard in 1971, countries around the world converted large portions of their reserves into dollar denominated securities, amounting to more than 90% some 20 years ago.

Today this proportion has diminished drastically, hovering between 50% and 60% – and sliding further, especially since the Chinese Yuan was admitted officially into the IMF’s basket of now five reserve currencies – US$, British Pound, Euro, Japanese Yen and the Chinese Yuan – which make up the Special Drawing Rights (SDR), a virtual currency, often also used as reserve currency.

The two Breton Woods international financial institutions, the World Bank and the IMF, created by impulse of the United States in 1944, just after WWII, under the Charter of the United Nations to give them more legitimacy, are indeed also just instruments of Washington to manipulate the US dollar bound economies (which includes also the Euro). Their neoliberal structural adjustment type operations, for which they have invented different euphemisms to disguise the misery that ‘structural adjustments’ have created and continue to create in poor but resource rich countries, are sanctions – or a type of blackmail – “privatize your public services and natural resources – or perish under debt”.

An important part of “Resistance Economy” is, therefore, for a country to detach herself from these two institutions, as well as gradually but steadily also from the dollar based western economy. Look East. That’s where the future is. Iran is already doing this, by adhering to the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization). There is a strong axis of economic development forming – Russia-China-Iran – promoting the OBOR – One Belt-One Road, also called the new Silk Road – a massive economic development program, initiated a few years ago by China’s President XI Jinping. This project purports to link Vladivostok with Lisbon and Shanghai with Hamburg and everything in between, with transportation networks, industrial and agricultural development, as well as universities and research institutes for scientific new developments.

The West is ‘passé’ by auto-destruction, through greed-driven wars and conflicts and constant terror acts, lies and deceptions.

Q: Ayatollah Khamenei insists on enriching the capacity of domestic production as one of the principles of economy of resistance. What’s your take on that?

PK: The Ayatollah is 100% right. Domestic production (“local production for local markets”), not only reduces dependence on imports and foreign (dollar-based) currencies, but it is also one of the fastest way of building local capacity, in production, technology and research. Domestic production uses (mostly) local capital, and adds value inside Iran; it helps accelerating distributive power of GDP – which is a key factor of bringing more equality into society. A more balanced society is also a more productive society, as it enjoys increased well-being for all. It is an upwards spiral.

China until the mid-eighties had a ‘Resistance Economy’ – the goal of becoming self-sufficient, in nutrition, health care and education – before opening the borders to foreign investors. A couple of years ago, after the west imposed its totally illegal and criminal sanctions on Russia, Mr. Putin said this was the best thing that could have happened to Russia. It forced Russia to become again self-sufficient in agriculture and industrial production, self-sufficiency Russia lost after the western bankster vultures under the Washington Consensus raided Russia immediately after the Fall of the Berlin Wall. In 2015 Russia was the world’s largest exporter of wheat. Today, Russia’s industrial manufacturing arsenal is one of the world’s most modern, efficient and driven by cutting-edge technology, largely developed by Russian universities and research institutes. This is Resistance Economy at its best.

Q: “The Islamic establishment seeks all-out progress, independence from global hegemonic powers, full growth of talents, ridding the country of social maladies and [realizing] national dignity and security and might.” The quote highlights Ayatollah Khamenei’s definition of development and progress; comparing it with development theories, what’s novel in this definition in your idea?

PK: This statement shows a clear determination to seek independence from the western destructive banking and monetary system, as well as from the neoliberal export and international commerce oriented economy. What drives western economies is ‘globalization’ – which is aiming at making developing and / or resources rich countries dependent on the Washington banking hegemon and its mostly European vassals. It aims at a unipolar world, a One World Order – or New World Order (NWO) which would gradually eliminate the variety of the world’s cultures, replacing them by the Zionist-Anglo-Saxon non-culture. Ever since the Washington Consensus (1989) was defined and decided by the three key purveyors of the US-dollar hegemony, the FED (again, totally privately owned, dominated by the Rothschild, Rockefeller et all banking clan), individual countries’ sovereignty is being rapidly eroded, by imposed monetary policies, indebtedness, WTO imposed trade rules and other Consensus lies and deception about faster growth. WTO was in fact the third of the Bretons Woods Organizations – which failed to be approved at the BW Conference, but emerged later as the foster child of the US and the European Union.

Globalization is not equal to internationalism. An internationalist seeks harmony, social justice and equality worldwide and not hegemony, segregation and oppression of the poor and destitute.

According to Jean Ziegler, one of Europe’s last true internationalists, a socialist, a member of the UN Human Rights Council Advisory Committee in Geneva, WWIII against developing countries has started long ago. It has killed 54 million people in 2016 through wars and other armed conflicts, famine – every 5 second a child dies from malnutrition – contaminated drinking water, lack of hygiene, epidemics that, according to WHO, have been overcome since decades  – all of which contribute to increased child mortality – and all of which would be avoidable, but is largely the result of greed driven ‘globalization’. – Globalization is a killer. And the world is slowly but surely waking up to this fact.

Q: Considering the long lasting economic sanctions on Iran – mostly imposed by US – can we say Iran is in an economic deadlock? Or the time of unilateral economic sanctions has come to an end?

PK: Iran is NOT in an economic deadlock. Iran is taking all the necessary and precautionary steps to circumvent US and western vassals imposed criminal sanctions. As I said at the beginning, they can only prevail as long as a country follows the dictate of the western monetary system. Iran is well on her way to get out of that fraudulent system, by association with China and Russia – and the SCO countries, plus India and Pakistan. These countries, already largely de-dollarized, have about half of the world’s population and control more than one third of the world’s GDP. That’s a great perspective for independence.

The process is not instantaneous, does not happen overnight – but will still take some time. Because the empire is trying hard to delay the process of its disintegration. It is time and again threatening with war or blackmailing countries into continuing following the dollar hegemony. Washington also uses proxies to subdue and aggress nations, i.e. Saudi Arabia to murder women and children in Yemen, and to support and finance ISIS in Syria – and the Zionist regime, those who call the shots in the US Congress, the only Middle Eastern nuclear power, they may still pose a real threat for Iran. But Iran is prepared and has strong allies – Russia and China, and Netanyahu knows it.

The process of breaking loose from the west, requires perseverance. But with steadfast political will, exit from this decaying system is possible. Iran is well on her way to a new, peaceful and constructive economic system. And best of all, Iran is a bright and shining light for other countries to follow, like Venezuela, Brazil, North Korea – even Europe, those in Europe who are tired of the Washington dictate, but so far haven’t dared taking the actions needed to gain back their national sovereignty. That’s Key. Being aware of what national sovereignty means is a vital part of “Resistance Economy”.

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.

In 2011 David Hookes explored the ethical and legal implications of the growing use of armed, unmanned planes in the ‘war against terrorism’ .

The rapidly increasing use of aerial robot weapons in the so-called ‘war against terrorism’ is raising many ethical and legal questions. Drones, known in military-speak as ‘UAVs’ or ‘Unmanned Aerial Vehicles’ come in a range of sizes, from very small surveillance aircraft, which can be carried in a soldier’s rucksack and used to gather battlefield intelligence, to full-scale, armed versions that can carry a sizable payload of missiles and laser-guided bombs.

The use of the latter type of UAV in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere has aroused great concern, since it often entails considerable ‘collateral damage’ – in other words, the killing of innocent civilians in the vicinity of the targeted ‘terrorist’ leaders. The legality of their use in carrying out what are effectively extra-judicial executions, outside any recognisable battlefield, is also a raising serious concern.

Background

UAVs have been around for at least 30 years in one form or another. Initially they were used for surveillance and intelligence gathering (S&I); conventional aircraft would act on the data gathered to deliver a lethal attack. UAVs are still used in this role but, in the last decade, have themselves been fitted with missiles and guided bombs in addition to their S&I technology. These modified versions are sometimes referred to as UCAVs where ‘C’ stands for ‘Combat’.

The first recorded ‘kill’ by a UCAV, a CIA-operated ‘Predator’ drone, occurred in Yemen in 2002. In this incident a 4×4 vehicle allegedly carrying an Al-Qaida leader and his five companions was attacked and all the occupants annihilated.¹ It is not known whether the government of Yemen approved these executions in advance.

Worldwide military interest…

As might be expected, the US military lead the development and use of UAVs, especially after 9/11, which led to a rapid escalation in drone production and deployment. Currently they have about 200 ‘Predator’ armed drones and about 20 of its big brother the ‘Reaper’ drone in service in the so-called AF-PAK (Afghanistan-Pakistan) theatre.

Some of these drones have been leased or sold to UK forces, also for use in Afghanistan, where they have carried out at least 84 flight missions to date. The Reaper can carry up 14 ‘Hellfire’ missiles or a mixture of missiles and guided bombs.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Israel is also a major developer of UAVs, which it has used in Palestinian territories. There are a number of documented instances² of the Israeli military allegedly using them to target Hamas leaders, during Israel’s attack on Gaza in 2008-9, which resulted in many fatal civilian casualties. One of those killed was the 10-year old boy, Mum’min ‘Allaw. According to Dr Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor who worked at Gaza’s al-Shifa Hospital during the attack on Gaza: “Every night the Palestinians in Gaza re-live their worst nightmares when they hear drones; it never stops and you are never sure if it is a surveillance drone or if it will launch a rocket attack. Even the sound of Gaza is frightful: the sound of Israeli drones in the sky.”

Israeli arms company Elbit Systems, in a consortium with French arms company Thales has won a contract to supply the British army with a surveillance drone called ‘Watchkeeper’. This is an improved version of an existing Israeli drone, Hermes 450, already used by UK forces in Afghanistan. Its Wankel engine is manufactured in Litchfield, UK by UEL Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Elbit Systems. The Watchkeeper is said to be able to detect footprints on the ground from above the clouds.

Many other countries also have drone programs: Russia, China and various EU consortia have models under development. Even Iran has an operational drone, while Turkey is negotiating with Israel to be its supplier.³

Of course, the UK has its own extensive, independent program of drone development, coordinated and led by BAE Systems. The most important ones are the ‘Taranis’⁴ and ‘Mantis’⁵ armed drones which are also said to be ‘autonomous’, that is, capable of piloting themselves, selecting targets and even possibly engaging in armed combat with other aircraft.

Taranis uses ‘stealth’ technology to avoid detection and looks like a smaller version of the US B2 ‘Stealth’ bomber. Taranis was revealed, at some distance away from the public, at Warton Aerodrome in Lancashire in July 2010. TV reports emphasised its possible civilian use for police work . It seems somewhat over-specified for this, given that it weighs eight tonnes, has two weapons bays and cost £143m to develop. Flight trials are expected to begin in 2011.

Mantis is closer in appearance to existing armed drones but more advanced in its specification and powered by two Rolls Royce model 250 turboprop engines (see photo). Its first test flight took place in October 2009.

As discussed in the SGR report Behind Closed Doors, UK academics have been involved in BAE-led drone development through the £6m FLAVIIR programme, jointly funded by BAE and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.⁶ Ten UK universities are involved, including Liverpool, Cambridge and Imperial College London.

… and the reasons for it

The military’s interest in drones is not difficult to explain. For one thing, drones are relatively cheap, each one costing about one tenth of the cost of a conventional multi-role combat aircraft. And they can stay in the air for much longer than conventional aircraft – typically upwards of 24 hours. At present they are ‘piloted’ remotely, often from a position many thousands of miles away from the combat zone, using satellite communications. The drones used by US and UK in AF-PAK are controlled from trailers at Creech Airforce base in the Nevada desert. Thus the pilots are safe, can avoid stress and fatigue, and are much cheaper to train. Since the drones carry multi-sensor surveillance systems, the multiple streams of data can be monitored in parallel by a team of operators rather than by a single pilot. In short, in the straitened circumstances of the ongoing economic recession, drones give you a ‘bigger bang for your buck’. According to the defence correspondent of the Telegraph newspaper, Sean Rayment,

armed drones are “the most risk-free form of combat to be invented”, a statement that, of course, completely sidesteps the mortal risks to innocent civilians.

Legal and ethical dimensions

There have been a number of legal challenges to the use of drones. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR) have filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of their use outside zones of armed conflict. They argue that, except in very narrowly defined circumstances, “targeted killing amounts to the imposition of a death penalty without charge, trial, or conviction”, in other words, the complete absence of due process.⁷

The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, says in his May 2010 report⁸ that, even in the area of armed conflict,

“the legality of targeted killing operations is heavily dependent on the reliability of the intelligence on which it is based”.

It has been shown in many instances that this is intelligence is often faulty. Alston also states:

“Outside the context of armed conflict the use of drones for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal,” adding that, “in addition, drone killing of anyone other than the target (family members or others in the vicinity, for example) would be an arbitrary deprivation of life under human rights law and could result in State responsibility and individual criminal liability.”

Even the most conservative estimates suggest that at least a third of the deaths caused by drone strikes in the AF-PAK military theatre have been non-combatants. Some estimates put the proportion much higher. In one case, there were 50 non-combatants killed for each alleged militant killed. This oversight is emphasised in an issue of the Peacemaker Briefing⁹: “The excitement about the low-risk death dealing capability of drones in defence circles, allied to the view that attacks are precisely targeted and accurate, seems to overlook the fact that at least 1/3 of those killed are probably civilians.”

Another important feature of the use of drones is that they appear to be almost tailor-made for use against poverty-stricken people who, for various reasons, may be resisting the will of a technologically-advanced power. Such people are variously described as ‘terrorists’ or ‘insurgents’ but may simply be striving to control their own resources and political destiny. Often they will have limited or no advanced technological capability. It is difficult to see that drones could be used effectively on the territory of a technologically-advanced power since they could be shot down by missiles, conventional fighters, or even other armed drones. Even stealth technology does not give 100% invisibility, as demonstrated by the downing of a B2 bomber during the NATO bombing of Serbia.

Conclusion

Drones should be seen as a very significant issue for SGR members as they can only be developed using the most advanced, science-based, technological resources, placed at the service of the military. The uses of drones often have very dubious legality, and the ethics of providing advanced, technological weaponry for use against the most impoverished people on the planet needs no comment.

Dr David Hookes is honorary Senior Research Fellow in the Computer Science Department at Liverpool University. He is also a member of SGR’s National Co-ordinating Committee. 

Title: Mock-up of BAE Systems Mantis armed drone (2008)

Credit: Mike Young 

References

(web links correct as of 20 October 2010)

1. BBC News (2002). CIA ‘killed al-Qaeda suspects’ in Yemen. 5 September. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2402479.stm

2. Human Rights Watch (2009). Drone-launched attacks on civilians in Gaza. 30 June. http://www.hrw.org/en/node/84077/section/5

3. See: http://dronewarsuk.wordpress.com/

4. Wikipedia (2010). BAE Taranis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Taranis

5. Wikipedia (2010). BAE Mantis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Mantis

6. Langley C, Parkinson S, Webber P (2008). Behind Closed Doors. Scientists for Global Responsibility. http://www.sgr.org.uk/publications/behind-closed-doors

7. Romero A D, Warren V (2010). Sentencing Terrorism Suspects to Death – without Trial. Information Clearing House. http://informationclearinghouse.info/article26307.htm

8. Alston P (2010). Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions. A/HRC/14/24.Add.6 [is this sufficient information for readers to access this report? Unfamiliar with format.]

9. The Fellowship of Reconciliation (2010). Drone Wars – Below the public radar? Peacemaker Briefing no. 08. http://www.for.org.uk/files/PB8WEB.pdf

Further reading

Webb D, Wirble L, Sulzman, W (2010). From Space no one can watch you die. Peace Review, A Journal of Social Justice. Vol 22, Issue 1, pp31-39.

Singer P W (2009). The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21^st Century. The Penguin Press, New York.

The New America Foundation website, which is updated regularly with research and statistics about casualties from drone strikes: http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones.

The most jaw-dropping element of President Donald Trump’s proposed budget for 2018 is still shaking the foundations of Washington. The Pentagon, the most profligate agency in all the land, would get another $52 billion to play with — and it is already one of the top spenders of taxpayer money. To fatten up the military coffers, pretty much everything else would take a drastic pay cut. Here’s the brutal visual by Quartz:

Quartz

You can see pretty clearly what Americans would give up to finance Trump’s military spending, which includes another $2 billion for other non-Pentagon defense programs. Everyone from students to diplomats would take a hit. (Congress ultimately decides the budget, and Trump’s plan would require lawmakers to repeal the current spending caps — a contentious issue with opponents in even Trump’s own Republican party.) Although Trump wants the military to shrink its footprint abroad — essentially to do less — he nevertheless wants to give the Pentagon the extra cash to build up the number of, well, everything from troops to fighter jets.

No one questions the importance of the Pentagon’s mission, and there are many experts and lawmakers who not only agree with Trump’s idea to increase military spending but believe the Pentagon needs even more money. Almost 16 years of war has left the military with many recovery needs. Sen. John McCain argues that the military is “underfunded, undersized, and unready to confront threats to our national security.”

History shows, however, that there’s reason to be skeptical about what the Pentagon will do with the proposed largesse. The massive military industrial complex, with ample assistance, if not insistence, from Congress (which likes to buy unneeded toys), isn’t known for its efficiency with a dollar. More than one watchdog has noted that the Pentagon’s daily routine includes overpaying for parts — for instance, spending $264 for a helicopter part worth $8 — even when it already has a surplus of the supplies in military warehouses. The financial head smacking just gets worse the bigger the purchase. The F-35, anybody? That stealth fighter jet has gone over budget by $200 billion.

Waste like that could fully fund some of the programs on the chopping block for years. The roughly $148 million spent each year on the National Endowment for the Arts is but a rounding error for the Pentagon. So just how much of that $52 billion can we expect the Pentagon to fritter away, while other agencies starve? One way to imagine the possibilities is to look back at how money was wasted in a microcosm of military spending: the war in Afghanistan. Now, it’s not exactly the same. We’re talking about spending money in a combat zone — a considerable complicating factor — and the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department were involved in the mess, too.

Still, back in 2015, ProPublica was so gobsmacked by the staggering reports from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction detailing the waste in individual projects that we decided to do the math. Adding up just those projects the IG had evaluated — a fraction of what was spent in the country — we found $17 billion of likely waste. Like the $25 million blown on a military headquarters that was never used. Not once. And commanders were pretty darn sure before they started that it wouldn’t be. Or the police building that was so poorly constructed it melted in the rain. Or the $8.4 billion spent on counter-narcotics programs that resulted in — drumroll — Afghanistan producing more heroin than it did before the war started.

Even when faced with such absurd examples, though, the idea of waste is still pretty abstract. So we came up with a game to answer the question: What does the waste mean to me? We wanted to show taxpayers in real terms what that money could have bought at home. With the game you can look at the $486 million worth of cargo planes that couldn’t fly, and figure out that the cash would have put 57,000 low-income children in preschool with enough money left over to treat thousands at mental health clinics. Or it could have gone towards building clinics and community centers for veterans.

So take the game for a spin while picturing how much waste might come from, say, Trump’s big-ticket wish — worth billions and likely to have plenty of its own F-35-like problems — to increase the Navy fleet from 272 ships to 350.

While the Trump presidency is mired in chaos, another national leader, also accused of being a fascist, is solidifying his rule of the Philippines.

Rodrigo Duterte was elected president of the Southeast Asian island nation in May 2016 and remains popular. A January 2017 poll showed he enjoyed a trust rating of “excellent” among voters. He has also wiped out his political opposition. Since last year’s election, virtually all Liberal Party lawmakers have joined the president’s ruling Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban) in congress, giving Duterte complete control over the national legislature.

Remarkably, Duterte has also co-opted the Communist Party (the dominant section of the left), which has joined his government and been given cabinet posts. Unlike Trump, however, Duterte calls himself a socialist and came into office on a social reform platform, railing against the elite (represented by the Liberals). He pledged to wipe out corruption, poverty, and drug trafficking and addiction, but so far has only focused on the last issue, resulting in the horrific extrajudicial killings by police of more than 7,600 people, most of them low-level drug sellers and users (methamphetamines are the main drugs consumed in the country).

At the end of January, Duterte removed the police from the drug war after drugs squad officers killed a South Korean businessman. But he promptly handed the responsibility to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), to be supported by the military. The drug war has been widely criticized, including by the United Nations and the United States government, which has dominated the Philippines since 1898. Duterte famously reacted to U.S. criticism by calling former president Obama’s a “son of a bitch” and telling him to “go to hell.” Duterte cancelled joint military exercises with the U.S. and has reoriented the Philippines’ main alliance toward China. It is a sea change for his nation and a significant defeat for U.S. policy in Asia.

Like Trump, Duterte is a braggart. He has even boasted about personally killing drug dealers in the city of Davao when he was mayor—a statement designed to encourage police to do the same on levels the president likened to the number of Jews murdered in the Second World War. During his election campaign in 2016, Duterte made an even more shocking remark when he said he “should have been first” in a gang rape and killing of an Australian missionary during a prison uprising in Davao in 1989, while he was mayor.

***

Walden Bello, a former member of the Philippines’ House of Representatives and leading analyst of national politics, wrote last May that he thought Duterte’s comment was “a fatal mistake” for his election chances. But much like Trump’s comments about women, the outrageous quip ended up having little effect on the soon-to-be-president’s popularity. Bello, a professor of sociology at both the University of the Philippines and the State University of New York at Binghamton, ran unsuccessfully for senator in that election as an independent. He respresented the leftist Akbayan (Citizen’s Action) Party for six years in congress.

Bello says he believes Duterte is in the process of setting up a fascist dictatorship.

The president “uses the war on drugs, not so much to solve the drugs problem, but to further an authoritarian agenda, to gain total and undisputed control,” he tells me. “We are talking about a fascist regime, which is an extraordinary response to the crisis of the system, but which does not replace the system itself. I use ‘extraordinary’ here to mean not business-as-usual politics.”

According to Bello, the Philippine system is in “deep structural crisis.” Duterte is to that crisis what Roosevelt was to the crisis of U.S. capital in the 1930s, and what Hitler was to the crisis of German capital at that time. In this case it stems from “the failure of the liberal democratic order to deliver popular empowerment and the wealth redistribution” promised when the Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship was replaced in 1986.

“Popular anger and alienation from this failed project was what catapulted Duterte to power in an electoral insurgency. He combined the image of a strongman who would get rid of the ‘national chaos’ and a ‘socialist’ who would discipline the elite, though he does not seem to understand what socialism is.”

Bello points out that 40 of the richest families in the Philippines control most of the country’s wealth and the media. This semi-feudal ruling oligarchy includes a landowning elite that monopolizes vast swathes of land in the countryside, causing massive landlessness and poverty among peasants and small farmers, which has given rise to both a communist and a religious (Muslim) insurgency.

According to figures released by the Philippines Statistics Authority in March 2016, more than 26.3% of the population was poor in 2015. The land-owning elite has dominated the centres of power in the capital Manila since independence in 1946, noted Barry Desker, from the Nanyang Technological University, in a June 2016 column, adding Duterte is the first president that does not belong to this elite.

However, now that the Philippine elite is allied with Duterte it is unlikely the president will move against their interests by engaging in significant wealth redistribution, especially not critically needed land reform.

“That makes social reform very difficult,” says Bello. “And indeed, no reform has taken place and none seems to be in the offing. But this is not because Duterte does not have the space for reform. It is that he has entrusted the key levers of the economy (the ministries of finance, trade, industry, planning and the budget) to neoliberal technocrats who are very status quo oriented, while he focuses on the anti-crime campaign, which he admits is the only expertise he has.”

Duterte has given Communist Party–affiliated cabinet members control over the ministries of social welfare and agrarian reform, but these agencies are “very weak relative to the finance, trade, industry, planning and budget ministries,” says Bello. Still, he adds, the president’s alliance with the elites does not make him their instrument.

“I would even say that many factions of the elite are behaving towards Duterte like small merchants towards the mafia, that is, to buy protection.”

***

In his 10 months in office, Duterte has transformed not only Philippine politics but also the country’s international alliances, to the extent of upending Asian geopolitics. For more than a century, the Philippines has been a colony and then a neocolony of the United States, hosting two large U.S. military bases that made the country one of Washington’s two “unsinkable aircraft carriers in the Pacific” (the other is Japan), according to Conn Hallinan, an analyst with Foreign Policy in Focus, a project of the Washington, D.C.–based Institute for Policy Studies.

In October, Duterte went on a state visit to China where he told his hosts:

“I announce my separation from the United States both in military, not maybe social, but economics also.  America has lost. I’ve realigned myself in your ideological flow and maybe I will also go to Russia to talk to (President Vladimir) Putin and tell him that there are three of us against the world: China, Philippines and Russia. It’s the only way.”

The Philippines and China have competing claims in the South China Sea, but Duterte has put this issue aside.

“The move [toward China] by Duterte reflects a growing understanding in Asia that China is on the way up and the U.S.—while still the most powerful military force on the planet—is in decline,” says Hallinan.

He quotes a CIA study claiming that by 2023, Asia will have surpassed North America and Europe in GDP, population size, military spending and technological investments. By 2025, two-thirds of the world’s population will reside in Asia, 7% in Europe and 5% in the U.S. “Those are the demographics of eclipse,” says Hallinan.

Duterte recognizes that China is the leading trade partner for Japan, South Korea, Australia, Vietnam and India, and the third largest for Indonesia and the Philippines, adds Hallinan.

“Putting the South China Sea disputes on the back burner not only reflects an understanding of this reality, but also a well-founded fear that there could be a military confrontation between China and the U.S. in the region.”

More than 400 of the 800 U.S. military bases around the world are in Asia. In another embarrassment for the Trump administration, a 2016 video recently surfaced in which Steve Bannon, a top political advisor to Trump, claims “We’re going to war in the South China Sea” in the next 10 years. Trump began his tenure by questioning the “One China” policy, and his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, threatened to block China from accessing its chain of bases in the South China Sea. “The first would mean a break in diplomatic relations and the second, war,” Hallinan warns. Trump has since backtracked on both issues, reducing tensions, but “a serious danger of war remains.”

Because war could easily go nuclear—NATO maintains the right to initiate a nuclear first strike, China had an estimated 260 warheads in 2015, and North Korea continues to flout a missile test ban—Asian countries are “trying to avoid anything that might lead to a military clash,” adds Hallinan.

“In that sense, the action of the Philippines is a boost for China. If war is avoided, in the long run, China will replace the U.S. as the major power in the Western Pacific.”

Asad Ismi is the CCPA Monitor’s international affairs correspondent. He has written extensively on Asia and U.S. imperialism. His latest radio documentary  Women: The Oppressed Majority, has been aired on 60 radio stations in the U.S., Canada and Europe. For his publications visit www.asadismi.info (under construction). 

India has strained relations with virtually all of its neighbors. India functions as the modern Asian imperialist. All of India’s neighbors will have dossiers of issues related to incursions, interventions, interferences and covert operations to relate about India. Raising concerns about India’s security issues, India deems it can dictate how its neighbors should function and India makes use of its powerful status to prevail over countries less powerful than itself. The economic, cultural, military engagements by India has no other purpose than to create ‘protectorates’ out of India’s neighbors to function according to India’s dictates. Having acquired strategic positioning and established joint ventures and control over strategic assets of these countries, it translates to India vesting control over these areas with no say by the host nation. 

Sri Lanka is another victim of India’s covert operation. Have we forgotten India’s role in passing the pillow of the separatist struggle from Tamil Nadu to Sri Lanka using Tamil militancy with a dual role to destabilize Sri Lanka? Armed militancy was created by India, clandestinely training Sri Lankan Tamil youth, arming and funding them and then using selected members as Indian agents (Kittu, Mahaththaya). India drew up the bogus Indo-Lanka Accord fictitiously creating the homeland myth and merging two provinces so it could vest control over the Trincomalee harbor. Indian illegal immigrants have been flooding Sri Lanka freely and LTTE too claimed 37% of its fighters were Indian. India even forced Sri Lanka to change its constitution and introduce the 13a and the provincial council system which the racist Tamil leaders are using to demand federal system of governance a step ahead of separation as virtually all these leaders are controlled by the Indian establishment proven by the fact that they regularly visit India and Indian officials regularly dictate their demands. 

This painful past should entail Sri Lanka to learn lessons and be cautious of India’s every motive however ‘friendly’ it is packaged. 

Why is the government drawing up a series of secretive documents that is virtually handing over the country to India? There is news that India is to be given the gas plant in Kerewalapitiya and joint venture with Ceypetco and Trinco Tank farm, to develop the Trincomalee port, to set up a power plant in Sampoor, India to be given industrial zones in Western province, developing the Dambulla-Trinco road as well as developing the Northern roads, Mannar-Jaffna and Mannar-Trincomalee, India to undertake Hydrographic Survey of Sri Lanka, efforts to divide Sri Lanka’s military and have it coordinating with India, ministers of the Sri Lankan government were also seen openly mooting the idea of handing over Sri Lanka’s Ports to India to develop, who gives a countries port to an enemy and a competitor? India to supply helicopters to Sri Lanka ..now that might not be such a bad idea given the failure rate and if these are assigned to only VVIP travels. 

Now just look at the scenario of India being given the Trinco habor and India building road and rail network from Mannar cutting across to Trincomalee together with the direct road link from India to Sri Lanka and what does this spell out to you? Does it not mean that India has strategically cut off entire North from the South across Mannar direct to Trincomalee and there is no requirement of a re-merger by adopting this method? It is a Sudan-South Sudan like creation economically and we wonder whether the fools in the Sri Lankan government in particular the officials who are drafting these MOUs cannot see the long term repercussions for Sri Lanka. Or are they too working in the interest of India not Sri Lanka? These are detrimental and dangerous deals that Sri Lanka should not make. 

To understand the nature of the danger, it is good to look at the record of India’s treatment of all of its neighbors when India controls resources and when India deems nations are not following India’s dictates. These examples are good enough to deal with India at arms length and with caution for India has never shown itself to be a true friend at any time for any of its neighbors other than for its own convenience and its own agendas. 

The British Empire after over 300 years of colonial rule created India by cobbling independent princely states and territories and gave it independence in 1947 together with Pakistan. The division was another divide and rule outcome contributing to much bloodshed and animosity. The Jammu-Kashmir issue is also a British created legacy. However, the Indian crimes in Kashmir has been documented but nothing done about them. International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Indian-Administered Kashmir (IPTK) released a scathing report against the rape of Kashmiri women by the Indian forces. More than 10,000 women are said to have been raped. Kashmir Media Service report there are 107,000 orphaned children and 22,764 widowed women in Kashmir. This calls to mind the 3000 rapes by IPKF soldiers in Sri Lanka. Kashmir’s population is just 1million but there are over 300,000 Indian troops and officers stationed.  Since 1990, nearly 100,000 Kashmiris including women and children have been killed. This is the same India that is sponsoring resolutions against Sri Lanka for accountability and its external minister is claiming that India feels ‘pain and anguish’ about the Tamil people. What about the Kashmiris that the Indians are violating?

It was only in 2016 that the Indian PM said that he had a task force placed to cut off water to Pakistan. It raised the question whether India is planning to revoke the 1960 Indus Water Treaty that shares waters of 6 rivers between Pakistan and India. 

The same Indira Gandhi who trained Sri Lanka’s Tamil militants also trained Mukti Bahini guerilla fighters to divide Pakistan and create Bangladesh in 1971. In the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Brigadier Uban sent in Indian soldiers or rather CIA-trained, Indian-funded Tibetans who were under the direct command of RAW’s legendary spymaster Rameshwar Kao. The main purpose of creating RAW in 1968 was to organize covert operations in Bangladesh. Just as India failed to honor the IPKF soldiers who were killed in Sri Lanka by the very men India trained, India has conveniently forgotten to honor the RAW officers who helped with the covert operation. We can only guess how many Indian intelligence officials are placed inside India’s neighbors.

Indira Gandhi announced, “Dacca is now the free capital of a free country.” The plan was to also annex Sri Lanka to India using Tamil militancy. After Bangladesh was given independence, it was a case of Bangladesh having to remain eternally ‘grateful’ to India for making it ‘free’. Was Bangladesh truly ‘free’ or did India now ‘control’ Bangladesh and is this the same outcome likely to result from the tomfoolery of Sri Lanka’s leaders. However, learning lessons from Bangladesh where India had to deal with security and water issues, India is now making sure that India wrests control over Sri Lanka’s entire gamut of chokepoints placed well in India’s favor to control as and when required. 

Of late, 7 years after the defeat of the LTTE, the Indian are now claiming to have had a role in the LTTE’s defeat and the killing of Prabakaran. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s Awami League who promised autonomy and who sought Indian help but later began to distance from Indian contacts was assassinated with his whole family except daughter. Glaring similarities to how India initially assisted Prabakaran who later went on to distance himself from India.

Immediately after the January 2015 election, it was apparent that the Indians had played a major role in bringing about regime change even deciding on the candidate to contest. In 2013 just before Bhutan’s elections India cut off its longstanding cooking gas and kerosene subsidies (amounting to 50 crore) to Bhutan resulting in price hikes and clearly meant to influence Bhutans elections against the incumbent PM and his party (DPT). What did the Bhutan PM do wrong by India? He had talks with Chinese PM and had agreed to expand relations without obtaining India’s ‘permission’. Rajapakse’s closeness with the Chinese became the reason for his eventual regime change at elections just as Bhutan PM also lost. It showed that Indian presence on the ground and among political parties in foreign nations could bear dangerous consequences. Immediate after elections India restored the withdrawn subsidies! Giving India an economic stranglehold over internal affairs is committing to strangling one’s citizens. Does the Ranil-MS administration not understand this much? It would be interesting to know how many of Sri Lanka’s politicians are in the pocket of India and being used on and off as puppets when India decides! This is not what the Indian public would want its government to be doing. But how many Indians are aware of the interventions and interferences India regularly commits upon all of its neighbors and then cries foul at anti-Indian sentiments?

How ‘friendly’ were the treaties of ‘friendship’ India signed with Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan between 1949 to 1950? Let us not forget how India merged Sikkim in 1975. More recently, when Nepal refused to change provisions in its new constitution (7 clauses to be exact) India blocked essentials entering Nepal through India’s borders. The situation was such that China had to send 1.3 million liters of gasoline plus other essentials. India did the same in 1989 forcing Nepal into submission. 

Do we in Sri Lanka want to invite the same trouble? With over 95% of Bhutan’s trade being in the hands of India, Bhutan cannot afford to do anything to anger India. Bhutan has just 750,000 population but the Indian military presence is overwhelming. In short, Bhutan cannot do anything without the permission of India. Do you call that a sovereign nation? Bhutan remains ‘sovereign’ so long as Bhutan adheres to India. To test this, all Bhutan needs to do is to invite a Chinese delegation to Bhutan to see how India would react and the reaction would be detrimental to the Bhutanese people. Is this what we want happening to us in Sri Lanka?

Remember November 1988 when LTTE invaded Maldives? India sent 1600 troops by air. However, during this time period LTTE was very much in control of India.

Both Nepal and Maldives have shown resistance to India’s interference something Sri Lanka’s leaders have been shy to do other than President Premadasa who unceremoniously sent the IPKF packing back to India and refused to be present at the signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord in 1987. In 2015 Maldivian President told visiting Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj that his government would not be dictated to and India should refrain from interfering in Maldivian domestic affairs. The same Indian minister recently made an open threat at Sri Lanka and not a single statement of disappointment has been issued against the Indian Government by the Sri Lankan leaders.   

The present government came to power with the connivance of many players unbeknownst to the majority voters. Yet 62lakhs placed faith in them to govern the country believing that they would do better than the former regime. Signing secret MOUs virtually handing over Sri Lanka to a neighbor that has a history of covert interference and intervention as its foreign policy is committing hara kiri and subjecting the nation and the people to gross injustices tantamount to betraying the nation. Let us remind the present government that Sri Lanka has a proud history of withstanding foreign oppression and every time the country fell into the hands of the enemy it was due to our own people handing over the country to them. We are wondering whether this government too is planning to enter that list of traitors.

Elderly women held up signs reading “Illegal THAAD, back to the U.S!” as they marched, leaning on walking frames for support. 

Soseong-ri, their small village in South Korea, has become the center of a fight that could lay the groundwork for U.S.-Korean relations under Seoul’s next government. On Mar. 18, 5,000 people from across South Korea gathered in the village to protest the controversial deployment of the U.S.’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system.

In July 2016, the US and South Korean governments announced plans to deploy the THAAD system in Seongju County, North Gyeongsang Province. But due to staunch opposition from local residents, the location was revised to a nearby golf course owned by the South Korean corporation Lotte, nestled between Soseong-ri in Seongju County and the city of Gimcheon.

Since Lotte handed its land over to the South Korean Ministry of National Defense on Feb. 27, Soseong-ri, just three kilometers from the golf course, has become the front line in the fight against the missile system. The deployment has already begun and the South’s defense ministry will soon transfer the land to United States Forces Korea (USFK).

Residents of Seongju and nearby Gimcheon have vowed to reverse the deployment.

A “Peace Walk” in opposition to THAAD took place near the former Lotte Skyhill Seongju Country Club, the missile deployment site, on Mar. 18. 

Missile Defense Is No Defense

THAAD, made by the U.S. weapons firm Lockheed Martin, stands for Terminal High Altitude Area Defense. It consists of a radar, used to surveil the missile activity of so-called enemy countries and detect incoming missiles, and interceptor missiles, which — in theory — can be launched to shoot down incoming missiles in mid-air.

The THAAD deployment in South Korea is supposed to counter threats from the North, but it is not unique. The U.S. has missile defense systems installed all over the world, mainly in Eastern Europe and Asia, and it is clear from their locations that their deployments are aimed at creating a network surrounding China and Russia.

If two adversarial countries have nuclear weapons, neither will attack the other, because it fears retaliation in the form of a nuclear counter-attack. Picture two people holding guns to each others’ heads. If one shoots first, the other will shoot back, and vice versa. The result is a perpetual standoff. This is known as mutually assured destruction, and proved an effective form of deterrence between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War.

But to return to our analogy: If one gunman renders the other unable to fire, nothing deters him from pulling the trigger of his own gun. This is the ultimate aim of missile defense — to gain first strike advantage by removing the enemy’s ability to retaliate.

U.S. missile defense systems are dangerous precisely because they enable a preemptive nuclear strike. This is why some argue that such systems are, in fact, offensive. It is also why, in 1972, the US and the Soviet Union signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty), which limited the development of missile defense systems by both countries. But in 2002, after thirty years of relative stability guaranteed by mutually assured destruction, former U.S. President George W Bush walked away from the ABM Treaty.

Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst turned antiwar activist who was present at the signing of the ABM Treaty, said:

When president Bush came into office, he said, ‘I’m getting out of the ABM Treaty.’ That was a key moment in the strategic equation, because the ABM Treaty was the main source of strategic stability.

China, Russia and North Korea have all declared a policy of no first use, i.e. they will not use their nuclear weapons offensively, but the US has not done the same and reserves the right of preemptive strike.

No Protection for South Korea

According to JJ Suh, professor of Politics and International Affairs at International Christian University in Japan, the aim of the THAAD deployment in Seongju is not to protect South Korean citizens at all:

“This system is designed to work at higher altitudes, higher than 45 kilometers. But most North Korean missiles [that would be used against South Korea] are short-range missiles that would fly below 45 kilometers.”

The THAAD system, Suh said, serves U.S. strategic interests in the region: It can be… deployed against intermediate-range missiles from North Korea targeting Okinawa… or Guam. And so, it’s more plausible that the U.S. military wants to deploy the THAAD system in South Korea to protect [U.S.] soldiers and military assets in the region, rather than South Koreans in South Korea.

The THAAD radar, if stationed in South Korea, would also significantly expand the U.S.’s field of vision for spying on Chinese missile activity. For this reason, China has been staunchly opposed to the system’s deployment in South Korea.

But the South Korean people may pay a steep price for hosting THAAD, warned missile defense expert and MIT professor Ted Postol. The system, he says, will put South Korea in the path of a potential conflict between the U.S. and China. In the event of a confrontation between these two superpowers, says, China’s first target for a nuclear strike could be the THAAD radar in Seongju.

Costly but Ineffective

Postol also notes the THAAD system has not been proven to work.

“The infrared seeker on THAAD interceptors is easily fooled by decoys,” he said.

An enemy can launch several fake missiles along with the real one; they would shoot out in different directions to confuse the THAAD system, which would then have a hard time discerning and honing in on the real missile. According to Postol:

The infrared seeker on a THAAD interceptor cannot determine the distance from the target, and the THAAD radar cannot determine the precise azimuth of the target even if the decoys are only about 100 meters away from the real warhead.

Philip Coyle, Senior Science Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation, concurred.

“After a very poor record with six test failures in a row in the 1990s, THAAD has successfully intercepted its targets in 11 out of 11 tests since 2006, but these tests are highly scripted to maximize the system’s chance of success.” And there is the problem of countering more than two projectiles. “We don’t know whether THAAD can intercept three incoming missiles, let alone hundreds,” he concludes.

Furthermore, according to Coyle, THAAD has blind spots. Its radar can only cover 120 degrees at a time, so North Korea could circumvent the system by launching a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) from any point not covered by the radar.

Yet U.S. and South Korean taxpayers will end up paying for this system. One THAAD unit costs 1.3 billion U.S. dollars to produce. Then there is also the annual operation cost, which amounts to 22 million U.S. dollars. Neither the South Korean nor the U.S. government has said who will foot that bill, and the South’s Ministry of National Defense declined to tell Korea Exposé the total cost of THAAD deployment in Seongju, saying,

“The numbers aren’t public.”

The Fight to Oppose THAAD

Seongju is a small agricultural region of mostly elderly farmers, who had voted all their lives for the conservative party and had been staunch supporters of recently-impeached Park Geun-hye. When the government announced Seongju as the deployment site without any warning or consultation, they felt shocked and betrayed. Seongju resident Lee Hae-kyung said:

There are children here, there are schools here. Why do they have to put it here? There was no explanation from the government…They just suddenly announced they would put it here.

The people at the forefront of this fight are ordinary farmers, mostly women, who have never led rallies or protested government policies. They demanded the deployment decision be rescinded, and pro-government media were quick to label them North Korean sympathizers and paid outside agitators.

The government’s complete disregard for citizens’ concerns was what initially prompted so many of the residents to join the protests. But they also became worried about the potentially harmful effects of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the THAAD radar on their health and crops.

Even after the government changed the deployment site to the Lotte golf course, Seongju residents made clear that they were not just fighting to keep it out of their backyard but to oppose its deployment anywhere. They are joined by the residents of Gimcheon City, which lies next to the golf course, as well as the clergy of Won Buddhism — one of whose holy sites is nearby — and a national task force composed of peace, antiwar and other civic organizations.

Yoon Geum-soon, a resident of Seongju and the former national chairperson of the Korean Women Peasants Association, says the fight against THAAD is a fight to end the U.S.’ hold over South Korea’s foreign policy:

For over 60 years, the so-called US-ROK alliance has been based on our subordination. As long as our country does not have the autonomy to pursue its own foreign policy, the regional conflict will only worsen and we will suffer for it. We have no choice but to end this cycle.

This article was written by Julian Cho and Hyun Lee. They are staff writers at ZoominKorea, an online resource on democracy and peace in Korea.

On March 1 the US National Reconnaissance Office launched a spy satellite carried by an Atlas V rocket that was powered by a Russian RD-180 engine (see article here).

The Unites States, an alleged “superpower,” is not capable of putting its own spy satellites into space. The “superpower” is dependent on Russia, which provides the “superpower” with the rocket engines to put up spy satellites to spy on Russia (see article here)!!!  

Here we have in Lenin’s words, the Russians selling Washington the rope with which to hang Russia!

Does Russia value a few more US dollars more than it values its national existence? Apparently so.

Do the Atlanticist Integrationists, the Washington funded and supported Fifth Column inside Russia, inside the Russian media, and inside the Russian government, so much desire to be part of the decadent and immoral West that they are willing to sacrifice Russian sovereignty and are willing, like all of Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan, to be Washington’s vassal?  Yes.

What other explanation is there for Russia enabling Washington to spy on Russia and to have the capability compliments of Russia to target Russia with nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive nuclear attack?

It seems Russia is more interested in US dollars and “cooperation with Washington” than in national survival.  

Little wonder the neoconservatives believe that Putin will acquiesce in Russia’s demise at Washington’s hands.

Washington’s New World Order of tyranny toward all seems safely on course. Russia is enabling Washington’s dominance by putting Washington’s spy satellites in space for Washington.

Perhaps next Russia will provide Washington with the location of all its nuclear-armed submarines and the movement schedule of its train track-based ICBMs. Why not if it ensures “cooperation with Washington,” apparently the Russian government’s only goal.

Isn’t it amazing. Washington imposes sanction package after sanction package on Russia, and Putin continues to sell Washington the rocket engines it needs to send up its spy satellites!!!!!

God help the Russians.

Which does the Washington’s Establishment prefer: a U.S. President who wants to reach new agreements with Russia, or a U.S. President who wants to replace all of Russia’s allies?

What we’ve been having recently is solely Presidents who want to replace all of Russia’s allies — and they’ve been succeeding at that, so far:

They replaced Saddam Hussein.

They replaced Muammar Gaddafi.

They replaced Viktor Yanukovych.

They’re still trying to replace Bashar al-Assad, and also Iran’s leadership.

There still is question, however, as to whether U.S. President Donald Trump will continue this string; and many in America’s ‘news’media consider him to be too favorable toward Russia. The aristocracy own the few ‘news’media that have substantial audiences in the U.S., and their advertisers are also overwhelmingly owned by them; and the politicians’ campaigns tend also to be receiving most of their money from them; so, generally, it’s considered political suicide to buck what the few billionaires are rather united on in America, and what they seem quite united on right now is that Mr. Trump isn’t sufficiently anti-Russian.

For a government official in this country to view Russia as even potentially an ally instead of an enemy, is increasingly viewed as treasonous in America, and any contacts that Mr. Trump might have been trying to nurture so as to establish an alliance with Russia on anything — even merely an alliance against international jihadists — is being treated in America’s press as treasonous — as if Russia were still the entire U.S.S.R.; and communism were still a threat, and there still existed the Soviet Union’s military alliance, the Warsaw Pact, as being a counter-weight to America’s NATO alliance. But those assumptions about Russia are obviously false. So: do America’s billionaires still simply want to conquer Russia, instead of to be allied with it, even in that limited way, as a global alliance to crush jihadists? 

The newsmedia pick up from the Democrats and the other neoconservatives, and therefore Trump is being pressed hard on his being ‘Putin’s stooge’ or even ‘Putin’s Manchurian candidate,’ though the presumption in those statements is that Russia is doomed to be America’s enemy unless America outright conquers it — and this is a war-mongering and arrogant presumption for the U.S. government to be making about Russia, and it’s also very far from being a realistic assumption about Russia.

Will Russia tolerate having all of its allies overthrown by the U.S. (a project that the U.S. has already come close to completing)? How many more U.S. nuclear missiles will Russia accept being placed near and on its borders in formerly allied countries that now are in NATO — that are in the anti-Russia military club, but were formerly in the U.S.S.R., or else in its Warsaw Pact? If you were a Russian, would you now be scared?

Trump made clear during his campaign, that he wants to be allied with Putin’s consistent war against “radical Islamic terrorism” — no one can challenge that Putin has always, and consistently, been uncompromisingly determined to oppose that — never to arm nor train jihadists like the U.S. and its Saudi ‘ally’ the Saud family, do (in order to overthrow Russia’s allies).

So: which of the two is scary — the Hillary Clinton and John McCain crowd, the neocons, who dominate both Parties and want to crush Russia; or the few people in Washington who (at least until Trump became elected) were that crowd’s enemies? It’s looking like Trump has joined the neocons, after an election in which he was opposed by them.

As soon as Trump became elected, his fear of being dubbed ‘Putin’s stooge’ or ‘Putin’s Manchurian candidate’ caused him to appoint a national-security team who were hell-bent on replacing Russia’s remaining allies, Iran and Syria. But even this hasn’t been enough to satisfy the neocons who run both Parties, and the newsmedia. Trump has been trying to accommodate the people who are doing all they can to bring him down, but it doesn’t seem to be appeasing them. The Washington Establishment has terrified him away from his campaign promise of creating an alliance with Russia to cooperate together in wiping out jihadism — and jihadism is something that didn’t even exist in modern times until the U.S. and its Saud allies introduced it into Afghanistan in 1979 to overthrow the secular, Soviet-allied leader of that country, Nur Muhammed Taraki.

This joint effort with the Sauds created jihadism in the modern age. Zbigniew Brzezinski said of his and the CIA’s and the Sauds’ achievement, in a 1998 interview, “Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?” It became the model for what they’re now doing to Syria (which is causing all those refugees into Europe). 

Trump had said that his top national-security priority would be against jihadism, not against Russia and its allies. But, so far, his foreign policy in this regard seems more like what had been widely anticipated in the event of a Hillary Clinton win. (Even Trump’s focus against “radical Islamic terrorism” is directed now almost exclusively against seven mainly Shiite nations that America’s Saudi allies — who are fundamentalist Sunnis and hate Shia muslims — despise. So: it’s no different from Hillary Clinton’s.

And two of those Shiite-run nations, Iran and Syria, are backed by Russia; so, Trump might just be continuing his predecessor’s pro-Saud policy there.) Yet nonetheless, the neoconservatives press on with investigations of whether Trump is a secret Russian agent. The leading headline in the Wall Street Journal on March 30th was “Trump’s Rapid Rapprochement Plans With Russia Fade” and the report noted that Trump’s appointees are advising him against any relaxation of the previous President’s anti-Russia policies, but failed to indicate that (with the exception of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson), all of them are long-committed neoconservatives and NATO enthusiasts. Either candidate Trump’s ameliorative statements regarding Russia were intended merely in order to win votes, away from the super-hawk Hillary Clinton, from some independents and Bernie Sanders supporters, or else Trump is very easy for the Cold War Establishment (the “neoconservatives,” today’s Washington Establishment in both Parties) to manipulate.

What does the Washington Establishment really want? What is their real demand? Putin’s head on a stake? Or. do they really want Trump’s head on a stake, for some entirely different reason? The motivations that they are stating for wanting to replace Trump by his Vice President, Mike Pence — a rabid neoconservative — don’t make sense; and, the ‘evidence’ they’re basing this campaign on, is, as of yet, after months of trying, still more smears than authentic evidence. And it’s based on false allegations regarding America’s and Russia’s respective involvements in Ukraine and in Syria. Clearly, there are ulterior motives behind this coordinated bipartisan lying campaign. And they seem to be winning — whatever their real motivations are.

Is this a palace coup? And, if so, what’s the real motivation for it? Why do they want Mike Pence to be the U.S. President? What’s their real goal in this bipartisan campaign to replace Trump with Pence?

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.

The 2017 French Presidential election is no joke. It is shaping up as a highly significant encounter between two profoundly opposing conceptions of political life. On one side, governance, meaning the joint management of society by a co-opted elite, on the model of business corporations. On the other side, the traditional system called “democracy”, meaning the people’s choice of leaders by free and fair elections.

Historically, French political events tend to mark epochs and clarify dichotomies, starting with the waning distinction between “left” and “right”. This election may be such an event.

What is “governance”?

It has become increasingly clear that the trans-Atlantic power elite have long since decided that traditional representative democracy is no longer appropriate for a globalized world based on free circulation of capital. Instead, the favored model is “governance”, a word taken from the business world, which refers to successful management of large corporations, united in a single purpose and aiming at maximum efficiency. This origin is evident in aspects of political governance: an obligatory unanimity concerning “values”, enforced by corporate media; the use of specialized committees to provide suggestions concerning delicate issues, a role played by “civil society”; the use of psychology and communications to shape public opinion; isolation of trouble-makers; and co-optation of leadership.

These features increasingly describe political life in the West. In the United States, the transition from democracy to governance has been managed by the two-party system, limiting voters’ choice to two candidates, selected and vetted by principal shareholders in the national business on the basis of their commitment to pursuing the governance agenda. This was going smoothly until Hillary Clinton, the overwhelming favorite of the entire elite, was shockingly defeated by an unvetted intruder, Donald Trump. The unprecedented negative reaction throughout the West shows how little the global governance elite is ready to cede power to an outsider. The situation in the United States remains uncertain, but the upset reflected rising, although poorly defined, popular resentment against the globalizing governors, especially due to economic inequality and the decline of living standards for much of the population.

Hillary Clinton actually chose to use the word “governance” to describe her goals, in partnership with Goldman Sachs and other representatives of “civil society”. But even she was not as much a pure product of the globalization system as the French candidate Emmanuel Macron. (image right)

Governance Personified

The first way to spot the role assigned to Macron is simply to glance at the media: the endless magazine covers, puff pieces, platitudinous interviews – and never a word of criticism (whereas his leading rivals are systematically denigrated). In January, Foreign Policy introduced its readers to Macron as “The English-Speaking, German-Loving, French Politician Europe Has Been Waiting For”.

His career trajectory makes it clear why Western mainstream media are hailing Macron as the Messiah.

Born in Amiens only 39 years ago, Emmanuel Macron has spent a lot of his life in school. Like most of France’s leaders, he was educated in some of the best, but not the best, of France’s elite schools (for connoisseurs, he failed entrance to ENS but did Sciences Po and ENA). U.S. media seem impressed by the fact that along the way he studied philosophy, which is no big deal in France.

In 2004 he passed the competitive exam to be admitted to the Inspection Générale des Finances, one of the corps of experts that have distinguished the French system since Napoleon. IGF inspectors have lifetime security and are assigned as economic advisors to government officials or private entities. In the IGF he gained the attention of the particularly well-connected senior official Jean-Pierre Jouyet, who recommended him to Jacques Attali, the most spectacular of the intellectual gurus who for the past 35 years has regaled French governments with his futuristic visions (Jerusalem as capital of a future world government, for example). In 2007, Attali co-opted Macron into his super-elite “Commission for the Liberation of Growth”, authorized to provide guidance to the Presidency. A star was born – a star of the business world.

The Attali commission prepared a list of 316 proposals explicitly designed  to “install a new governance in service of growth”. In this context, “growth” naturally means growth of profits, by way of measures cutting back the cost of labor, tearing down barriers to movement of capital, deregulation. The 40 elite members planning the future of France included heads of Deutsche Bank and the Swiss firm Nestle. They also provided the young Macron with a valuable address book of useful contacts.

In 2008, on recommendation from Attali, Macron was taken into the Rothschild Bank at a high level. By negotiating a Nestle purchase worth nine billion dollars, Macron became a millionaire, thanks to his commission.

To what did he owe a successful rise that two centuries ago would have been a subject for a Balzac novel? He was “impressive”, recalls Attali. He got along with everyone and “didn’t antagonize anyone”.

Alain Minc, another star expert on everything, once put it this way: Macron is smart, but above all, he makes a good banker because he is “charming” – a necessary quality for “a whore’s profession” (“un métier de pute”).

Macron is famous for such words of wisdom as:

“What France needs is more young people who want to become billionaires.”

Or:

“Who cares about programs? What counts is vision.”

So Macron has launched his career on the basis of his charm and “vision” – he certainly has a clear vision of the way to the top.

Formation of the Governance Elite

This path is strewn with contacts. The governance elite operates by co-optation. They recognize each other, they “smell each other out”, they are of one mind.

Of course, these days, the active thought police are quick to condemn talk of “governance” as a form of conspiracy theory. But there is no conspiracy, because there does not need to be. People who think alike act together. Nobody has to tell them what to do.

And people who decry every hint of “conspiracy” seem to believe that people who possess immense power, especially financial power, don’t bother to use it. Instead they sit back and tell themselves, “Let the people decide.” Like George Soros, for instance.

In reality, people with power not only use it, they are convinced that they should use it, for the good of humanity, for the good of the world. They know best, so why should they leave momentous decisions up to the ignorant masses?That’s why David Rockefeller founded the Trilateral Commission forty years ago, to figure out how to deal with “too much democracy”.

These days, ideologues keep the masses amused with arguments about themselves, which identity group they belong to, which gender they might be, who is being unfair to whom, who it is they must “hate” for the crime of “hating”.

Meanwhile, the elite meet among themselves and decide what is best.

Thanks to Jouyet, in 2007 Macron was co-opted into a club called Les Gracques (after the Roman Gracchus brothers), devoted to “values” based on recognition that the Keynesian welfare State doesn’t fit globalization and European Union development.

In 2011, Macron was co-opted into the Club de la Rotonde, which undertook to advise President Hollande to hit France with a “competitiveness shock” – favoring investment by lowering public expenses and labor costs.

In 2012, Macron was welcomed into the French-American Foundation, known for selecting the “young leaders” of the future.

In 2014, Macron made it to the really big time. On May 31 and June 1 of that year he attended the annual Bilderberg meeting, held in Copenhagen. This super-secret gathering of “governance” designers was formed in 1954 by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. No journalists are allowed into the Bilderberg gathering, but leading press barons are there to agree on the consensus that must be spun to the masses.

And Policy? Program? What’s That?

With all these credentials, Macron went from being an economic advisor to François Hollande to Minister of Economy, Finance and Digital Industry, under Prime Minister Manuel Valls, where he vigorously promoted the Attali agency on pretext of promoting “growth”. Among other things, he reversed the position of his predecessor by approving the sale of the crown jewel of French industry, the Alstom energy sector responsible for France’s nuclear power industry, to General Electric.

As Minister, Macron was responsible for the most unpopular measures of the entire unpopular Hollande presidency.  His so-called “Macron Law”, featuring massive deregulation, conformed to European Union directives but was unable to win a majority in parliament, and had to be adopted by resorting to Article 49.3 in the Constitution,which allows the Prime Minister to adopt a law without a vote.

His next accomplishment was more veiled. He designed the “reform” (partial dismantling) of French labor law, presented to the public as the El Khomri Law, named after the young labor minister, Moroccan-born Myriam El Khomri. Mme El Khomri had virtually nothing to do with “her” law, except to put a pretty face and an “ethnic diversity” name on wildly unpopular legislation which sent protesting workers into the streets for weeks, split the Socialist Party and obliged Prime Minister Valls to resort once again to Article 49.3 to pass it into law.

Here the story becomes almost comical. Macron’s slash and burn dash through the Hollande/Valls government virtually destroyed the French Socialist Party, leaving it divided and demoralized. This opened the way for Macron to emerge as the heroic champion of “the future”, “neither left nor right”, “the France of winners” in his new party, En Marche (which can mean “it’s up and running”).

At present, Macron has risen to the top of the polls, neck and neck with the front runner, Marine Le Pen, for the April 23 first round, and thus the favorite to challenge her in the decisive May 7 second round. Being “charming” assured Macron a successful career as a banker, and the sycophantic mass media are doing their best to assure him the Presidency, mainly on the basis of his youthful charm.

The Media and the People

As never before, the press and television from which most people get their news have become not only unanimous in their choice and unscrupulous in their methods, but tyrannical in their condemnation of independent news sources as “fake” and “false”. They should be called the Mind Management Media. Objectivity is a thing of the past.

There are eleven official candidates running for the office of President of the French Republic. The Mind Management Media lavish admiring attention on Macron, treat his serious rivals as delinquents, toss a few bones to sure losers and ignore the rest. Backed by the Mind Management Media, Macron is the candidate of authoritarian governance running against all the others, against French democracy itself.

This is the first of two articles on the French Presidential election.

Diana Johnstone is co-author of From MAD to Madness (Clarity Press), a memoir of nuclear target planning in the Pentagon by Dr. Paul H. Johnstone, her late father.

Counter-terrorism has been a pop field for some decades. As vague as what it purports to counter, it has generated a pundocracy of sorts, guns and mouths for hire across the US imperium and its associate powers.

Much of this resembles the various fictions common during the Cold War: the notion that insurgencies could be defeated from the outside; the teeth chattering idea of a global Communist threat directed with intellectual clarity from Moscow or Beijing. Human minds were, like puttee, pliable before the doctrinaires and ideologues. If you were told how to think, you would behave accordingly.

False rationalism pervades this entire field. And there are few in this area more misguided on this point than Sebastian Gorka, President Donald Trump’s deputy assistant, former Breitbart editor and member of the White House Strategic Initiatives Group created by Stephen Bannon and the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

The Gorka recipe for defence, spiked with anti-Islam fervour and dislike for misguided eggheads, neatly fits the Trump view of the world, though he remains, unlike his boss, a true ideologue. Fake news, not to mention old-fashioned bias, is repeatedly alleged, and on that score, he is not always wrong. (The assertion that networks can be pristinely objective is a fantastic one that needs debunking.)

Where the world of make-believe impresses itself upon Gorka is any rational assessment of the presidency and its meagre achievements so far. Calling them “fabulous”, Gorka repeatedly makes remarks to the extent that reporting on the inner workings of the Trump world bear “almost no resemblance to reality.”[1]

This enables us to then assess what resemblance to reality Gorka assesses when it comes to his pet subject: the Global Jihadi scourge. On several fronts, Gorka fails to supply his audience with any explanation as to whether there is such a global jihadi problem, let alone what form it is meant to take. To do so would naturally entail having to describe a fantasy, even a conceit.

A spate of murderous drive-down spectaculars in European cities instigated by assailants either inspired by Islamic State or some other group with apocalyptic credentials is hardly evidence of a globally coherent world strategy. Had there been a unified leader of Islam, a fact hardly tenable given its various sects and internal contradictions, then assertions of a global jihadi front might hold some water.

Gorka’s Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War reads much like the screeds on modernisation theory churned out during the initial stages of postcolonialism. As long as money, bubble gum and US ideas of liberal capital were filling the nationalist void in the Third World, favour towards communism would be stemmed. Such an argument ignored the obvious point that nationalism was the driving force to begin with, with communism being conscripted to that end.

Similar errors in analysis are made in dealing with the “Global” Jihadi problem. Categories are conflated; entities reduced to a common denominator of world revolution. The attacks of 9/11 were acts of “jihadi terrorism… but, more importantly, that event was linked to communism. It was linked to fascism.”[2]

This stunningly hollow reasoning would tend to neglect that US involvement in funding the mujahedeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets, not to mention propping regimes of such brutish reputation as Mubarak’s in Egypt, might also have had their share. Ideology, as ever, provides refined blinkers.

In Defeating Jihad, Gorka claims that the United States was caught unawares, and as chief defender of Freedom’s lands,

“It is time for the America that vanquished the Third Reich and the Soviet Union to rise from its slumber.”

Tiresome moral references aspiring to clarity are made.  “It is time for us to speak truthfully about those who wish to kill us or enslave us.  It is time again to speak the words ‘evil’ and ‘enemy’.” The next error on equating threats follows.  “And it is time to draw a plan for victory, calling on strategies that have proved themselves against other totalitarian foes.”

Fictional formulas sell well in this field. Jihadists are rendered monolithic miscreants of the global order, requiring expunging. They are like Soviet-styled politburos, posing “existential threats” to the American way of life. For Gorka, with his revamped neoconservative slant shaped by his own taste of Hungarian communism, it is all painfully clear. If only people were willing to listen to his revelation that Islam has a central motor, a vehicle for world domination that needs to be stopped in its tracks.

Essential, then, is a similar “Long Telegram” in the mould of former Soviet scholar, US diplomat and author of the doctrine of containment, George Kennan. “If George Kennan had been a senior diplomat in the US embassy in Baghdad during the rise of ISIS in 2013 and had been asked to explain what was happening in the Middle East, his reply would have been practically the same as the Long Telegram.” Or perhaps not, as Kennan subsequently saw his analysis hijacked, condensed and ironed out for ideological purposes during the Truman administration.

Gorka finds it easy to plot a timeline of Islamic violence, claiming that the Jihadism of the last 30 years can be squarely rooted in the anti-modernism of various writers that gained traction in the nineteenth century. But this is hardly remarkable. What is unfortunate is Gorka’s reading of history as having meaningful signs and parallels, showing the way for those bedazzled by faith. Having gazed at its movement, he finds true meaning. It is precisely why such zeal is not merely dangerous, but ultimately worn.

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

NOTES

[1] http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/319343-trump-aide-says-leaked-stories-bear-almost-no-resemblance-to-reality
[2] http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/sebastian-gorka-donald-trump-white-house

Part 1, Part II

To continue with analyzing the countries around Nigeria’s periphery, it’s now time to turn the research’s focus over to Cameroon, one of the most stable and relatively prosperous countries in all of Africa. Despite being home to more than 240 separate ethno-linguistic groups, Cameroon avoided the destructive tribal violence of its continental peers owing mostly to its strong leadership and diversified economy. President Paul Biya, in office since 1982, has been instrumental in guiding the country through the post-Cold War transitional phase and imprinting a unified identity on its people, though the inevitable passing or retirement of this elderly politician will indeed be a pivotal moment in the country’s history that could augur negatively for its future if it’s not handled with care and finesse. If the military and security services divisively compete with one another or start promoting localized (tribal/ethnic) interests at the expense of national unity during this vulnerable transitional time, then Cameroon dangerously runs the risk of turning into another version of the Congo as it descends into multisided civil warfare.

On the other hand, Cameroon also has very promising potential in functioning as the transregional zipper state in linking together Western and Central Africa, ergo its decisive incorporation in China’s Cameroon-Chad-Sudan (CCS) Silk Road plans for building a cross-African railroad between these three states. It’s for these dual reasons why Cameroon is so important for observers to pay attention to, since it can either have a very positive future or an extremely dismal one, with it seeming unlikely that any ‘middle ground’ could be achieved given the extreme of its situation which will be discussed later on. Moreover, on an interesting ‘civilizational’ note, Cameroon is a majority Christian country with a geographically distinct Muslim minority, which while presenting certain inherent domestic challenges for national unity, could also serve as an intangible benefit in heightening the country’s regional position if it can successfully continue to balance between these elements and use them as stepping stones for more solidly integrating with its neighbors. However, due to its location, Cameroon is also very susceptible to “Weapons of Mass Migration”, which is a threat that the security services must be prepared to deal with in the event that the regional situation disturbingly spirals out of control.

The order of research is such that it begins by discussing Cameroon’s New Silk Road connectivity and the various infrastructure projects presently underway or planned for the country. After laying out the geo-economic importance of the state, the work then proceeds to examining its most pressing domestic difficulties in being between the Salafist Boko Haram terrorists and the nearby Biafran separatists, with the latter having the potential to link up with “Southern Cameroons” insurgents to recreate the Nigerian template of North-South/Muslim-Christian anti-state destabilization within Cameroon itself. Finally, the last thing that will be discussed is how Cameroon could be thrown into turmoil by “Weapons of Mass Migration”, especially those coming from its southern and eastern peripheries.

Cameroonian Connectivity

Cameroon’s geopolitical location endows it with the inherent possibility of one day functioning as the West-Central African ‘zipper’ in connecting these two neighboring regions. Part of the country obviously abuts the densely populated and economically productive region of Southern Nigeria, while also interestingly snaking northwards up to the Chadian border, from where China’s CCS railroad is envisaged to connect it across the Sahara to Chad and thenceforth to Sudan’s Red Sea coast. While the project appears to have been stalled since its 2014 announcement and its exact route through Cameroon and Chad has yet to be officially delineated, it’s known that it will at the very least terminate at the Atlantic Port of Douala and run through the Chadian capital of N’Djamena. It would make economic and structural sense for it to be built as parallel as possible to the already existing Cameroon-Chad oil pipeline, which in that case would take the route near or through the Cameroonian capital of Yaoundé and through southern Chad, evading for the most part the North and Far North regions of Cameroon (which are presently the ones threatened the most by Boko Haram).

What’s important to note about the CCS Silk Road and the Cameroon-Chad pipeline is that they terminate at different ports, with the former ending at Douala while the latter stops at Kribi. The first one of the two is the country’s largest port at the moment and also the biggest one in all of Central Africa, while the latter is being built by the Chinese as Cameroon’s only deep-water port and is planned to have an accompanying industrial zone too. It would be wisest if both of these ports were connected in some way in order to maximize their New Silk Road positions, which is exactly what several projects plan to do. The first one of relevance is the Douala-Yaoundé non-stop railroad that launched in 2014, while the second one is the proposed Kribi- Yaoundé highway. Both of these projects intersect in the national capital, from where they can then branch out to Chad or the Central African Republic, as per the Douala-N’Djamena and Douala-Bangui Corridor proposals.

In connecting these two major port cities together, Cameroon is considering Chinese help in constructing a railroad between Edea, Kribi, and Lolabe, with the first city being located right near Douala and already linked to it by rail, while the last one is near Kribi and would link up with iron-rich southeastern Cameroon through the proposed Mbalam-Nabeda Rail Corridor. In aggregate, the connectivity vision that’s progressively taking shape in Cameroon is one in which its most important ports of Douala and Kribi are joined to one another by rail, and whereby these two maritime terminals are also in one way or another connected to the capital of Yaoundé. From there, goods could move to and from the Chadian capital of N’Djamena along the CCS Silk Road or to the Central African Republic capital of Bangui. To make this easier to visualize for the reader, the below custom map has been created to roughly document the approximate path of each respective corridor:

Red: Yaoundé
Pink: Douala and Kribi
Gold: Transport Corridors

The Threat To Cameroon’s “National Democracy”

Having laid out the geo-economic importance of Cameroon, both in terms of its domestic and international connectivity potentials, the research will now take a look at the internal problems that could arise to offset these interlinked visions. The summarized idea is that Cameroon is afflicted by the same types of structural destabilizations as Nigeria is, albeit on a smaller scale, though it might end up being Yaoundé’s collapse which catalyzes Abuja’s and not the other way around.

This is mostly due to the political-administrative nature of the Cameroonian state, which can be described as a centralized system in which an individual personality (President Biya) has an outsized strategic importance in decision making. The West usually refers to such models as “dictatorships”, but they could more objectively be described as “national democracies” that improvise for domestic conditions and don’t blindly follow the Western cookie-cutter template. In a country as diverse as Cameroon is, and with each particular group generally having defined geographies that could one day lay the basis for political-territorial claims (whether as independent or autonomous sultanates, regional groupings, city-states, tribal entities, etc.), it’s crucial for a centralized and unifying force to exist in holding everything together.

In terms of political administration and state symbolism, this is inarguably President Biya, though in practical on-the-ground terms, it’s the military and security services. Just like with the passing of Niyazov and Karimov in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, respectively, the subsequent course of events will be dependent on the unity of the military and security services, and how quickly the elite can rally behind an agreed-upon replacement. If all goes according to plan and there are scant disruptions and a strong sense of “deep state” (permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies) unity, then a smooth transition can be assured like in the aforementioned two cases, but if personal or identity-based ambitions get the best of the ruling and/or security classes, then the consequences could be disastrous.

In almost every example of a “national democracy”, the passing or resignation of the country’s leader serves as a potential Hybrid War trigger event in unleashing a series of preplanned destabilizations, with the variables surrounding this being both the previously discussed military-elite unity and the confidence that the anti-government organizers have in their plans. The best-case scenario is that the “deep state” remains unified and the provocateurs are caught off guard and unprepared by the structurally advantageous event, while the opposite one is that the “deep state” is fiercely divided amongst itself and the ‘revolutionaries’ are fully prepared for launching a Hybrid War. Sometimes, however, the reality is somewhere in the middle, with the “deep state” either being divided and the hostile organizers unprepared for exploiting this scenario, or the military and elite are unified in spite of the regime change proxies feeling confident enough to go forward with their initiatives anyhow.

It’s unclear at this moment how the course of events would progress in Cameroon’s case, since it’s challenging to find reliably objective information about either of these two determinants (military-elite unity and the confidence of anti-government organizers), so it’ll remain to be seen how Cameroon fits into this model. What is certain, however, is that the removal of President Biya from the political equation (whether by his eventual passing or resignation) would serve as a trigger event for exacerbating the already existing Hybrid War vulnerabilities present in the northern regions and the former territory of “British Cameroons”, both of which will now be discussed in depth. The reader should be reminded that these two levers of destabilization can be pulled to different degrees independently of the Biya trigger event, but that the chance of achieving their intended objectives vastly increases if timed to coincide with this scenario.

Geo-Demographic Determinants And Military Tactics

To refresh the reader’s memory about Cameroon’s ‘civilizational-religious’ internal divide, around a fifth of the country’s citizens are Muslim, with most of them residing in the densely populated northern reaches near the Nigerian and Chadian borders. Christians, on the other hand, comprise around 70% of the country and live mostly in the western and southern parts of Cameroon. It’s important to make note, just like in the case of Chad that was discussed in the prior chapter, that the physical geography of each community is inherently distinct and carries with it respective advantages and difficulties when it comes to Hybrid War. The Northern Muslims inhabit easily traversable desert and grassland terrain that could facilitate the rapid Daesh-like expansionism of Boko Haram if Cameroon ever experienced a large-scale state breakdown (such as in the midst of post-Biya successionist divisions), while the Southern Christians live in much more jungled areas that function quite differently under any Hybrid War scenario. Instead of the territorial conquest model of Daesh that Boko Haram would seek to emulate, the “Southern Cameroons National Council” (SCNC) separatists could wage debilitating guerrilla warfare in their thickly forested home regions, only selectively attacking certain cities and resorting to urban terrorism when they do.

From a tactical military perspective, these are two completely different types of wars that the Cameroonian Armed Forces need to prepare themselves for fighting, which requires highly professional training and a thorough understanding of the local terrain. Servicemen who are trained for operating in the desert Muslim North against Boko Haram might not be properly suited for combating the SCNC and its militant “Southern Cameroon People’s Organization” (SCAPO) in the jungled Christian South, and vice-versa. Moreover, Cameroon is susceptible to experiencing ‘traditional’ Color Revolution unrest in Yaoundé and Douala, whether linked to the Biya trigger event or not, which necessitates that the military also be prepared for urban warfare and crowd control contingencies as well. In sum, the Cameroonian military and security services must be prepared for waging desert, jungle, and urban warfare, further underscoring the necessity for this integral national institution to remain unified during any Hybrid War unrest and/or post-Biya successionist uncertainty, since any internal divisions among them during such a critical time would paralyze the state and prevent it from effectively fighting back against these existential threats.

Considering how irreplaceably crucial the military’s unity is in keeping highly diversified Cameroon together during any prolonged periods of uncertainty (e.g. post-Biya successionist rivalry), it might even turn out that a current or former representative of this institution takes the lead during this time in guiding the country out of or away from the abyss of Hybrid War and towards a stable and democratic transition. No other class of elites has the capacity to ensure all-around security and unity for the country than the military does, which explains why it’s most uniquely poised to play such a responsible role during the post-Biya transition, provided of course that it can remain unified during this time and becomes aware of its importance in determining the course of events. None of this can be assessed with any degree of confidence by the author given his lack of familiarity with such a specific institution, so further research into this vector should urgently be conducted by the appropriate experts in evaluating the likelihood of this scenario, since the alternative to military-elite unity (especially as regards the former) would likely be chaos and a structural replication of the Congo conflict in the West-Central Africa pivot (zipper) space.

Boko Knocking In The North

The two preceding sections were essential in establishing the proper context through which the reader can thenceforth analyze the most likely Hybrid War scenarios that could develop inside of Cameroon, so having explained the backdrop in detail, it’s appropriate to continue with an examination of the two most relevant possibilities that could happen. The first and most well-known is Boko Haram, which has proven itself to be a menace in Cameroon’s Far North and North regions, or in other words, the desert-grassland Muslim North that’s inherently threatened by non-state-actor expansionism. The Boko Haram problem and its prospective solutions can be divided into external and internal categories, both of which need to be elaborated on.

External Pressures:

From the international perspective, Northern Cameroon is in continual danger of being destabilized by any conflict overspill from the adjacent regions of its Nigerian and Chadian neighbors by virtue of its identical demographics and easily traversable geography. In the face of Nigerian capitulation and incompetency, Cameroon has had to rely on Chad for assisting it in driving out the terrorists and securing the western border, with its neighbor’s self-interest in this being to secure its nearby capital through the establishment of a stable buffer zone between itself and Boko Haram’s Nigerian-occupied homeland. Any prolonged state breakdown in Northern Cameroon would instantly endanger Chad by putting N’Djamena at risk, which is why the authorities there have proactively played the leading role in securing the entire Lake Chad basin, though to differing extents in Northeastern Nigeria due to the obvious sensitivities there.

Truth be told, it can be inferred that Cameroon also has some sensitivities as regards Chad’s emboldened military presence in the borderland area, since some Southern Christians might suspect that N’Djamena has future designs on the Northern Muslim regions such as carving out a sphere of influence for itself that’s stronger than the sovereignty that Yaoundé exercises within its own borders there. For now, at least ,this hasn’t resulted in any state-to-state problems, and Cameroon appears on the contrary to be quite satisfied with Chad’s military support and eager to rely on it in the future event that the situation once more veers on the edge of spiraling out of control. What can be learned from this is that there is a degree of Cameroonian-Chadian military interdependency in fighting against Boko Haram, with Yaoundé needing N’Djamena as necessary backup in case the situation suddenly goes awry while the latter needs its partner to be as stable and all-around effective as possible in functioning as a dependable buffer zone for protecting the capital.

Internal Pressures:

On the home front, Cameroon needs to carry out three main military goals and successfully enact a socio-economic policy for the Muslim North. Concerning the military objectives, the armed forces need to 1) prevent border infiltrations; 2) respond to successful infiltrators and sleeper cells; and 3) ensure urban security. It can fulfill these tasks by cooperating with its Nigerian and Chadian neighbors; preparing rapid response forces for targeted raids; and strengthening the capacities (and pay) of its local pro-government militias. Yaoundé absolutely needs to advance these three interlinked aims in order to make sure that the Muslim North remains as militarily secure from asymmetrical threats as possible, though that’s of course only half of what needs to be done in order to prevent an outbreak of regional destabilization in general. While Boko Haram is mostly an external threat of a physical nature, there’s also an internal and ideological one that must simultaneously be combatted as well.

The Cameroonian government must do everything in its power to rectify the feeling of differentness that the Northern Muslims feel towards the Southern Christians and the rest of the country. The social, economic, and political marginalization that some elements of this community experience could easily be taken advantage of by power-hungry demagogues and/or outside forces in generating simmering anti-government discontent that could one day blow over into its own Hybrid War scenario separate from Boko Haram. Even in an ideally secure environment, this still presents a troubling challenge that could burst to the regional forefront during the post-Biya transition and manifest itself in political ways through either Identity Federalism or outright separatism, which is why the government needs to craft and continuously reaffirm an inclusive patriotism that goes along with a comprehensive socio-economic plan for the region and this demographic. In order to fully achieve its internal ideological objectives for the Muslim North, Cameroon once more needs to turn to its Chadian neighbor, such as it had to do in regards to its external aims as described in the above section.

Regional Integration Solution:

The best way that Cameroon can safeguard its internal and external security is to integrate as much as possible with Chad, with the Northern Muslim area functioning as an experimental zone for constructing a shared Lake Chad core region between itself and western Chad (N’Djamena and its environs) that could then be expanded to the rest of their territories with time. The anti-Boko Haram coalition is a strong starting point for this in the military sense and it’s already provided many positive results for both sides, but the socio-economic component of this vision is sorely lacking in its effectiveness. For as positive of an idea as the Cameroon-Chad-Sudan (CCS) Silk Road is, barely any work has been done on the first two parts that would more tightly integrate these Lake Chad countries. A strong military partnership between two neighboring states without the compulsory socio-economic foundation is bound to become one-sided with time and run the risk of leading to a security dilemma after the shared motivation for their cooperation (in this case, Boko Haram) is no longer relevant, which is why it’s in the interests of long-term regional security (in its hard and soft forms) for the CCS Silk Road to be taken more seriously by both countries.

The grander vision that’s being expressed here is the construction of a strong integrated space east of Nigeria which could act as a military-economic bulwark against the overflow of Northern Nigeria’s numerous problems, with Cameroon and Chad implicitly agreeing on the urgency to do this out of their own mutually beneficial interests and the responsible need to proactively respond to the most likely forecasted threats emanating from this region. Moreover, even in the off-chance event that Northern Nigeria and the rest of the country could be sustainably stabilized, then it would be to Cameroon and Chad’s objective advantage to collectively deal with their (by then) much stronger neighbor than to do so individually, so it’s best to get started on the integration process as soon as possible than to be unprepared for this when/if the operative moment arrives. The first step in this process is to recognize that the geo-demographic continuity between Northern Cameroon and Western Chad and the two countries’ ongoing collective military efforts in the Lake Chad region afford a unique opportunity for both states’ leaderships to take their collaboration to the next level, which can most tangibly be attained by building off of their positive momentum in reprioritizing the CCS Silk Road between them.

Separatists Slithering In The South

Background:

The other substantial Hybrid War threat facing Cameroon are the “Southern Cameroons National Council” (SCNC) secessionists and their “Southern Cameroon People’s Organization” (SCAPO) militants that are battling to undo the 1961 reunification of Cameroon and the former British colony of “Southern Cameroons” and create their own ‘country’ called “Ambazonia”. As an historical backgrounder, the UK’s occupation of this part of the eventually united country occurred after World War I when the then-German colony of Kamerun was divided between the British and French. London also acquired another region called “Northern Cameroons”, but this Muslim-majority area chose to join Nigeria upon independence and was thus not unified with its namesake country like its southern counterpart was.

Nowadays the former territory of “Southern Cameroons” is divided into the Northwest and Southwest regions and is home to about 3 million people, or around 1/7 of the country’s total population. Although not incorporating the strategic port of Douala, “Ambazonia’s” claims run very close to the CCS Silk Road’s Atlantic terminus and it would obviously become a tempting target for future insurgents if they ever renew their campaign. Additionally, there are also a multitude of nearby soft targets in the adjacent West and Littoral regions that could be attacked by SCAPO in widening any forthcoming war and squeezing concessions from the government.

If the security situation deteriorated in these regions due to any number of high-profile attacks, then foreign investment and international trade could be expected to drop as a result, which could contribute to the compounding challenges that the Cameroonian government would experience during this time, to say nothing of the disastrous indirect affect it would have on the Chadian economy. It should be recalled at this moment that Cameroon’s northeastern neighbor depends on Douala for around 80% of its foreign trade, so it would be disproportionately more affected than perhaps even Cameroon itself if the SCNC/SCAPO militants launch a large-scale attack or intermittent campaign of terror against the port that results in a sharp decrease in its trading activity.

Federalist Fears:

Cameroon itself importantly underwent two political-administrative changes that directly relate to the “Southern Cameroons” issue. The country was first a federal republic from the time of the 1961 reunification until 1972, after which it evolved into a united republic until 1984, during which time it acquired its present state as simply being a republic.

The clear trend is that state centralization has strengthened throughout the decades and that the re-integrated area of “Southern Cameroons” began to be treated as a normal and equal part of the country on par with all the rest, as opposed to having any special federal status such as the one that it initially enjoyed. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this, though it is interesting that Cameroon moved in the opposite direction of most countries, which is to gradually devolve power to the provinces instead of centralize it.

The SCNC and SCAPO, while fighting for ‘independence’, might one day lessen their demands to federalization, which in that case would enable the scenario of Identity Federalism to spread throughout the entire country. In a sense, it might be worse for Cameroon to ‘federalize’ (internally partition) itself into a collection of ethno-regional-religious statelets, sultanates, and tribal entities than to simply ‘lose’ “Southern Cameroons”, but in any case, Yaoundé will do everything in its power to prevent either disaster from happening.

Regional Impact:

For the time being, the SCNC/SCAPO issue is under control and shows no signs of escalating, but the problem is that nobody really knows how much support this movement has among the locals in “Southern Cameroons” and whether ‘sleeper sympathizers’ might spring into action during a post-Biya trigger event. A more pressing threat, however, is that Southern Nigeria’s recent upsurge in neo-Biafra violence by the “Niger Delta Avengers” (NDA) might spill across the border and embolden the SCNC/SCAPO, with both militant separatist groups dangerously having the opportunity to link up and join forces in maximizing their power and provoking an international conflict.

The NDA is a rag-tag collection of bandits that follow in the footsteps of their Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) predecessors which in turn grew out of the forces previously responsible for launching the Nigerian Civil War, otherwise known as the Biafra War, of 1967-70. Their main complaint was that the people of oil-rich Southeastern Nigeria weren’t receiving their fair share of financial reimbursement from the energy resources under their soil and off their coasts, which is one of the main reasons why they first began agitating for the Eastern Region to become independent as the state of “Biafra”. Across the border nowadays, their SCNC/SCAPO counterparts don’t have any such wealthy energy resources to claim as their own in their prospectively independent “Ambazonia”, but they do have an historical and linguistic legacy of separateness as the Anglophone UK-administered colony of “Southern Cameroons” which could be manipulated to further divide the population from the rest of their French-speaking Cameroonian peers and incite more support for secessionism.

Neither the NDA nor SCAPO are powerful enough to succeed on their own, which is why both of them must tactically ally with other non-state actors in order to achieve their separatist objectives. If either of these allied or informally coordinated their anti-government activities with Boko Haram, then it would seriously complicate their respective governments’ efforts in dealing with both insurgencies by dividing their attention along two separate directions and battlefield geographies. There’s no convincing proof that this has happened, at least not yet, but it’s a disturbing possibility that must be responsibly countenanced by decision makers in both states. Equally as discomfiting is the International Business Times’ February 2016 report about how the “Biafrans” and “Ambazonians” could team up in turning their individual insurgencies into a unified campaign, which in that case would immediately produce an international crisis in the Gulf of Guinea that neither Nigeria nor Cameroon might be properly suited to handle, let alone in the coordinated manner that this would necessitate.

The internationalization of the “Biafra” and “Ambazonia” insurgencies and their amalgamation into a single crisis could end up being the catalyst for further state failure in both Nigeria and Cameroon, and the urgent attention that Abuja and Yaoundé would have to pay to this problem might create opportunistic space for a Boko Haram comeback campaign. Additionally, the sensitivity of cross-border operations in one another’s territories might lead to disagreements and tension between the two neighbors, no matter their shared goal in pacifying the transnational space, thereby hampering the effectiveness of any supposedly coordinated actions and working out to the ultimate benefit of the insurgents.

Solution:

The “Southern Cameroons” movement has been militantly dormant for quite a while, but that in and of itself can’t be taken as a surefire sign that it’s politically inactive. The lack of visible on-the-street support for the SCNC/SCAPO might be simply because of the groups’ illegality and Yaoundé’s tireless efforts to root it out of society, but the separatists might suddenly emerge as a force to be reckoned with during any period of nationwide political uncertainty and destabilization (e.g. the post-Biya transition). Because of this, Cameroonian officials must not only be alert for any signs of the group’s physical resurfacing, but should also be proactive in snuffing out its appeal once and for all, which calls for bridging together military and ideological objectives into a comprehensive anti-insurgency package.

In principle, the most obvious solution is to deepen Cameroon’s full-spectrum integration with Nigeria and use “Ambazonia” and “Biafra” as springboards for bringing this about, but right now it’s unsafe to do to this in as fast and open of a manner as may be needed because of the NDA’s renewed militancy and the risk that it has for spilling across the border and emboldening the SCAPO. It’s unavoidable that these two countries will sooner or later move closer out of natural economic logic and the impetus that the Chinese-financed CCS Silk Road will provide, but it’s crucial at this moment that any progressive movement in this direction is balanced and cautious in order to avoid the foreseeable pitfalls that were earlier described above.

Therefore, it’s advised that Cameroon begin by building off of the working contacts and operational coordination that it has with the Nigerian military through their joint participation in the anti-Boko Haram Coalition and initiate something similar, lesser-scaled, and more proportionate along their southern “Ambazonia”-“Biafra” borderland. There obviously wouldn’t be any cross-border strikes at this point because the situation has yet to deteriorate to that level and become interlinked enough to justify it, but this would be a responsibly proactive first step in case that ever eventuates. After having secured the border between them, Cameroon and Nigeria could then move towards enhancing their economic and socio-cultural linkages in order to prepare themselves for the surge in connectivity that will occur once the CCS Silk Road is finally completed.

Cameroon As The Transregional Zipper

One of the main arguments made in this research is that Cameroon has the potential to zip and unzip the transregional West-Central African space, with the outcome ultimately depending on how well it can manage the Hybrid War threats of Boko Haram and the SCNC/SCAPO.  If Yaoundé is unsuccessful in handling these problems, then Cameroon might implode and its subsequent destabilization could send immediate aftershocks throughout the transregional space, thereby setting off a possible chain reaction in Nigeria and Chad. On the other hand, Cameroon could bring these two countries closer and connect the space between them and beyond due to its unique geography and the enormous potential that the CCS Silk Road has in fundamentally transforming West-Central African geopolitics, provided of course that it’s eventually completed.

The reader may have picked up on the fact that the author’s suggested solutions for dealing with Boko Haram and SCNC/SCAPO are structurally identical and differ only in the local-regional specifics of their application. The primary point being proposed in both instances is that the transnationalization of either space – be it the Muslim North or the Anglophone West – doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing if it’s handed the right way, which in this case is with the intention of fostering robust multidimensional integration between Cameroon and its Chadian and Nigerian neighbors. Building off of the security impetus that most urgently unites the country with each of counterparts, it’s possible to broaden the established sphere of military cooperation into economic and socio-cultural directions, with the CCS Silk Road functioning as the backbone for this transregional endeavor.

The conceptual vision is for Cameroon to leverage its civilizational diversity as an instrument in getting closer to each of its two main neighbors, with the eventual goal of becoming the geo-identity ‘zipper’ that holds them together and functions as the core transregional entity connecting West and Central Africa. Cameroon’s geographically central position in this construction, compounded with the connectivity potential that its Northern Muslim and Western Anglophone regions have in integrating with their cross-border counterparts, provides Yaoundé with a strategic opportunity to turn what might otherwise be a Hybrid War disadvantage into a New Silk Road advantage. If the competent authorities become aware of their country’s strategic attributes, and take actionable steps to mitigate the obvious dangers while embracing the integrational potentials, then Cameroon could flourish into one of the most prosperous countries in Africa and become the envy of the world’s Great Powers.

The “Weapons Of Mass Migration” Wildcard

The last thing to discuss when detailing Cameroon’s Hybrid War vulnerabilities is the wildcard that is “Weapons of Mass Migration” (WMM), the (inadvertent or deliberate) asymmetrical warfare weapon first described by Harvard researcher Kelly M. Greenhill in 2010. Cameroon is incapable of directly influencing its neighbors’ affairs aside from the unintentional overspill of its own domestic problems, so it’s powerless to determine whether or not a WMM-producing conflict occurs in its transregional neighborhood. This is why the instance of WMM are such a wildcard, because they’ simply outside the control of the Cameroonian authorities, yet the government is still forced to immediately respond to its occurrence if it arises. The uncontrollable influx of refugees or refugee-disguised insurgents into Cameroon’s border regions could contribute to more domestic destabilization and might push one or both of the country’s main Hybrid War scenarios past the tipping point and into a full-fledged problem.

All-Compass Threat:

WMM could swarm Cameroon from any direction, with the following being the most likely causes for each compass point’s destabilization:

* North – Boko Haram
* East – Central African Republic (CAR) Civil War
* South – Equatorial Guinean state failure during a tumultuous post-Mbasogo transition
* West – “Biafra” violence

The northern and western vectors have already been described above when analyzing the consequences of Boko Haram and a transnational “Biafra”-“Ambazonia” insurgency, so the research will thus address the eastern and southern threats in the final two subsections.

The Central African Republic’s Civil War:

The civil war that made the Central African Republic (CAR) ungovernable and devolve into a failed (or some would even say, non-existent) state is a pressing problem for Cameroon’s stability owing to the very real threat that it has for producing wave after wave of WMM. Cameroon already hosts 300,000 refugees from the country, most of whom it could logically be inferred are based in the Eastern border region. Although Cameroon boasts a population in excess of 22 million people and less than a third of a million refugees might seem like an insubstantial and easily manageable sum in aggregate, the reality is that the Eastern region where most of them likely reside only has a population of 800,000 or so.

This means that a significantly proportional number of the people in this part of the country aren’t citizens, but refugees, which could obviously lead to problems between the newcomers and the indigenous inhabitants if their interactions aren’t closely controlled. For example, if the CAR refugees live in camps outside of the main cities and villages, then it’s less likely that any local Cameroonian will even be aware of their presence or be impacted by it in any tangible way, but if these newcomers live in the same cities and villages as the locals and visibly compete with them for jobs and resources, then it could predictably lead to a flare-up of violence one of these days, one which the government would understandably like to avoid.

The most sustainable solution that Cameroon could work towards in preventing a surge of WMM from the CAR is to take the lead in helping to resolve the country’s civil war. To remind the reader, the CAR is torn apart by engineered ‘civilizational’ violence between its Christian and Muslim geographic (but not demographically equal) halves, and it’s here where majority-Christian Cameroon could step in alongside its majority-Muslim Chadian strategic ally to mediate in the country’s conflict. The details are unclear at this stage for how this would work in practice, but the strategy is that Cameroon and Chad could work in partnership with one another in leveraging their ‘civilizational credentials’ as a way to gain the trust of each respective confessional community, after which Yaoundé and N’Djamena would then apply their newfound influence in encouraging their local allies to enter into a long-lasting compromise that would work out to all sides’ multilateral benefit.

From Cameroon’s perspective, the quicker that peace returns to the CAR, the sooner that the Douala-Bangui Corridor could be built, while Chad’s interest is in maintaining stability along its southern, porous, and highly demographically sensitive border for the reasons explained in the previous chapter. Both sides would obviously benefit from the reduced potential for WMM as well, but it might be the immediate economic-security incentives that serve to motivate decision makers in Yaoundé and N’Djamena to finally take the bold and coordinated steps necessary in resolving their shared neighbor’s ‘civilizational’ conflict.

Equatorial Guinea Erupts In Violence:

The second wildcard event that could happen in producing swarms of WMM against Cameroon would be if neighboring Equatorial Guinea erupts into violence during a tumultuous post-Mbasogo transition. President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo has been ruling his tiny and oil- and gas-rich country since 1979, during which time he’s cultivated very close relations with the US. Although Equatorial Guinea is very geographically small, it therefore has an outsized geostrategic importance in regional affairs. What’s most peculiar about it, aside from the fact that the same leader has been in power for nearly four decades (and his uncle ruled for ten years before that prior to his overthrow), is that the country is geographically discontiguous and is divided between insular and littoral halves.

Whenever the elderly leader inevitably passes or resigns, the exact same ‘national democracy’ scenario that was described above for Cameroon will enter into effect, whereby the stability of the country will be largely determined by the military and elite’s unity during the subsequent transitional period. If a Hybrid War is launched against the authorities and/or divisive infighting leads to an outbreak of conflict and nationwide unrest, then it’s foreseeable that many of the locals might try and flee their country for abroad, with the lion’s share of them predictably arriving in Cameroon due to the country’s convenient proximity. Even the main island of Bioko is just 32 kilometers away from the continental coast and very close to the major Atlantic port of Douala, thus underlining how easy it would be for WMM to escape their country and come to Cameroon.

What might be more important than preparing for any potential WMM from Equatorial Guinea is deciding what role Cameroon could play in deciding the post-Mbasogo future of the country. In and of itself, Cameroon doesn’t have any sway over what happens in its neighbor’s affairs, but its geography critically affords it with an easy chance to do so during any potential humanitarian crisis, whether it directly intervenes or indirectly allows its territory to be used by others who do so instead. It’s not known what the Cameroonian Armed Forces’ contingency measures are in the event of such a scenario, but given the active role that France plays in the region, it’s foreseeable that it might order its Libreville-based troops in the Gabonese capital to involve themselves in the Equatorial Guinean mainland while requesting basing rights from Cameroon in facilitating this for Bioko.

If prompted to respond to these rapidly changing circumstances, Cameroon will have to calculate its expected benefits from each course of action, which could be simplified as either doing nothing at all and only reacting to events within its own borders, or taking the lead in carrying out or facilitating an intervention in the neighboring country. More than likely, Yaoundé won’t behave unilaterally as regards the second scenario branch, and would likely only make a move in this direction if it had Paris’ support and/or did so as part of a joint operation with France. In that case, Cameroon must think about what it would stand to gain by doing so and how it could bargain its future position in order to receive the most benefit from its former colonial master. After careful consideration, though, it might even be decided that it’s to Cameroon’s ultimate benefit to stay out of this possible conflict and retain its foreign policy neutrality.

To be continued…

Andrew Korybko is the American political commentator currently residing in Moscow. Thew views expressed are his own. He is the author of the monograph “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime Change” (2015). This text will be included into his forthcoming book on the theory of Hybrid Warfare.

PREVIOUS CHAPTERS:

Hybrid Wars 1. The Law Of Hybrid Warfare

Hybrid Wars 2. Testing the Theory – Syria & Ukraine

Hybrid Wars 3. Predicting Next Hybrid Wars

Hybrid Wars 4. In the Greater Heartland

Hybrid Wars 5. Breaking the Balkans

Hybrid Wars 6. Trick To Containing China

Hybrid Wars 7. How The US Could Manufacture A Mess In Myanmar

US foreign policy has for decades been predicated on achieving and maintaining global peace, security and stability. In reality, it has for over a century constituted an overreaching desire to achieve and maintain global hegemony.

And where US efforts focus on achieving hegemony, division and destruction follow. From the Middle East to Eastern Europe, and from Southeast Asia to the Korean Peninsula, US intervention politically or militarily all but guarantee escalating tensions, uncertain futures, socioeconomic instability and even armed conflict.

The Middle East and North Africa

US efforts in the Middle East since the conclusion of the first World War have focused on dividing the region, cultivating sectarian animosity and pitting neighbors against one another in vicious, unending combat. During the 50s and 60s, the US pitted its regional proxy, Israel, against its Arab neighbors. In the 1980’s the US armed both the Iraqis and the Iranians amid a destructive 8 year long war.

Today, the US props up Persian Gulf states who in turn are fueling regional, even global terrorism that has destabilized or entirely dismembered entire nations. And from the Middle East and North Africa, waves of refugees have reverberated outward affecting adjacent regions who have so far been spared from the chaos directly.

In Syria, the United States poses as a central player in restoring stability to the conflict stricken nation. In reality, it was the US itself that trained activists years ahead of the so called Arab Spring, as well as funneled money into the Muslim Brotherhood and other extremist groups to serve as militant proxies after the protests were finally underway. Today, militant groups operating under the banners of Al Qaeda and its various affiliates are almost exclusively funded, armed and trained by the Persian Gulf states through which the US launders its own support to these groups through.

Thus, while the US poses as an agent of  stability in Syria, it is the central player intentionally creating and perpetuating chaos.

Likewise, the North African state of Libya has been rendered all but destroyed, fractured into competing regions ruled by ineffective warlords, former generals, proxies of ever sort and Persian Gulf sponsored terrorist networks including the Islamic State. The instability in Libya has afforded the United States, its policymakers and the special interests who sponsor their work a safe haven for the vast infrastructure required to maintain regional proxy forces including training camps and weapon depots.

This infrastructure, since 2011, has been used as a springboard to invade Syria, destabilize neighboring North African states and to fuel a divisive refugee crisis in nearby Europe.

Eastern Europe 

Since the conclusion of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO has continued to expand toward Russia’s borders. Far from a defensive alliance, NATO clearly serves as a multinational military conglomerate used as cover for expanding US hegemony worldwide. NATO operations in far-flung Afghanistan and Libya illustrate the shape-shifting nature of its alleged mission statement, revealing it to be but a pretext for an otherwise unjustified, aggressive front.

Its expansion into Eastern Europe and the ongoing military build-up along Russia’s borders mirrors similar tensions fostered by Nazi Germany during the 1930s. NATO’s sponsorship of the violent coup which overthrew the Ukrainian government between 2013-2014 likewise provides an example of how US “stability” often manifests itself instead as failed states, perpetual violence and the constant threat of further escalation.

Asia

Over the past 10 years, the United States has attempted to “pivot” itself back toward Asia. While claiming this “pivot” represented an American effort to maintain stability across Asia-Pacific, proclamations from the US State Department itself smacked of literal imperialism. An article published in Foreign Policy titled, “America’s Pacific Century,” was penned by then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton all but admitting this.

The United States is not an Asian nation, yet despite this obvious fact, it declared its intent to reassert American primacy across Asia Pacific. In order to do this, the US found itself fueling political opposition across much of Asia and more specifically, in Southeast Asia.

Nations like Myanmar are now headed by regimes installed into power via decades of US political support, funding and training. And despite pro-democracy rhetoric accompanying these regimes as they ascend into power, their true nature is nothing short of despotic, with Myanmar’s current government overseeing systematic violence targeting ethnic minorities, the silencing of political critics and opponents, the curtailing of free press and other flagrant abuses the US now conveniently ignores.

In nations like Thailand, US efforts to co-opt regional political orders have failed. However, despite their failure, simmering conflicts remain, threatening sociopolitical and economic stability both currently and in the near future.

On the Korean Peninsula, America’s presence continues to drive instability. Joint military exercises with South Korea often and openly serve as rehearsals for “decapitation” strikes against the North Korean government, fueling North Korean paranoia and provoking continued posturing on both sides. In short, the US presence serves to intentionally keep the neighboring states pitted against one another, undermining, not bolstering regional stability.

A similar strategy of tension is being played in the South China Sea where the US has for two presidencies now attempted to provoke China both directly and through the use of Japanese, Vietnamese and Philippine tensions to contest and curtail Beijing’s growing military deterrence.

The endgame in the South China Sea for China is to eventually push the United States out of the region, reducing or eliminating its capacity to target China directly, and reduce America’s ability to destabilize China’s peripheries. It should be noted that destabilizing China’s peripheries (those nations bordering China) is a stated objective of US policymakers.

Hegemony or Stability, Not Both 

Ultimately the US seeks hegemony, not stability. Hegemony by necessity requires the division and destruction of competitors, which in turn requires constant and ever-escalating sociopolitical and economic instability. While the US has all but declared its intent to establish global hegemony for decades, it uses the pretext of seeking global peace, security and stability as cover along the way.

Understanding that only through a multipolar global order in which state sovereignty holds primacy, not multinational alliances, institutions or openly hegemonic world powers, can a real balance of power be struck, and only through this balance of power can real global stability be achieved. Until then, as the US seeks hegemony over the planet, the world can expect an equal but opposite decline in stability.

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

There is a serious confusion about statements made yesterday by the Trump administration. It sets the fight against ISIS as the top priority and no longer demands an immediate leaving of Bashar Assad as the Syrian president. Reports try to sell this as a new position. But it is not new at all.

The U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley announced a “change of priorities”:

“You pick and choose your battles and when we’re looking at this, it’s about changing up priorities and our priority is no longer to sit there and focus on getting Assad out,” U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley told a small group of reporters.

Secretary of State Tillerson confirmed that position:

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, speaking in Ankara on Thursday, said Assad’s longer-term status “will be decided by the Syrian people.”

Southfront headlines the Haley talk as ‘Assad Must Not Go’. The International Business Times wrote about those statements:

The United States has announced a shift in its diplomatic policy on Syria and is no longer insisting that its president Bashar al-Assad be removed as the head of the war-torn country.In a clear departure from the Obama administration’s stance on Assad, and against EU policy, the US is now moving its focus to its battle with Isis.

But the Trump administration statements are not new at all. The “announced” positions were established under Obama:

President Barack Obama spent a significant portion of his final State of the Union speech discussing the fight against the terrorist group ISIS.
…
Obama said that fighting ISIS (also known as the Islamic State, ISIL, or Daesh) and other terrorists is the top priority of his administration.

Also in January 2016 then Secretary of State Kerry used a similar wording as Tillerson used now:

“It’s up to the Syrians to decide what happens to Assad,” Kerry said. “They are the negotiators and they will decide the future.””It’s up to the Syrians to decide what happens to Assad,” Kerry said. “They are the negotiators and they will decide the future.”

There is no change of policy. The top priority has been and will be for a while the fight against ISIS. The U.S. will use this to occupy the eastern parts of Syria. When ISIS is suppressed enough to no longer be an immediate issue the removal of Assad will again become a top priority.

That Assad’s position will be “decided by the Syrian people” is just obfuscating as long as it is not said WHICH Syrian people are HOW to decide over it.

The War On Syria will go on until the U.S. really changes its positions and until the Wahhabi oil sheiks stop their financing of their various Takfiri mercenaries – be they ISIS, al-Qaeda or whatever name they want to apply.

Neocon senators John McCain (R. AR) and Lindsey Graham (R. SC) likely believe war is peace. Freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength – with attribution to George Orwell.

They’re furious about Secretary of State Tillerson, saying “the longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people.”

Separately, US UN envoy Nikki Haley said “(y)ou pick and choose your battles, and when we’re looking at this, it’s about changing up priorities and our priority is no longer to sit there and focus on getting Assad out.”

McCain said he’s “deeply disturbed” about their comments.

“Their suggestion that Assad can stay in power appears to be just as devoid of strategy as President Obama’s pronouncements that ‘Assad must go.’”

“Once again, US policy in Syria is being presented piecemeal in press statements without any definition of success, let alone a realistic plan to achieve it.”

“Such a policy would only exacerbate the terrorist threat to our nation.”

Graham said letting Assad remain in power would be “the biggest mistake since [Obama] failed to act after drawing a red line against [fabricated claims about] his use of chemical weapons.”

It would “ignore the wholesale slaughter of the Syrian people…” It would be a victory for Syria, Russia and Iran, “crushing news” for America.

Here are the facts McCain, Graham, likeminded neocons and media suppress.

“The Dirty War on Syria…relies on a level of mass disinformation not seen in living memory” – Tim Anderson.

Syria is Obama’s war, naked aggression, now Trump’s. It’s not civil as falsely reported.

It’s flagrantly illegal under international law, the laws of war and constitutional law. Nations may not attack others except in self-defense, and only if authorized by Security Council members – not presidents, prime ministers, lawmakers or anyone else.

Syria was invaded by US-created and supported terrorists – ISIS, al-Nusra and others. So-called “moderate rebels” don’t exist, one of many Big Lies about ongoing conflict.

All wars depend on deception and Big Lies. Truth-telling exposes them, why belligerents and supportive media scoundrels suppress them.

Syria was aggressively attacked. Assad acts responsibly in defending his nation and people.

He’s not slaughtering them. Nor is he using chemical or other banned weapons.

Syria is an independent nation threatening no others. Russia and Iran support its sovereignty, territorial integrity and right of its people to decide who’ll lead them – free from foreign interference, as international law requires.

America, NATO, Israel and their rogue allies support naked aggression, regime change, and puppet rule replacing legitimate governance.

McCain, Graham and likeminded congressional neocons want endless US aggression continued in multiple theaters.

Trump’s proposed safe zones in Syria is a thinly veiled balkanization scheme, wanting the country partitioned, establishing Kurdish and Arab-run areas separate from Damascus – destroying the Syrian Arab Republic as it now exists.

Russia, Iran and the Syrian people forthrightly oppose this scheme. Despite all-out Moscow conflict resolution efforts, war still rages.

Washington’s objective remains unchanged – destroying and controlling the country, isolating Iran.

Its turn awaits. Washington and Israel want the Middle East map redrawn, establishing unchallenged shared control.

The diabolical scheme risks direct confrontation with Russia, the unthinkable possibility of nuclear war?

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

It’s almost getting comical how everything that happens in the United States gets blamed on Russia! Russia! Russia! And, if any American points out the absurdity of this argument, he or she must be a “Moscow stooge” or a “Putin puppet.”

When Sen. Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign fails seemingly because he was a wet-behind-the-ears candidate who performed like a robot during debates repeating the same talking points over and over, you might have cited those shortcomings to explain why “Little Marco” flamed out. However, if you did, that would make you a Russian “useful idiot”! The “real” reason for his failure, as we learned from Thursday’s Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, was Russia!

When Americans turned against President Obama’s Pacific trade deals, you might have thought that it was because people across the country had grown sick and tired of these neoliberal agreements that have left large swaths of the country deindustrialized and former blue-collar workers turning to opioids and alcohol. But if you did think that, that would mean you are a dupe of the clever Russkies, as ex-British spy Christopher Steele made clear in one of his “oppo” research reports against Donald Trump. As Steele’s dossier explained, the rejection of Obama’s TPP and TTIP trade deals resulted from Russian propaganda!

When Hillary Clinton boots a presidential election that was literally hers to lose, you might have thought that she lost because she insisted on channeling her State Department emails through a private server that endangered national security; that she gave paid speeches to Wall Street and tried to hide the contents from the voters; that she called half of Donald Trump’s supporters “deplorables”; that she was a widely disliked establishment candidate in an anti-establishment year; that she was shoved down the throats of progressive Democrats by a Democratic Party hierarchy that made her nomination “inevitable” via the undemocratic use of unelected “super-delegates”; that some of her State Department emails were found on the laptop of suspected sex offender Anthony Weiner (the husband of Clinton’s close aide Huma Abedin); and that the laptop discovery caused FBI Director James Comey to briefly reopen the investigation of Clinton’s private email server in the last days of the campaign.

You might even recall that Clinton herself blamed her late collapse in the polls on Comey’s announcement, as did other liberal luminaries such as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. But if you thought those thoughts or remembered those memories, that is just more proof that you are a “Russian mole”!

As we all should know in our properly restructured memory banks and our rearranged sense of reality, it was all Russia’s fault! Russia did it by undermining our democratic process through the clever means of releasing truthful information via WikiLeaks that provided evidence of how the Democratic National Committee rigged the nomination process against Sen. Bernie Sanders, revealed the contents of Clinton’s hidden Wall Street speeches, and exposed pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation in its dealings with foreign entities.

You see the evil Russians undermined American democracy by arming the American people with truthful information! How dastardly is that! Could Boris and Natasha do any better or worse? And although the Soviet spies in FX’s “The Americans” were in their prime in the 1980s and would be pretty old by now, do we know where they are in the present day? Though WikiLeaks denies getting the two batches of emails – the DNC’s and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s – from the Russians, have we ruled out that the emails might have been slipped to WikiLeaks by the FX characters Philip and Elizabeth Jennings, presumably in disguise?

Oddly, too, when similar factual revelations come from Western-favored leaks, such as the purloined financial records of a Panamanian law firm known as the “Panama Papers,” we hail the disclosures regardless of the dubious methods that were used to steal them, especially if the contents can be spun to undermine disfavored governments like Russia (while also inconveniently embarrassing a few unimportant “’allies”).

But if you make that comparison or you note how the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. government-funded National Endowment for Democracy have supported various “independent” journalists and news outlets to advance U.S. propaganda, that makes you guilty of “moral equivalence,” another serious offense.

Crazy Talk

So now that you know how the game is played, you had the Senate Intelligence Committee eliciting testimony from people like media watcher Clint Watts, who seems to believe that any criticism of a U.S. government official (at least anyone he likes) must be directed by Russia!

“This past week we observed social media accounts discrediting U.S. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan,” said Watts, who is billed in The Washington Post as “an expert in terrorism forecasting and Russian influence operations.”

Gee, I know you might say that you went on Facebook last week to criticize Ryan for bungling the “repeal and replace” of Obamacare by proposing a scheme that managed to alienate both right-wing and moderate Republicans as well as all Democrats. But that only proves you are indeed a Russian disinformation agent! (Watts also claimed that Sen. Rubio’s presidential bid “anecdotally suffered” from an online Russian campaign against him.)

As Watts describes these nefarious Russian schemes, they are so nefarious that they don’t have any discernible earmarks or detectable predictability. In his view, the Russians don’t want to help any particular person or group, just undermine America’s faith in its democracy.

As Watts puts it,

Russians attack “people on both sides of the aisle … solely based on what they [the Russians] want to achieve in their own landscape, whatever the Russian foreign policy objectives are. They win because they play both sides.”

In other words, any political comment that an American might make might just prove that you’re a traitor.

But Watts singled out President Trump for special criticism because he supposedly has tweeted about Russian-planted conspiracy theories.

“Part of the reason active measures have worked in this U.S. election is because the commander-in-chief has used Russian active measure at times against his opponent,” Watts said, citing Trump’s bogus claims about 2016 voter fraud and his earlier silliness about President Obama’s Kenyan birthplace. Yes, as we all know, every goofy idea is manufactured in Russia. Americans are incapable of developing their own nonsense.

Watts then suggested that some kind of Ministry of Truth is needed to stamp out unapproved information.

“Until we get a firm basis on fact and fiction in our own country, … we’re going to have a big problem,” Watts said. He warned of a dangerous future from Russian information: “Somewhere in their cache right now there’s tremendous amounts of information laying around they can weaponize against other Americans.”

Perhaps what is even more frightening than the Russians letting Americans in on how Washington’s political process really works – by somehow slipping WikiLeaks some evidence of Democratic Party bigwigs tilting the Democratic primaries to ensure Clinton’s nomination and revealing what Clinton told those Wall Street bankers – is the idea that the U.S. government should be enlisted to enforce what Americans get to see and hear.

The PropOrNot Smear

Watts and his alarums showed up in another context in the weeks after the 2016 election when The Washington Post ran a front-page story highlighting the claims by an anonymous group, PropOrNot, which was pushing a blacklist of 200 Internet news sites, including such independent sources of information as Counterpunch, Truthdig, Naked Capitalism, Zero Hedge, Truth-out and Consortiumnews.

Though the Post granted PropOrNot anonymity so it could safely slander independent-minded journalists, the Post turned to Watts to bolster PropOrNot’s case.

“They [the Russians] want to essentially erode faith in the U.S. government or U.S. government interests,” Watts said. “This was their standard mode during the Cold War. The problem is that this was hard to do before social media.”

 

The Post then linked to an article that Watts had co-authored entitled, “Trolling for Trump: How Russia Is Trying to Destroy Our Democracy.” which, in turn, cited as proof RT articles that mentioned Hillary Clinton’s health problem last September (which was later acknowledged to be a bout with pneumonia) and that discussed the vulnerabilities of the Federal Reserve (in an age of escalating public and private debt). Both might seem to you like reasonable topics for journalists, but you must understand that RT – because it is Russian-sponsored – has become the favorite whipping boy of anyone trying to make the case that America is besieged by Russian propaganda. And don’t you dare mention that almost no one in America actually watches RT or you might end up on PropOrNot’s list, too.

Watts and his cohorts continue:

“Social issues currently provide a useful window for Russian messaging. Police brutality, racial tensions, protests, anti-government standoffs, online privacy concerns, and alleged government misconduct are all emphasized to magnify their scale and leveraged to undermine the fabric of society.”

And, we know for sure that you’re a Russian agent if you express any concern that the heightened tensions between the U.S. and Russia might lead to nuclear war. As Watts and friends write, “More recently, Moscow turned to stoking fears of nuclear war between the United States and Russia” – and their “proof” was a link not to RT but to the financial Web site, Zero Hedge, which already had made it onto PropOrNot’s black list.

So, let’s see if we got this right: We are not to worry our pretty little heads about nuclear war or a future financial meltdown or police brutality toward racial minorities or race relations in general or armed right-wing clashes with authorities or spying on our Internet use or any government wrongdoing at all or even citizen protests against that wrongdoing. Because if we debate such issues – if we even read about such issues – we are playing into Vladimir Putin’s evil plans.

What Democracy?

Which makes me wonder what kind of “democracy” these brave “defenders of democracy” have in mind. The New York Times, The Washington Post and some establishment-approved Internet sites already have begun work on establishing standards for what information the American people will be allowed to see and hear – with disapproved sources of news marginalized by Internet search engines or prevented from earning any money by exclusion from Google and other ad programs.

Presumably, the 200 or so Web sites on PropOrNot’s black list would be the first cut for the new Ministry of Truth since many of them have published articles that raised questions about the accuracy of claims made by the U.S. State Department or they have expressed the belief that there may be two sides to complex issues – when Americans are supposed to hear only the side that Official Washington wants them to hear.

Some of these “Russian propaganda” Web sites – prior to the Iraq War – even raised doubts about the U.S. government’s certainty that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of WMDs. Thank goodness the Internet wasn’t as widely used back then or perhaps many Americans would have doubted the truth-telling by The New York Times and The Washington Post, which dutifully passed on the U.S. government’s pronouncements about Hussein’s secret WMDs.

Surely, in 2002-03, the Russians must have been behind the resistance by those few Web sites to the WMD group think that all the respectable people just knew to be true. How else can you explain the skepticism? And maybe Russia was responsible for the U.S. government’s failure to find any of those WMD stockpiles. Curse you, Russia!

With the Senate Intelligence Committee’s hearing on Thursday, this determination to squelch any dissenting American views as “Russian disinformation” moved up a notch, beyond some think-tank chatter, some newspaper articles or some initial planning for private-sector censorship.

The craziness has now become the focus of an official Senate investigation into Russian “meddling” in American political life. We have taken another step down the path of a New Cold War that blends a New McCarthyism with a New Orwellianism.

[For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com’s “The Orwellian War on Skepticism” and “How US Flooded the World with Psyops.”]

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 situation in Mosul is deteriorating on a daily basis and it’s most likely that Syria’s Raqqa will face the same. The U.S. Command is reportedly considering launching a so-called “counter-terrorist operation” there in the near future.

The U.S.-led coalition has repeatedly demonstrated destructive consequences of its actions. The coalition Air Force regularly strikes residential areas of Mosul, resulting in dozens and even hundreds of civilians casualties. Besides, it was proved that the coalition forces used depleted uranium munitions.

In this regard, on Thursday, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Stephen O’Brien, stressed that that the Syrian armed groups and the US-led international coalition should ensure the safety of the population during the upcoming counter-terrorist operation in Raqqa.

He also expressed concern about the fate of 400,000 civilians, who may suffer because of the operation. According to Under-Secretary O’Brien, the UN continues to receive reports that “fighting and air strikes result in deaths and injuries of scores of civilians and damage to civilian infrastructure, including schools, bakeries, markets and water infrastructure”.

In particular, O’Brien drew attention to the air strike that had targeted a school near Raqqa on March 21, as well as the strikes at a bakery and a market in Tabqa on March 22. In addition, on March 27, as a result of the coalition air strike in the same area, several volunteer engineers who visited the Tabqa Dam to evaluate damage were killed.

The majority of the Syrian experts consider that the coalition’s efforts to capture the main ISIS stronghold in Syria is unlikely to lead to any positive results. Considering that the US-led coalition command doesn’t intend to coordinate its plans and actions with the Syrian government, experts predict that the so-called “counter-terrorist” operation will be delayed indefinitely and will lead massive casualties among civilians.

It should be mentioned that during the recent negotiations in Geneva, Syria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Bashar Ja’afari, said that any U.S. involvement in Raqqa would be illegitimate. He also stressed that the operation would be a direct violation of the sovereignty of Syria.

His opinion was also shared by Stephen O’Brien. He described the current situation in Syria as “one of the largest man-made humanitarian crisis”, that had left hundreds of thousands of people killed and millions injured, while over 5 million people became refugees.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon has recently stated that the coalition command doesn’t intend to change its combat tactics. This is another proof that the coalition ignores and will continue to ignore civilian casualties caused by its air strikes.

Anna Jaunger is a freelance journalist from Inside Syria Media Center.

War has indeed become perpetual and peace no longer even a fleeting wish nor a distant memory. We have become habituated to the rumblings of war and the steady drum beat of propaganda about war’s necessity and the noble motives that inspire it.

We will close hospitals. We will close schools. We will close libraries and museums. We will sell off our parklands and water supply. People will sleep on the streets and go hungry. The war machine will go on. 

What are we to do?  The following Text is Part II of a broader analysis entitled War and the State: Business as Usual

Link to Part 1

1. On the day of the attacks, firefighters testified to explosives planted in the World Trade Center buildings. This video was among those held secret for years by the government agency NIST and released via FOIA after public interest died down.

2. The collapse of WTC 7, a 47-story building that was not hit by an airplane, looked exactly like a controlled demolition.

3. News agencies, including BBC and CNN, announced the destruction of WTC 7 long before it happened.

One BBC reporter announced the collapse while viewers could see the still-standing building right behind her in the video. Her news feed was cut when the problem was discovered.

4. Physics teacher David Chandler explained that the Twin Towers were demolished by explosive demolition.

5. There were many eyewitnesses to explosives at the WTC.

6. Senator Mark Dayton testified that, if the 9/11 Commission Report was true, those in command of the national air defenses did not do their jobs and many lied about it afterward. Of course, Senator Dayton was probably wrong in his claims that all military officers had been lying for years because a much simpler explanation is that the 9/11 Commission was lying.

7. Clips from the film Loose Change describe how military exercises and vice presidential orders obstructed the national air defense response.

8. President George W. Bush could not respond to the claim that his administration knew about the attacks before they happened.

9. Investigative journalist James Corbett was able to portray, in just five minutes, the absurdity of the official conspiracy theory.

10. The victim’s families explained how their efforts were the only driver for any official investigation and how that investigation failed them completely.

Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o (b. 1938), a Kenyan writer, is one of the most prominent African anti-colonial authors. He lived during the British colonial rule in Kenya, and was very young when he experienced the destruction of the village in which he was born, destroyed by the British colonizers. The post independent Kenya, however, was not a safe place for him as well. He was put in jail and faced violence for his criticisms toward the national bourgeoisie that came to power after the independence in 1963. Contrary to his Nigerian counterpart, Chinua Achebe (1930-2013), Ngũgĩ stopped writing his fiction in English in a critical decision in the 1970s, arguing that the English language is a colonial one to African authors. He engaged in writing in Gikuyu, spoken primarily by the Kikuyu people. In 1977, he was detained for a while in Kenya for one of his plays; I Will Marry When I Want (1977). While in Prison, Ngũgĩ wrote the first modern novel in Gikuyu, Devil on the Cross, on prison-issued toilet paper.

In my written interview with Ngũgĩ, I asked him to reflect on the authentic way of an anti-colonial struggle. I asked him to share his thoughts on the duality of “home and the world” in face of his experience of colonialism and anti-colonial struggle. Some post-colonial thinkers, such as the Indian scholar Partha Chatterjee, intend to foreground home, interior, as the last setting in which the colonial penetration was resisted. Arguing that the public space, the world, was crucially affected by the experience of British colonialism, this argument intends to revive the pre-colonial culture and society by retrieving the culture of the interior spaces of a Hindu home in late 19th century. Anti-colonial thinkers have criticized this post-colonial argument. According to Himani Bannerji, historical materialist sociologist, in her article, “Projects of Hegemony: Towards a Critique of Subaltern Studies’ ‘Resolution of the Women’s Question’” this post-colonial argument is constructing a de-grounded and a-historical narration of the homes of Hindus in late 19th century, and by doing so is assisting the Hindu fundamentalism to pursue its cultural nationalism in contemporary Indian politics.

Ngũgĩ’s experience of colonialism in Africa is also in line with this latter anti-colonial argument. For Ngũgĩ, in the struggle against capitalist colonialism there is no home left to return to. Instead of advocating for a home in the past, he argues

“But it is a home that has yet to be, for which we must all struggle, within our own countries and in the world.” He contends, “My real home, whether in Kenya, or outside Kenya, is the place and space of struggle.”

Similar to Frantz Fanon, for Ngũgĩ the struggle against colonialism is linked to the struggle against capitalism; thus it is a struggle against bourgeoisie, both national and international.

Mahdi Ganjavi is a Ph.D. student at the department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education, OISE/University of Toronto. A prolific essayist and author, Ganjavi’s criticisms, translations, a book review, and essays have been published in journals/websites such as the International Journal of Lifelong Education, Encyclopedia Irannica, the Global Voices, the Bullet, and Ajam Media Collective.

This interview was intended for a Farsi audience as well. The Farsi translation of this interview will be published soon by the quarterly Cinema and Literature in Tehran.

***

Mahdi Ganjavi (MG): Dear Ngũgĩ Wa Thiong’o, thank you so much for accepting this invitation. The idea of returning to the homeland is a shared concept among many anti-colonial authors of the twentieth century. Aime Cesaire’s famous poem, notebook of a return to the native land, meditates on such a moment of going back, such a moment of longing. We can see the same idea in Rabindranath Tagore’ the Home and the World, in which he criticizes the idea of an ideal home to which we can return. There seems no home is left for many anti-colonial authors to return to.

In one of your volumes of memoir you meditate on the day you returned to your village after just a month, just to see that your village was literally destroyed by the British colonizers. If not to home, where can we go in our struggle against imperialism and colonialism?

Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o (Ngũgĩ): I tell this in my second memoir, In the House of the Interpreter. Home is the site of our sense of being and belonging. The sense of the physical and social space that made me, often the site of our earliest and most formative images and dreams of the future. But we tend to think of home as a stable material and social space, the place of return, or possible return, even if I go to all the corners of the world. My village, in Limuru, Kenya, and where I was born and grew up, seemed such a center. But when I returned after three months away in a boarding school, I found the British colonial forces had razed the entire village to the ground. That was in April, 1955, and Kenya was then ruled under State of Emergency laws, meant to suppress the struggle for Independence lead by the Kenya Land and Freedom Army, otherwise known as Mau Mau. The impact of returning to a home that was no longer there was huge. It became an important theme in all my novels, particularly in A Grain of Wheat.

But in reality home is never quite that stable. Home is also a place of change. Even within members of the same family, they may have different experiences and hence images of the place they call home. The question is really whether one is part of the changes, part of the agency of change, or a victim of forced change, like when oppressive forces force a people to abandon the place they called home. Home is both physical space and also space of the mind and the soul. My real home, whether in Kenya, or outside Kenya, is the place and space of struggle. I like to believe that I am an integral part of all the struggles in the world, for a people powered world. Imperialism and colonialism, or systems of slavery, were always enemies of the human. I still believe in a world where the condition of my development is the development of all. I am because you are: you are because I am. It is African proverb. It describes my home. But it is a home that has yet to be, for which we must all struggle, within our own countries and in the world.

MG: In your novel, Petals of Blood, meditating on the reasons for why the villages are losing their youth to the cities, Muturi says: “You forgot that in those days the land was not for buying. It was for use. It was also plenty, you need not have beaten one yard over and over again. The land was also covered with forests. The trees called rain. They also cast a shadow on the land. But the forest was eaten by the railway. You remember they used to come for wood as far as here – to feed the iron thing. Aah, they only knew how to eat, how to take away everything. But then, those were Foreigners – white people.” How do you differentiate between criticism of modernism and criticism of capitalist colonialism?

Ngũgĩ: I reject the logic of progress and modernity that decrees that one can only be rich by making another poor; that they can be clean, only by pouring their dirt on another; that they can be healthy only by making another diseased. Look at the world in which we now live, in America, Europe, Africa or Asia, I find it a world in which a handful of nations consume 90 per cent of the resources of all the other nations. The gap of wealth and power between a handful Have-Nations and the majority Have-Not nations is widening and deepening. But within each nation, the gap of wealth and power, between a small group of Haves and the majority of Have-Nots, is widening and deepening. Within nations and between nations splendor is built on squalor. The boundless greed of a few now threatens the environment, the foundation of our lives. A modernity erected on the destruction of the very environment that makes life possible, is barbarism. We poison the air; we poison the earth; we even poison the waters! Then we develop technologies for making the poisoned water drinkable, and sell it in bottles! It’s sheer barbarism when nations pride themselves on the advances in technologies of mass death!

MG: Your novel, Petals of Blood, is an exemplary narration which gives life to Marx’s famous statement, “men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.” Your protagonists join each other to travel from village to city hoping that they would save their village. However, this travel, which is also stressed by the title of the chapters, is not to heaven or redemption. As Muniro says: “We went on a journey to the city to save Ilmorog from the drought. We brought back spiritual drought from the city!” As the novel unfolds the village changes, but not as the protagonists desired.

Once the capitalist relations are developed in the village, your protagonists change too. Every resistance gives rise to a new kind of suppression. Do you think that technologies of governance have become more powerful than the methods of resistance?

Ngũgĩ: In changing the conditions of our being, we also change ourselves, and we own the change. That’s why the whole notion that one people can export and force their systems of government to another is inherently alienating. One does not export liberation; people liberate themselves; then they own the outcome. Change comes from struggle. And struggle is inherent in thought and society and nature. Life itself arises out of struggle. The new has always had to struggle with the old, but its newness incorporates progressive elements of the old. Technology, from the natural technology of our hands to the most complex machinery, enhances the human capacity to eke – from nature and the environment – the means of enhancing life.

There is a huge contradiction in the world today. Technology makes it possible to eliminate hunger, homelessness, diseases, and ignorance. And yet thousands still are without access to food, houses, health and knowledge. Technology, able to produce plenty, is used to create scarcity. The rate of profit depends on that scarcity. Technology is good. But technology should be in the service of the human; and not the human in the service technology. Do we really want a paradise of parasites? Paradise for parasites is hell for the host body. Globalization ensures the rule of parasites in paradise. That’s why the Globalization of the rule of money should be countered by the Globalism of working people to free their collective paradise from parasites. This is the theme I try to explore in my novel, Wizard of the Crow.

MG: What Fanon calls “the alienated psyche” is also echoed by Karega. There is a moment in the novel, where Karega criticizes those “African brothers and sisters” who change their names to “Western” names. In your own life, you did the opposite; you put aside your Christian name and went back to Ngugi.

According to Fanon one way of enlightenment can be through violence. This is manifested in Abdullah who never forgets the moment when he humiliated the two European oppressors. The novel says: “He had rejected what his father stood for, rejected the promises of wealth and was born again as a fighter in the forest, a Kenyan.”

What do you think of “the alienated psyche” and the processes by which an oppressed psyche can reach to enlightenment?

Ngũgĩ: Human liberation should mean the liberation of the wholeness of the environment, economy, power and psyche. These are connected. Colonial conquests of a people and their land are always followed by the imposition of a colonial state and culture. The colonizers arrogated to themselves the right to name the world of the conquered including their bodies. I have talked about the politics of memory in my book, Something Torn and New. Liberation can be summed up as the right to name one’s world. To put it simply, economic, political, social and cultural liberation would be incomplete without the liberation of the mind. Hence the title of my other book: Decolonizing the Mind.

MG: In face of the appeals of the villagers, one of the first thoughts of Nderi wa Riera, the MP, is to use culture as a basic of ethnic unity. This strategy has become more and more common in the contemporary world, especially in countries that have had anti-colonial and anti-imperialist violent resistance.

How can literature assist us in our struggles against forms of oppression that intend to create unity by means of imposing an ahistorical nationalist culture?

Ngũgĩ: Imperialism has always followed the Roman maxim: Divide and Conquer. Imperialism and the forces that ally with it, tell the working people that their problems come from the faith or religion or the cultural practices of the other. Does the poor Muslim or Christian or Hindu become less poor because they share the same faith with the wealthy in their community? So while the oppressed fight each other in terms of religion, ethnicity and other marks of cultural difference, the oppressors are very contented. The outlook that says that my God is more of a God than your God, is actually very ungodly. For Imperialism, God and Gold are the same thing.

MG: In Petals of Blood, you criticize the idea that there is a neutral body of knowledge. The character lawyer says: “Educators, men of letters, intellectuals: these are only voices – not neutral, disembodied voices – but belonging to bodies of persons, of groups, of interests. You, who will seek the truth about words emitted by a voice, look first for the body behind the voice. The voice merely rationalizes the needs, whims, caprices, of its owner, the master.”

What body creates the voice, the knowledge that you deem beneficial for humanity?

Ngũgĩ: The united body of the working people. Let me try another maxim. Development should be measured not by the condition of those at the mountain top but the condition of those at the bottom of the mountain. Don’t measure progress and development by the number of millionaires in that society but by the conditions of the millions in that society. Education and knowledge can hinder or enlighten, and we want an education and knowledge that enlightens.

MG: You have experienced that anti-colonial projects can go wrong. What is the authentic anti-colonial movement in your view?

Ngũgĩ: That which fights for the liberation of the economy, politics, culture and psyche of a people, that liberates their capacity to make and name their world to empower the least among us.

MG: What do you think African literature can teach Middle Eastern people? There is a critical standpoint in Iran which argues that our literature should open itself to more sounds, not just the Europe and Western literature but should criticize the Eurocentric presumptions behind the so called “canons” of world literature. How do you think the literature of the developing countries can inform each other? Has any Middle Eastern writer had influence on you?

Ngũgĩ: Edward Said, of course, in theory, but also poets like Mahmoud Darwish. All literatures should be in conversation. I come from Kenya, and I know that there have been centuries of cultural contact between the Middle East and the East African coast. There were thousands of Africans relocated to the Middle East as slaves in the past. But there peoples from the Middle East who settled in east Africa. Christianity and Islam – two religions of the Book – are dominant. In my recent book, Globalectics: Theory and Politics of Knowing, I have argued about the centrality of literature from Africa, Asia, Latin America, and that of the marginalized communities in the West, to the conception and practice of world literature.

MG: Do you think that African literature has lost its moment in the world literature in comparison with the seventies? If so, why?

Ngũgĩ: I don’t think so. The problem with African literature is that much of it is written in European languages. The new literary movement is toward writing in African languages. I was very happy when my fable, Ituĩka rĩa Mũrũgamo, (The Upright Revolution, or How humans came to walk upright), originally written in Gĩkũyũ, was translated into more than thirty African languages. It has also been translated into Swedish and some languages in India. Check it out on the internet under Jalada Translation issue number 2.

Wednesday’s discussion on core prohibitions and positive obligations for the nuclear weapon ban treaty was fascinating, and exciting. After working to ban the bomb for so many years, it is thrilling to watch the coalescence of states’ views on the development of a clear and comprehensive prohibition of nuclear weapons.

On some provisions, there are divergences of opinion. The question of whether the UN Charter incorporates threat of use or whether it should be included as an explicit prohibition in the treaty is one. The inclusion of testing and transit/transshipment is another. The extent of verification, and how that relates to future disarmament processes, is also a matter of some debate.

However, governments participating in these negotiations are very clearly articulating a treaty that categorically prohibits nuclear weapons.

There has been near-universal agreement on the prohibition of stockpiling, use, deployment, acquisition, development, and production of nuclear weapons, as well as assistance, encouragement, and inducement of prohibited acts. There was overwhelming support to prohibit the transfer of nuclear weapons, which is important for preventing “nuclear sharing” arrangements.

There was also very broad support for including an explicit prohibition on financing of nuclear weapon-related activities, though some states raised questions about how this would work. Several states suggested they would view a prohibition on assistance as having “implications for the regulation of the investment of our public monies,” as Ms. Helena Nolan of Ireland put it. Others asked for clarification on how a prohibition on financing would work.

How to deal with stockpiling varies. All states seem to agree that the possession of nuclear weapons must not be allowed under this treaty, but the question persists of whether the treaty should deal with setting out provisions for the elimination of stockpiles or whether it should leave that for later negotiations with nuclear-armed states. It is a very small minority of states that seem to think the ban treaty should try to address detailed disarmament processes at this time.

More broadly, however, perspectives on verification have some divergences. Argentina and Switzerland seem to have suggested that the treaty will be relatively meaningless without verification of its prohibitions, with the Argentinian representative describing it as a nothing more than a “symbolic declaration” if it does not contain strong verification mechanisms.

Most of the states participating in these negotiations, however, do not share this view. Rather, there seems to be broad agreement that existing verification mechanisms, including those under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and nuclear weapon free zone treaties, should be sufficient. States could consider mechanisms for consultation and cooperation amongst states parties to facilitate implementation and compliance with the treaty prohibitions. It’s important to remember that the core prohibitions, as broadly outlined, mean states joining this treaty reject nuclear weapons in principle and practice. Building on this community of states will help build confidence and assist others in finding ways to cooperate to effectively implement the treaty.

A few issues will require further debate. While there was broad support for including a specific prohibition on testing, some expressed concern that this would undermine the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, both in letter and in norm. Others hold the opposite view, that a prohibition on testing in a nuclear weapon prohibition treaty would reinforce the norm against testing, and that leaving it out could be in danger of creating a loophole. Some states believe that development includes testing, though, as Ireland said, this does not preclude the need for an explicit testing prohibition.

Threat of use was another issue of some contention, with some states such as Austria and Mexico suggesting it is not necessary. Ambassador Thomas Hajnoczi of Austria argued that there “is already a general prohibition on the threat of use of (armed) force in the UN Charter” and that including a prohibition of threat of use of nuclear weapons in this treaty “could be seen as calling into question the validity of that more general norm.” Others, such as South Africa argued that threat of use needs to be included. Ambassador Nozipho Mxakato-Diseko of South Africa said including threat of use “would be key to the effort to delegitimse the concept of nuclear deterrence.”

Many states, including those in the Caribbean Community, supported the inclusion of a provision on transit and transshipment. Austria argued it was too complicated to demarcate maritime and airspace, and sees transit as being included in assistance. Given the risks associated with the transit of nuclear weapons, and the relationship between transit and deployment, states will need to seriously consider this issue.

Despite these few issues, it appears that there is strong convergence amongst the vast majority on the core prohibitions for this treaty. There is also broad support for the inclusion of positive obligations, including on issues related to victim’s rights and environmental remediation. This edition of the Nuclear Ban Daily has several thoughtful pieces on these issues, so we welcome all delegates to read the full edition and consider what we can do with this opportunity before us to advance humanitarian disarmament law.

I recently had a dialogue with a person who had emailed me about a friend of hers who had been mistreated for years by drug-prescribing psychiatrists. The psychiatrists – and their alarming and illogical drugging – had made him worse and worse and eventually totally disabled over the years.

Because of the high probability that the drugs he had taken over the years – known to be both neurotoxic and addictive – were also brain-damaging and dementia-inducing, we discussed some things that perhaps could be helpful (see the information below).

The obvious major problem, according to the person who contacted me, was the fact that the patient had been continuously over-dosed with irrational cocktails of a multitude of dangerous psychiatric drugs. Since there were a number of lessons that I thought my readers could benefit from learning, I decided to make the letter into a Duty to Warn column. Below is the essence of my last communication with the friend of the over-drugged patient.

“What a mess your friend’s so-called healers have made of his brain!! They are guilty, guilty, guilty of “first doing harm” rather than first doing NO harm (per the Hippocratic Oath). You tell me that he has been on SSRI antidepressants, psychostimulants, anti-psychotics, tranquilizers and mood stabilizers, which are the five categories of psychotropic drugs.

A psychiatrist who has been using such a variety of drugs doesn’t know what he is doing , but what is worse is that he trusts the totally untrustworthy, amoral psychiatric drug companies way too much!

“No human being on earth would have responded any other way than how your friend has responded, what with being prescribed unknown combinations of brain-altering, brain-damaging synthetic drugs. Note that Big Pharma never does research involving more than one drug at a time even in the rat labs! What must come out of such corporate pseudo-research is bad science and therefore bad medicine!

“Below is the partial list of medications that you mentioned in your letter that your friend had taken at one time or another, usually, of course, in a cocktail of other drugs, any combination of which – as I mentioned above – has never been tested in either pre-clinical (animal lab) or clinical (human) trials for either safety or efficacy, either short-term or long-term.

“Zoloft, Effexor, Wellbutrin, Xanax, Concerta (36mg), Lamictal (as high as 900 mg), Lithium (only about a week as his psoriasis acted up), Depakote, modafinil, Ambien, Abilify, Zyprexa, Valium.”

1) Pfizer’s Zoloft, GlaxoSmithKline’s Wellbutrin and Pfizer’s Effexor are powerful and addictive so-called “antidepressant” drugs (which should more accurately have been called “agitation-inducing” drugs (but that wouldn’t have been good for Big Pharma’s business model). Most of them have been classed by the pharmaceutical industry as “selective serotonin reuptake pump inhibitors (SSRIs) – a very deceptive term because they are NOT selective to serotonin and they mess around with more organelles in the synapses of the brain than the reuptake pumps).

(Other examples of such drugs include Forest Lab’s Celexa, Lilly’s Cymbalta, Forest’s Lexapro, GlaxoSmithKline’s Paxil, Pfizer’s Pristiq, Lilly’s Prozac, Jazz’s Luvox, Merck’s Remeron, Lilly’s Symbyax, Bayer’s Yaz, and Lilly’s Sarafem.)

2) McNeil’s Concerta is a psychostimulant drug identical to Novartis’s Ritalin. They are in the class of drugs (FDA-approved for so-called ADHD or somnolence, including – irrationally – sleepiness caused by sleep deprivation!). These drugs are powerful and highly addictive dopamine and/or nor-epinephrine reuptake pump inhibitors that temporarily boost the level of those two transmitters in the synapse but at the same time dysregulate dopamine receptors as well as dopamine reuptake pumps.

(Other examples of such drugs include Shire’s Adderall, Shire’s Daytrana, Novartis’s Focalin, Shire’s Intuniv, UCB’s Metadate, Mallinckrodt’s Methylin, Cephalon’s Nuvigil, Lilly’s Strattera, Shire’s Vyvanse, Cephalon’s Provigil (modafinil), caffeine, nicotine, dexedrine, “uppers”, etc, that commonly cause mania, psychosis and sleep deprivation in addition to many other dangerous symptoms that can make ignorant or too-busy physicians think that the patient is mentally ill; rather than psychiatric drug-intoxicated.)

3) Eli Lilly’s Zyprexa, Janssen’s Abilify and Glaxo’s Lamictal, all so-called “anti-psychotic” drugs (which should more accurately have been called heavily-sedating major tranquilizers, which are seriously brain-altering drugs). These drugs are dopamine, norepinephrine and often serotonin blocking drugs that make victims feel dead inside. These drugs are also brain-damaging and highly dependency-inducing drugs that are difficult to stop taking, partly because one of the serious withdrawal symptoms is psychosis. Patients who have been given such drugs for off-label reasons such as for sleeping (never having been psychotic before taking the drug) have been known to have hallucinations and acute psychotic attacks during the withdrawal period!

(Other examples of such drugs include the now-generic Haldol, Prolixin, Mellaril, fluphenazine, perphenazine, prochlorperazine, thioridazine, GlaxoSmithKline’s Thorazine, Lilly’s Zyprexa, Astra-Zeneca’s Seroquel, Janssen’s Risperdal, Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Abilify, Pfizer’s Geodon, Novartis’s Clozaril, Novartis’s Fanapt, Janssen’s Invega and Merck’s Saphris).

4) Roche’s Valium, Pfizer’s Xanax and Sanofi Aventis’s Ambien are benzodiazepine-type drugs, which are powerful and highly addicting. They are the so-called “minor” tranquilizers and sleeping pills.

(Other examples include Valeant’s Librium, Valeant’s Dalmane, Biovail’s Ativan, Lundbeck’s Tranxene, Pfizer’s Halcion, Roche’s Klonopin, Sepacor’s Lunesta, Mallinckrodt’s Restoril, Takeda’s Rozerem and King’s Sonata, any of which can cause somnolence, depression, lowered IQ and long-term brain damage and, when the dose is cut down, can cause serious withdrawal symptoms, including serious insomnia, agitation, psychosis and mania.)

5) Abbott’s Depakote and the generic lithium are so-called “mood stabilizer” drugs. Depakote could have caused your friend’s liver failure. Most “mood stabilizers” (except for lithium) are drugs that were designed and marketed as anti-epilepsy drugs, for which they were approved by the FDA. However, they have been heavily marketed (often illegally) as “mood stabilizers” or drugs that might help pain perception or anxiety but they have also been found, upon withdrawal, to cause agitation, insomnia and even grand mal seizures, even if the patient had never had a seizure before.

(Other examples include Pfizer’s Neurontin, Pfizer’s Dilantin, Ortho-McNeil’s Topamax, Pfizer’s Lyrica and UCB’s Keppra).

6) Of course your friend was probably also using the over-the-counter (OTC) psychoactive substances caffeine and nicotine. The heavy use of such addictive “food substances” such as coffee, caffeinated soda pop, NutraSweet-laden “diet” pop and tobacco by patients on “anti-psychotics” is legendary.

“Those unfortunates that have been labeled with a psychosis and then forced to take “anti-psychotics” are almost always addicted to these OTC psychostimulants as well. Drugs that block dopamine and nor-epinephrine will make patients feel so numb and dead inside that they will do anything to overcome the dopamine and nor-epinephrine under-stimulation. And so, not only will they be dependent on the toxic prescription drug, they will also be addicted to the toxic stimulant substance. De-ciphering what drug is doing what is very difficult and time-consuming to figure out, and so most ignorant and too-busy doctors never try. They just keep prescribing the drugs and keep their fingers crossed, hoping that they will never have to face the inevitable withdrawal syndromes.

“Of course when the inevitable happens and such unlucky patients can’t afford the prescriptions anymore, can’t afford health insurance premiums, can’t afford the deductible fees, can’t afford the co-pays, loses health care for any other reason or somehow just quits or cuts down on the drugs (because they know they are being sickened by them), the patient will probably wind up in a mental hospital where another new mental illness label will be falsely applied and a new cocktail of brain-damaging and addictive drugs will be forced upon the patient again.

“Most physicians (and all physician assistants) do not understand the exact mechanism of action of the above drugs nor do they know how to help get their patients off the drugs when they start to understand the adverse effects that occur with ALL of these medications.

“It is important to remind ourselves that none of these psychiatric drugs were ever tested in the animal labs in any combination of two or more drugs, which is also true for the human trials!

“And there are hardly any long-term trials done either (most animal lab experiments last fewer than a week in length and most human anti-depressant trials lasted – on average – 6 weeks in duration, even though most humans are told to take them the rest of their lives!)

“Also none of these drugs were ever tested in sequential trials (one drug following another) for safety or efficacy!

“So your friend has been experimented upon by a system that knows next to nothing about what happens at the synapse level of the human brain, especially long-term. His psychiatrists have been cavalierly drugging him – on a trial and error basis, no less – with a multitude of dangerous and addictive chemical substances and combinations of substances that never came anywhere close to curing him.

“Indeed, these neurotoxic substances have instead made him worse with every cumulative dose. As we discussed, I believe that there is a good chance that his initial diagnoses were likely to have been in error.

“In other words, he might have only been experiencing a temporary, albeit perhaps overwhelming, emotional issue that could have been cured with non-pharmaceutical means such as good psychotherapy. But instead, he was probably quickly mis-diagnosed (because, unfortunately, he saw psychiatrists who have immense power and authority over their patients) with a “permanent”, “life-long”, “incurable”, “probably inherited” “mental illness” that would make him a permanent patient of the psychiatric and pharmaceutical industries, who would be the ones to profit by prescribing and supplying the “necessary” drugs (that would be endlessly dealt out to him on a trial and error basis).

“Of course, if that scenario of erroneous diagnosis is true, your friend has been also been mis-treated. To de-cipher the situation in retrospect would require a series of thorough history-taking clinic visits and a slow tapering off of the brain-damaging drugs (along with close attention to his mal-nourished and drug-sickened brain and body plus good psychotherapy for whatever was the original emotional issue – as well as for the current psychological trauma from the mis-treatment he has received).

“I’m sorry to be so pessimistic, but honesty is the best policy. Your friend’s brain may be so messed up that he will never totally recover. His brain has already suffered enough damage to make him totally brain-disabled. But the fact that he had a good career prior to swallowing all those drugs, perhaps his prognosis is better than I fear. If he and his loved ones can educate themselves adequately, that will improve his chances. Please be aware that he might only be able to lower his medications to a minimum level to avoid serious withdrawal symptoms, or at least be willing to take many months or years to do the tapering.

“Also, because he has been on such a large number of drugs, he is at high risk of developing a psychiatric drug-induced dementia (an iatrogenic disease [doctor-caused] that his “doctors” will surely try hard to dismiss and mis-diagnose as Alzheimer’s Disease [of unknown origin] rather than implicate themselves as responsible for the dementia).

“I have had extensive experience with hundreds of similarly mal-treated “psychiatric” patients during my career, and I have been repeatedly angered over the injustices that had been done to them by well-meaning but poorly-informed physicians or physician assistants. A really good, committed lawyer that has no ties to Big Pharma or Big Medicine could have sued any of those mal-practicing doctors and drug companies – if there was any justice in this world and if the Big Pharma defense lawyers weren’t so well-paid and so cunning at making sure that justice is never done applied to the drug company’s victims.

“First of all very few lawyers want to go up against the raft of Big Pharma lawyers that every corporation has on retainer, and very few independent lawyers are eager to go up against the doctors in their own communities because it would be bad for their lawyer business.

“So what to do? It is important, first of all, to find a sympathetic, understanding, knowledgeable physician who is able and willing to write prescriptions for smaller and smaller doses of the offending drugs and will help in the slow tapering process.

“One caveat: the mechanics and neuroscience of tapering off psych drugs is NOT taught in medical schools, because Big Pharma has acquired too much influence on the medical education of our med students and the post-graduation education of licensed physicians. Big Pharma has also been very successful in indoctrinating (and in many cases bribe) academic researchers, authors of medical textbooks, medical school professors, politicians (especially the liberal ones) and the thousands of health journalists into believing the totally false notion of psych drug efficacy and safety, so that now the public also believes the dangerous myth (with lots of help from TV commercials).

“Therefore it is the rare physician who has the knowledge that there is such a thing as psychiatric drug-induced brain damage or psychiatric drug-induced dementia. And it also the rare physician that will have the inclination or the time to do what needs to be done.

“I would suggest that your friend’s caretakers to go to www.cchrint.org and view some of the videos there. Also, I would suggest reading some of the many of columns on the topic of mental ill health that I have written over the years. Many of them are archived at:

http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=1

Gary Kohls Global Research

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

“Good luck. Don’t give up. There is much justice-seeking to do. What you can learn will help increase the awareness of your friend’s tragic story. Perhaps future victimization from the psychiatric and psychopharmaceutical industries can be halted, so that others won’t have to go through the same things your friend has had to go through.

“Try to find some other folks with similar concerns that might want to get together with you to share information and learn more about you can do together, but don’t trust the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI is a Big Pharma front group whose entire existence has been funded by the drug company’s hundreds of millions of dollars and never mentions the immense dangers of their drugs, nor the fact that those chemicals can cause dementia or addictions).

“Do trust, however, what you read on the website of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (www.cchrint.org).”

Hot on the heels of the WSJ report that Trump‘s former National Security Advisor, Mike Flynn, has offered to testify in exchange for immunity from prosecution, Flynn’s lawyer, Robert Kelner of the law firm Covington, issued the following statement, in which judging by Kelner’s language, Flynn’s offer is not so much to “turn” on Trump, as to set the record straight, while putting an end to the ongoing “media witch hunt”, to wit:

the media are awash with unfounded allegations, outrageous claims of treason, and vicious innuendo directed against him. He is now the target of unsubstantiated public demands by Members of Congress and other political critics that he be criminally investigated. No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution.

It is also notable that Flynn’s lawyer does not explicitly mention a request for immunity as the WSJ reported, instead it merely requests an environment which assures against “unfair prosecution.”

The full statement by Robert Kelner is below.

***

General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit.

Out of respect for the Committees, we will not comment right now on the details of discussions between counsel for General Flynn and the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, other than to confirm that those discussions have taken place. But it is important to acknowledge the circumstances in which those discussions are occurring.

General Flynn is a highly decorated 33-year veteran of the U.S. Army. He devoted most of his life to serving his country, spending many years away from his family fighting this nation’s battles around the world. He was awarded four Bronze Stars for actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the war on terror. He received the Legion of Merit twice, and the Defense Superior Service Medal four times. He is a recipient of the Defense Department’s Distinguished Service Award and the Intelligence Community Gold Seal Medallion for Distinguished Service, as well as numerous other decorations.

Notwithstanding his life of national service, the media are awash with unfounded allegations, outrageous claims of treason, and vicious innuendo directed against him. He is now the target of unsubstantiated public demands by Members of Congress and other political critics that he be criminally investigated. No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution.

Government forces have restored control over Khirbat al-Hajamah, Zawr al Bala, Bakhira, Arzeh and Balhiseen from the joint militant forces led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in northern Hama. The advances were made because of an advantage in artillery and airpower in the area. The Syrian army’s Tiger Forces, the National Defense Forces and the 5^th Legion entered Majdal, Tell Bijo and Khattab. But these sites still have to be secured.

The control over the strategic Mount Zayn al-Abdeen would allow government troops to further pound militant units operating in the area north of Qhomana.

Furthermore, a Russian-made TOS-1 heavy flame-thrower system was spotted firing at militant positions in northern Hama on March 29. On March 25, three TOS-1 heavy flame-thrower systems were reported en route from Tartus to Hama. All 3 systems were likely deployed to assist government troops repelling the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham-led offensive in the area.

A crew of the RT TV channel filmed US troops embedded with fighters of the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), mostly consisting of the People’s Protection Units (YPG), in the area of the Tabqa dam in the province of Raqqah. US troops were spotted “just miles away” from the frontline. RT’s Lizzie Phelan also reported Marines at the northern entrance of the Tabqa dam controlled by the SDF. SDF members refused to comment the issue on camera and ordered journalists to stop filming US servicemen.

Thus, RT was able to take a look at the real situation in the Raqqah countryside hidden by the fog of the US military censorship. As SF forecasted earlier this year, the Pentagon deployed additional troops to Syria in order to provide a direct combat and military assistance to the advance on Raqqah launched by US-backed forces.

The Pentagon’s official line continued supporting Obama-style claims that US troops had not deployed close to the frontline. Indeed, this became possible due to the fact that the SDF itself is a kind of PR project. Washington has repeatedly denied that Kurdish YPG fighters are a majority of the SDF combat force, arguing that some US-backed “Arab coalition” spearheads operations. However, even the SDF Press Center’s videos cannot show these numerous Arab fighters. Instead, it constantly releases footage of Kurdish majority units operating at the frontline. However, Washington needs this Arab coalition myth to expand its influence in northeastern Syria as much as possible and to combat anti-YPG propaganda that could exploit some Kurdish-Arab tensions.

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

Thursday’s hearing on Russia was reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition – a nation and its leadership on trial, spurious accusations featured, made-for-television witch-hunt proceedings. 

McCarthyism is back on steroids. Intense bipartisan Russia bashing risks possible military confrontation.

Fabricated claims about Russian US election hacking persist – despite no evidence suggesting it. Congress is spoiling for a fight.

The Thursday Senate Select Committee on Intelligence open hearing was Orwellian titled “Disinformation: A Primer in Russian Active Measures and Influence Campaigns.”

A Committee statement read like a grade B, CIA-financed, Hollywood propaganda film script, claiming “Russian disinformation operators…left behind more clues and traces than ever before” – without naming any because none exist.

“(E)vidence implicating Russian intelligence in hacking-and-leaking operations over the past two years is also more granular than ever before.”

“This digital forensic evidence can only adequately be assessed by looking at the wider picture of the 2016 influence campaign against the US election.”

“Russia’s intelligence services pioneered dezinformatsiya in the early twentieth century.”

“(I)n the past 20 years, aggressive Russian digital espionage campaigns became the norm.”

“(I)n the past 2 years, Russian intelligence operators began to combine the two, hacking and leaking – or digital espionage and active measures.”

“(I)n the past year… (Russia) targeted at least 109 Clinton campaign staffers…(including her) personal email account…”

“The publicly available evidence that implicates Russian intelligence agencies in the 2016 active measures campaign is extraordinarily strong” – again accusation without evidence.

“(U)witting agents” were used, including “WikiLeaks.”

Fact: No evidence suggests Russian US election hacking.

Fact: No evidence suggests any hacking.

Fact: Credible evidence points to disgruntled Democrat party insider leaks – a topic not raised during congressional or FBI investigations, focusing solely on fabricated claims of Russian hacking.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence chairman Richard Burr (R. NC) and ranking Virginia Democrat Mark Warner lied, claiming an “outside foreign adversary effectively sought to hijack” the 2016 presidential election.

RT and Sputnik News were wrongfully accused of reporting fake news about the election to US audiences, influencing the results – utter nonsense, not a shred of evidence suggesting it.

Claiming “Russian ‘propaganda on steroids’ was designed to poison the national conversation in America” was a malicious Big Lie.

Former US National Intelligence Council official Eugene Rumer turned truth on its head, saying “fake news” and “trolls” are an “integral part of Russian foreign policy.”

“It is the totality of Russian efforts in plain sight – to mislead, to misinform, to exaggerate – that is more convincing than any cyber evidence.”

Neocon Senator Marco Rubio (R. FL) lied, claiming

“(f)ormer members of my presidential campaign team who had access to the internal information of my presidential campaign were targeted by IP addresses with an unknown location within Russia. That effort was unsuccessful.”

“I would also inform the committee within the last 24 hours, at 10:45 AM…a second attempt was made, again, against former members of my presidential campaign team who had access to our internal information – again targeted from an IP address from an unknown location in Russia. And that effort was also unsuccessful.”

King’s College London Department of War Studies professor Thomas Rid called WikiLeaks, Twitter and “over-eager journalists” “unwitting Russian agents.”

Moscow was falsely accused of interfering in European and other elections – again no corroborating evidence because there is none.

In early March, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denounced what he called “hysteria in official Washington and in the American media,” strongly denying Russian US election interference.

“This is unimaginable and someone has to say all this is not true,” he stressed.

During a panel discussion at Thursday’s Arkhangelsk, Russia International Arctic Forum, Putin called accusations about Russian US election hacking “lies…used for domestic American political agendas.”

When asked directly if Russia interfered with last year’s campaign, he borrowed the phrase once used by GHW Bush, saying:

“Read my lips. No” – the first three words in Russian, the last one with emphasis in English.

In days earlier House Select Committee on Intelligence testimony, FBI director James Comey and NSA head Michael Rogers said no evidence of Russia influencing the 2016 presidential election results was found.

Instead of stressing no further investigation is justified, they said an active one remains ongoing.

Given intense bipartisan congressional and media hostility toward Russia, chances for improved bilateral relations are virtually nil.

US-instigated direct confrontation is more likely, possible nuclear war, madness if launched.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. 

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

If you read the headlines of major corporate media outlets, you’d think hundreds of Iraqi civilians coincidentally died in the same location that just so happened to be hit by a US airstrike.

A March 17 US attack in the city of Mosul resulted in a massacre of civilians. The monitoring group Airwars estimated that between 130 and 230 Iraqis were killed in the incident. Iraqi media reported similar figures.

Civilian victims of the US-led bombing campaign to oust ISIS from the major northern Iraqi city, which has been terrorized by the extremist group for three years, have received little media coverage.

The Washington Post (3/28/17) noted, nevertheless, that the recent airstrike “was potentially one of the worst US-led civilian bombings in 25 years.”

Yet just a few days before the Post published this stark fact, leading news networks went out of their way to craft some of the most euphemistic headlines imaginable.

ABC News (3/25/17) took the cake, giving its report the disjointed title “US Reviewing Airstrike That Corresponds to Site Where 200 Iraqi Civilians Allegedly Died.” (This story was also syndicated by Yahoo News—3/25/17.)

Note that the Iraqis simply died; they weren’t killed. The airstrike was a mere temporal and geographic coincidence.

The Los Angeles Times (3/25/17‎) used similarly obfuscatory language, with the headline “US Acknowledges Airstrike in Mosul, Where More Than 200 Iraqi Civilians Died.” This article, which was republished by the Chicago Tribune (3/25/17), made it sound like 200 Iraqis have been killed in all of Mosul.

The day before, however, the LA Times (3/24/17‎) had printed another report that provided much more context: “More Than 200 Civilians Killed in Suspected US Airstrike in Iraq.”

In a slight improvement, the Washington Post (3/25/17) at least used the word “killed”—or, rather, “Allegedly Killed”—for its story: “US Military Acknowledges Strike on Mosul Site Where More Than 100 Were Allegedly Killed.”

But it was not just American outlets that used such watered-down language. France 24 (3/25/17) wrote, underwhelmingly, “US-Led Coalition Confirms Strike on Mosul Site Where Civilians Died.”

Headlines are the most important part of news articles; they greatly influence what the public thinks about political issues. In fact, studies show that most Americans don’t read beyond headlines.

These latest whitewashed titles are remarkably reminiscent of those composed to cover (up) a previous high-profile US massacre of civilians: the October 2015 US bombing of a Doctors Without Borders–operated hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan (FAIR.org, 10/5/17). The New York Times published a masterpiece of propaganda with the headline “US Is Blamed After Bombs Hit Afghan Hospital.” Ambiguous language, heavy use of the passive voice and awkward wording abounded.

Some ostensible news outlets even contradicted themselves in reporting on the recent Mosul attack. Right-wing website the Daily Caller (3/27/17) published an article misleadingly headlined “Iraq: ISIS, Not US, Responsible For Killing 200 Civilians.”  Author Saagar Enjeti tried to exculpate the US for the atrocity, instead blaming ISIS. Yet in his piece, Enjeti was compelled to acknowledge that the details were murky, and that an Iraqi officer had said “the blast was caused by an airstrike called on ISIS snipers on the roof of a building.”

Later, when the commander of the US-led task force fighting ISIS tepidly admitted, “My initial assessment is that we probably had a role in these casualties [in Mosul],” slightly more direct reports slowly came trickling out. But even after the dust settled and the facts became clearer, media continued to downplay their severity.

In one of the more eyebrow-raising headlines, the New York Times ran a story on the front page on March 29 with the paltry headline “US Concedes It Played a Role in Iraqi Deaths.” (It appeared online on March 28 with the “US ‘Probably Had a Role’ in Mosul Deaths, Commander Says.”)

What was that role, exactly? Well, carrying out the airstrike that killed them. But let’s not split hairs.

While major corporate media largely echoed the US government line, independent left-wing news outlets, on the other hand, were immediately much more straightforward in their reporting. “With 200+ Iraqi Civilians Feared Dead, Carnage Surging Under Trump,” wrote Common Dreams (3/26/17‎), for instance.

Little Media Attention

Given the extreme brutality of ISIS, a genocidal Salafi jihadist group that has slaughtered civilians from religious and ethnic minority groups in Iraq and Syria, it is perhaps understandable that much of the media attention is on its crimes.

But the atrocities committed by the forces fighting it cannot be ignored. Such an approach is a recipe for disaster, as the so-called Islamic State has demonstrated a tendency to exploit Western atrocities for propaganda and recruitment.

Little ink has been spilled in the US media for those victims, nonetheless. According to the monitoring group Airwars, as many as 1,000 civilians were killed by US-led coalition actions in Iraq and Syria just in the month of March (Democracy Now!, 3/27/17).

Many more civilians have been killed in the past two years (Intercept, 8/3/15), yet their deaths have received little attention by major corporate news networks, even when they may help fuel the very extremist group whose monstrousness was used to justify them.

In fact, the US dropped more than 12,000 bombs on Iraq (and another 12,000 on Syria) in 2016 alone, with little media scrutiny.

There was no real public discussion, let alone political debate, about whether or not US bombing ISIS would be a good idea, not to mention whether or not Western airstrikes can actually defeat a guerilla extremist group like ISIS (Extra!, 11/14). After all, it was the illegal US-led invasion and subsequent decade-long military occupation of Iraq, in addition to intervention in the war in Syria, that led to the rise of the hyper-sectarian Islamic State in the first place.

To its credit, the Washington Post (3/24/17) published another article, amid the widespread media whitewashing of the Mosul airstrike, titled “Airstrike Monitoring Group Overwhelmed by Claims of US-Caused Civilian Casualties.” The newspaper acknowledged:

In the last week, three mass casualty incidents have been attributed to US-led forces in Iraq and Syria, making March one of the most lethal months for civilians in the the two-year-old war against the Islamic State.

Defenders of corporate media might argue that news outlets had to craft carefully worded headlines as the US government was still investigating the attack. But again, this simply reflects media’s deference to power. If the government says something, there are countless journalists waiting in line to obediently echo it. Corporate media have a long, tried-and-true history of acting as stenographers to power.

The Art of Euphemism and Inconstant Skepticism

A quick look at other instances in which media employ this kind of euphemistic language is instructive. These whitewashing tools are reserved almost exclusively for reports on the crimes of those in power.

Police frequently benefit from this linguistic sleight-of-hand. When cops shoot and kill unarmed civilians, the deaths are referred to as “officer-involved shootings” (FAIR, 7/11/16).

A crutch is made out of the passive voice. Cops don’t fire their guns and shoot people; their guns are magically “discharged,” as if of their own accord.

“Alleged” is ubiquitous and abused: Police “allegedly” shot someone, media insist, even when there is video of the cops shooting them.

These tricks are employed even more frequently, and egregiously, in reports on atrocities committed by the US and its allies. And while media outlets invariably give the US the benefit of the doubt, Western enemies are not afforded the same luxury.

In Syria, for instance, civilian casualty estimates after airstrikes carried out by the Syrian government and Russia are reported exclusively based on the accounts of rebels and “activists,” some of whom have received extensive support from foreign countries committed to overthrowing the Syrian government (AP, 11/29/15, 4/28/16, 11/19/16; Reuters, 1/11/16; CNN, 9/26/16).

The incredulity exhibited in the reports on the US attack in Mosul starkly contrasts with the dogmatic certitude reflected in the incessant barrage of thinly sourced stories on Syria, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, China and beyond.

This is how US media operate: Staunch skepticism is reserved for reports on the crimes of the US and its allies, whereas rumors and myths are reported as facts when they shine negatively on government enemies.

Ben Norton is a journalist and writer based in New York City. You can find him on Twitter at @BenjaminNorton.

On March 29th, Turkey officially declared that its military operation in northern Syria, known as Operation Euphrates Shield, finished after achieving all its goals. The decision was announced during the meeting of the Turkish National Security Council that was attended by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

“It was noted that Operation ‘Euphrates Shield’, which was started with the goal of ensuring national security, preventing the threat from Daesh [ISIS], and returning Syrian refugees to their homes has been successfully completed,” Turkish National Security stated.

Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim also announced the decision during a televised interview with Turkish private broadcaster NTV, adding that future military operations will have other names.

The Turkish leadership did not announce that units of the Turkish Armed Forces were set to withdraw from northern Syria. In this light, we can recall Moscow’s public announcements to reduce forces in Syria which didn’t lead to a significant decrease of the Russian military involvement in the conflict.

Ankara’s Operation Euphrates Shield, launched on August 24th, 2016, resulted in the following achievements for Turkey:

• Ankara seized control over the Azaz-Jarabulus-Al-Bab triangle in northern Syria;
• Turkish forces prevented US-backed Kurdish forces from the linking up of Kurdish-controlled areas in northeastern and northwestern Syria;
• The Erdogan regime increased its influence in Syria and took back its role as an important player in the conflict, a role which had decreased after the start of the Russian military operation in the country.

The following goals were not achieved by Ankara:

• Turkish-led forces failed to push Kurdish forces out of the northern Syrian town of Manbij. (Kurdish units were able to remain in the area because of Russian-US cooperation in preventing the Turkish advance);
• The Turkish Armed Forces were not accepted as a participant in the US-backed advance on Raqqah.

At the same time, the Turkish military operation in Syria was likely unofficially coordinated with the Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance. This, at least partly, helped Damascus, Tehran, and Moscow to achieve success in Aleppo City and to crush ISIS terrorists in the province of Aleppo. The liberation of the Deir Hafer Plains by government forces is a result of this effort.

Now, Ankara will continue to work to increase its military, political, and economic influence in the Turkish-controlled areas of northern Syria. The Erdogan regime will likely use this area as a foothold for its own diplomatic efforts and for bargaining in the case of discussions regarding the political structure of post-war Syria.

Meanwhile, some militant groups that had been involved in Operation Euphrates Shield could be redeployed to the province of Idlib to take part in the on-going Hayat Tahrir al-Sham-led advance in northern Hama. Units of Ahrar al-Sham, a major militant group involved in Turkey-led military efforts in northern Syria, are already participating in the battle in northern Hama.

The Erdogan regime will also work to increase its influence in Idlib where mostly pro-Saudi Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) plays a key role among “opposition groups” operating in the province. Ankara will try to use the Idlib option to further influence the situation in Syria via non-diplomatic means, supplying arms, munitions, and providing other support to radical groups operating there. The goal of these measures is to weaken the Syrian-Russian-Iranian axis and to strengthen Ankara’s own position in the region.

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

Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics – it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President Trump.

This news presents Trump with an unwelcome but unavoidable choice: confront those who have kept him in the dark about such rogue activities or live fearfully in their shadow. (The latter was the path chosen by President Obama. Will Trump choose the road less traveled?)

What President Trump decides will largely determine the freedom of action he enjoys as president on many key security and other issues. But even more so, his choice may decide whether there is a future for this constitutional republic. Either he can acquiesce to or fight against a Deep State of intelligence officials who have a myriad of ways to spy on politicians (and other citizens) and thus amass derogatory material that can be easily transformed into blackmail.

This crisis (yes, “crisis” is an overused word, but in this highly unusual set of circumstances we believe it is appropriate) came to light mostly by accident after President Trump tweeted on March 4 that his team in New York City’s Trump Towers had been “wiretapped” by President Obama.

Trump reportedly was relying on media reports regarding how conversations of aides, including his ill-starred National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, had been intercepted. Trump’s tweet led to a fresh offensive by Democrats and the mainstream press to disparage Trump’s “ridiculous” claims.

However, this concern about the dragnets that U.S. intelligence (or its foreign partners) can deploy to pick up communications by Trump’s advisers and then “unmask” the names before leaking them to the news media was also highlighted at the Nunes-led House Intelligence Committee hearing on March 20, where Nunes appealed for anyone who had related knowledge to come forward with it.

That apparently happened on the evening of March 21 when Nunes received a call while riding with a staffer. After the call, Nunes switched to another car and went to a secure room at the Old Executive Office Building, next to the White House, where he was shown highly classified information apparently about how the intelligence community picked up communications by Trump’s aides.

The next day, Nunes went to the White House to brief President Trump, who later said he felt “somewhat vindicated” by what Nunes had told him.

The ‘Wiretap’ Red Herring

But the corporate U.S. news media continued to heckle Trump over his use of the word “wiretap” and cite the insistence of FBI Director James Comey and other intelligence officials that President Obama had not issued a wiretap order aimed at Trump.

As those paying rudimentary attention to modern methods of surveillance know, “wiretapping” is passé. But Trump’s use of the word allowed FBI and Department of Justice officials and their counterparts at the National Security Agency to swear on a stack of bibles that the FBI, DOJ, and NSA have been unable to uncover any evidence within their particular institutions of such “wiretapping.”

At the House Intelligence Committee hearing on March 20, FBI Director Comey and NSA Director Michael Rogers firmly denied that their agencies had wiretapped Trump Towers on the orders of President Obama.

So, were Trump and his associates “wiretapped?” Of course not. Wiretapping went out of vogue decades ago, having been rendered obsolete by leaps in surveillance technology.

The real question is: Were Trump and his associates surveilled? Wake up, America. Was no one paying attention to the disclosures from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013 when he exposed Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as a liar for denying that the NSA engaged in bulk collection of communications inside the United States.

The reality is that EVERYONE, including the President, is surveilled. The technology enabling bulk collection would have made the late demented FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover’s mouth water.

Allegations about the intelligence community’s abuse of its powers also did not begin with Snowden. For instance, several years earlier, former NSA worker and whistleblower Russell Tice warned about these “special access programs,” citing first-hand knowledge, but his claims were brushed aside as coming from a disgruntled employee with psychological problems. His disclosures were soon forgotten.

Intelligence Community’s Payback

However, earlier this year, there was a stark reminder of how much fear these surveillance capacities have struck in the hearts of senior U.S. government officials. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that President Trump was “being really dumb” to take on the intelligence community, since “They have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

Maddow shied away from asking the logical follow-up:

“Senator Schumer, are you actually saying that Trump should be afraid of the CIA?”

Perhaps she didn’t want to venture down a path that would raise more troubling questions about the surveillance of the Trump team than on their alleged contacts with the Russians.

Similarly, the U.S. corporate media is now focused on Nunes’s alleged failure to follow protocol by not sharing his information first with Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Democrats promptly demanded that Nunes recuse himself from the Russia investigation.

On Tuesday morning, reporters for CNN and other news outlets peppered Nunes with similar demands as he walked down a corridor on Capitol Hill, prompting him to suggest that they should be more concerned about what he had learned than the procedures followed.

That’s probably true because to quote Jack Nicholson’s character in “A Few Good Men” in a slightly different context, the mainstream media “cannot handle the truth” – even if it’s a no-brainer.

At his evening meeting on March 21 at the Old Executive Office Building, Nunes was likely informed that all telephones, emails, etc. – including his own and Trump’s – are being monitored by what the Soviets used to call “the organs of state security.”

By sharing that information with Trump the next day – rather than consulting with Schiff – Nunes may have sought to avoid the risk that Schiff or someone else would come up with a bureaucratic reason to keep the President in the dark.

A savvy politician, Nunes knew there would be high political cost in doing what he did. Inevitably, he would be called partisan; there would be more appeals to remove him from chairing the committee; and the character assassination of him already well under way – in The Washington Post, for example – might move him to the top of the unpopularity chart, displacing even bête noire Russian President Vladimir Putin.

But this episode was not the first time Nunes has shown some spine in the face of what the Establishment wants ignored. In a move setting this congressman apart from all his colleagues, Nunes had the courage to host an award ceremony for one of his constituents, retired sailor and member of the USS Liberty crew, Terry Halbardier.

On June 8, 1967, by repairing an antennae and thus enabling the USS Liberty to issue an SOS, Halbardier prevented Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats from sinking that Navy intelligence ship and ensuring that there would be no survivors to describe how the Israeli “allies” had strafed and bombed the ship. Still, 34 American seamen died and 171 were wounded.

At the time of the award ceremony in 2009, Nunes said,

“The government has kept this quiet I think for too long, and I felt as my constituent, he [Halbardier] needed to get recognized for the services he made to his country.” (Ray McGovern took part in the ceremony in Nunes’s Visalia, California office.)

Now, we suspect that much more may be learned about the special compartmented surveillance program targeted against top U.S. national leaders if Rep. Nunes doesn’t back down and if Trump doesn’t choose the road most traveled – acquiescence to America’s Deep State actors.

Ray McGovern served as a CIA analyst for 27 years and conducted one-on-one briefings of the President’s Daily Brief under Ronald Reagan from 1081 to 1985.

Bill Binney was former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA and co-founder of NSA’s SIGINT Automation Research Center before he retired after 9/11.

An Iranian delegation, led by President Hassan Rouhani, arrived in Moscow on Monday for negotiations with their Russian counterparts. Russia and Iran are allies in the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, and the ongoing negotiations between the Russian and Iranian leadership may be characterized as a peak of their mutual diplomatic activities in the first quarter of 2017.

Earlier this year, the Russian leadership had held consultations and meetings with almost all external and internal players in the Middle East, clarifying their positions towards the situation in Syria. March developments have shown that the many sides have not reached a seamless consensus over the conflict. Furthermore, some positions and opinions became increasingly divergent. Turkey and Israel expanded their support to militant groups and increased their own military involvement in the conflict. This situation forces Moscow and Tehran to adjust their plans for the spring-summer campaign of 2017. Besides this, Russia and Iran have a broad political agenda to discuss.

The main reason behind the Russian-Iranian alliance in Syria is a joint concern over security threats from terrorist groups and geopolitical competitors using terrorist groups and western controlled, surrogate regimes for exerting pressure on their perceived opponents.

The current Middle Eastern battleground borders Iran, is located approximately 700 km from the borders of the Russian Federation, and only 450 km from the borders of the former USSR. Syria and Iraq are traditional targets of manipulation by the more powerful and influential players of the globalist international establishment.

Some experts believe that these, once well-known external players, sought to acquire control over the region in several steps, implementing several “controlled chaos” approaches. New types of quasi-state terrorist structures, like ISIS, appeared because of these experiments, which had been enacted in the region, or as a result of a gross dereliction of duty. Regardless, this growing threat of highly organized and ideologically motivated Sunni terrorism led to the creation of the Iranian-Russian military alliance. However, Moscow and Tehran could have different approaches on the operational level.

They have different attitudes towards the retention of power by President Bashar al-Assad. Iran stands for maintaining the current status quo while Russia does not rule out a creation of a coalition government representing the interests of different Syrian ethnic and religious groups. Moscow and Tehran have different negotiability in the case of working with other regional players, including Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. This situation is determined by a number of ethnic, religious and historical factors. There is a notable difference in the level of pressure that Moscow and Tehran could face from global players. Russia is more vulnerable to various types of pressure than Iran, because of its role in world politics, its ample geographic territory, democratic political system, the multi-ethnic and multi-religious structure of its population, and its involvement in other key conflicts.

Nonetheless, these differences are negotiable and do not influence the general nature of the military and political cooperation between the two powers.

If we want to understand the Iranian and Russian interests in the region, we should attempt a forecast, characterizing the aims and objectives that each side has in 2017.

In diplomatic terms, Russia will likely continue to try to align its policy of solving the Syrian conflict with that of the United States. In particular, Moscow will use opportunities opened through their strategic cooperation with the Kurds. Russia will continue to work with Ankara in order to decrease, if not cease, the flow of arms and munitions from Turkey to the various militant groups in the Syrian province of Idlib. An important issue is the need to separate pro-Turkish militant groups from al-Qaeda-linked organizations.

Concerning the Kurdish issue, Russia will contribute to any efforts that create and strengthen confidence and trust between the Damascus government and the Kurdish leadership. The goal is to get a joint vision of the post-war political order in Syria that includes the interests of the Kurds. This must lead to setting up a de-facto alliance between pro-government and Kurdish forces. Russia will also work to expand its role as a mediator in other Middle Eastern conflicts, such as those in Iraq, Palestine and Yemen. This will result in increasing influence on Israel, preventing it from conducting unilateral military actions against Damascus, or at least limiting them.

In military terms, Russia has the following goals for 2017:

• decisive defeat of ISIS;
• developing its own military infrastructure at the facilities in Tartus and the Khmeimim Air Base;
• strengthening of the Syrian Armed Forces;
• limiting US expansion in Syria via the expansion of the zone of Syrian government forces’ military operations in the provinces of Raqqah and Deir Ezzor;
• limiting Turkish military expansion and continued development of relations with the Kurds.

In turn, Tehran will continue its diplomatic efforts aimed at strengthening of pro-Iranian forces in Syria, including the Assad regime, as a key component of the Shia Crescent. Iran will also focus its efforts on the he stabilization of Iraq, led by the Shia government and defended by the predominantly Shia military forces. Tehran will adopt all possible measures to counteract the actions of the Gulf monarchies, and as a result, those of the United States and Israel, in Yemen, by supporting the Houthis.

Within the framework of the Arab-Israeli confrontation, Iran will further seek to depict itself as the main frontline power working in the interests of the Palestinians. Tehran will contribute military and diplomatic efforts to strengthening the influence of Hezbollah in the region and to assist Hezbollah in gaining international, legal recognition as a legitimate political and military force in the region.

Economic isolation is a major obstacle for Tehran. The Trump administration has intensified cooperation with Israel and sees Iran as a key threat to both the US and Israeli interests in the region. This political reality does not bode well for the chances that sanctions on Iran will be wholly lifted in the near future. Meanwhile, Iranian-EU relations pursue another agenda, and here Tehran could expect an economic breakthrough.

As for Iranian military goals in 2017 in the region, they consist of:

• decisive defeat of ISIS;
• disintegration of radical Sunni opposition groups in the regions crucial for the survival of the Damascus regime, especially in the Damascus countryside, in the provinces of Homs and Daraa. At the least, Iran will be striving to push these groups to relocate to the province of Idlib;
• strengthening of pro-government forces in Syria with special attention to strengthening of Shia and pro-Iranian military formations in the Syrian Armed Forces;
• development of Hezbollah’s infrastructure in Syria;
• development of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ facilities in Syria.

Thus, we can see that Russia and Iran have joint military goals, and at least there are no irreconcilable differences. As to the political and diplomatic agenda in general, the situation is relatively the same; however, there could be some variance. These differences could appear as a result of different levels of vision of the situation in the region. Iran is a regional player with its own historical agenda, while Russia is a supra-regional player with some links to the region. Economic and energy factors could also play a role. This is why the alliance has to operate in close contact with one another and to respond swiftly to challenges as they materialize. Both sides have to clarify their own vital interests in good faith, to exchange views, and to develop a pragmatic, joint approach in the sphere of regional security.

Over the past two days, about 120 governments have participated in nuclear weapon ban treaty talks. The high-level segment of the conference, scheduled to end on Monday, had to continue until Tuesday lunch due to overwhelming interest. States have clearly come prepared to the conference, indicating their determination to negotiate this treaty despite the opposition of the nuclear-armed states. As Ambassador Pennelope Beckles of  Trinidad and Tobago said,

“   as we seek to shatter the chronic stalemate that has existed in the field of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation for far too long.”

On Tuesday afternoon, delegates shifted from general statements to interventions specifically on the principles and objectives of the treaty that they would like to see included in the preamble. Most delegations emphasised the importance of anchoring the preamble in the humanitarian motivations that led to this treaty’s negotiation. Most also spoke about ensuring the treaty articulate the incompatibility of nuclear weapons with international law. Virtually all delegations stated that the preamble must reflect the overarching objective of the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

However, there seems to be uncertainty amongst a few delegations about whether the treaty should refer to elimination in the preamble alone, or whether the treaty should also include an explicit prohibition on stockpiling. This question is made more complicated by the fact that some states have hinted that they would prefer to negotiate an “elimination treaty”—a treaty that sets out provisions for verified, time-bound nuclear disarmament. To address this issue, it is crucial to reflect on where we are now, and where we want to get to with this treaty.

Right now, this treaty is being negotiated almost exclusively by states that have rejected nuclear weapons for their security and that do not possess or store nuclear weapons. This makes it unfeasible to negotiate a treaty that sets out timeframes and verification measures for nuclear disarmament. Negotiating such provisions now, amongst this set of states, does not get us where we need to go. The power of this treaty lies in its ability to compel nuclear-armed or nuclear-reliant states to change their practices and policies in order to facilitate the elimination of nuclear weapons in the future.

In order to so, the treaty needs to be strong in its prohibitions. The treaty should not simply refer to elimination of nuclear weapons as an objective in its preamble. Rather, the treaty should include a categorical prohibition on the stockpiling of nuclear weapons.

The most fundamental element of the prohibition treaty is perhaps that no state can join the treaty and possess nuclear weapons. The Non-Proliferation Treaty only prohibits the possession of nuclear weapons by non-nuclear-armed states parties. The ban treaty must categorically prohibit the stockpiling of nuclear weapons by all states parties, without discrimination.

The ban treaty itself does not need to set out provisions for elimination. It would only need to require that any state joining the treaty eliminate its nuclear weapons. The Chemical Weapons Convention, for example, specifies that states parties must “undertake to destroy chemical weapons it owns or possesses, or that are located in any place under its jurisdiction or control.”

Ban treaty states parties could agree that a nuclear-armed state that has decided to eliminate its nuclear arsenals could do so by negotiating a protocol or other agreement with the ban treaty states parties, with agreed timeframes and in accordance with agreed verification arrangements. This would allow a voice for ban treaty states parties in the manner in which the elimination takes place.

Some delegations have intimated that a prohibition treaty is only valuable if it is a “true disarmament treaty” or if it is “comprehensive”. But a prohibition treaty, even without specific provisions for elimination or the participation of nuclear-armed states, is both. It is a comprehensive prohibition on nuclear weapons, leading to their elimination.

A prohibition on stockpiling is part of what will make this treaty a piece of the “infrastructure” or “architecture” for disarmament. It is likewise important that the treaty prohibit any activities that facilitate the inclusion of nuclear weapons in strategic security doctrines, participation in nuclear war planning, or stationing, transfer, or acquisition of nuclear weapons.

The Netherlands, as the only country participating in these negotiations with an official position supporting nuclear weapons, argued that the ban treaty must be compatible with the obligations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) as a nuclear alliance. This would be clearly unacceptable for a nuclear weapon ban treaty. There cannot be space for a state to join the treaty and continue justifying the potential use of nuclear weapons for its security. As Algeria’s delegation clearly stated, the ban treaty should explicitly reject the role of nuclear weapons on behalf of anyone’s security, whether in national, regional, or international doctrines.

These are not just principled positions. If we want the ban treaty to be effective in changing the policies and practices of nuclear-armed and nuclear-reliant states, then the treaty must prohibit the activities that enable the current policies and practices.

Speaking at the end of the high-level segment, Setsuko Thurlow, a survivor of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima speaking on behalf of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), urged governments to establish a strong legal standard against nuclear weapons that makes it clear “in no uncertain terms that nuclear weapons are illegitimate, immoral and illegal.” It would be wise for states to heed her call.

[This essay is adapted from “Measuring Violence,” the first chapter of John Dower’s new book, The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War Two.]

On February 17, 1941, almost 10 months before Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, Life magazine carried a lengthy essay by its publisher, Henry Luce, entitled “The American Century.” The son of Presbyterian missionaries, born in China in 1898 and raised there until the age of 15, Luce essentially transposed the certainty of religious dogma into the certainty of a nationalistic mission couched in the name of internationalism.

Luce acknowledged that the United States could not police the whole world or attempt to impose democratic institutions on all of mankind. Nonetheless, “the world of the 20th Century,” he wrote,

“if it is to come to life in any nobility of health and vigor, must be to a significant degree an American Century.” The essay called on all Americans “to accept wholeheartedly our duty and our opportunity as the most powerful and vital nation in the world and in consequence to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such measures as we see fit.”

Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor propelled the United States wholeheartedly onto the international stage Luce believed it was destined to dominate, and the ringing title of his cri de coeur became a staple of patriotic Cold War and post-Cold War rhetoric. Central to this appeal was the affirmation of a virtuous calling. Luce’s essay singled out almost every professed ideal that would become a staple of wartime and Cold War propaganda: freedom, democracy, equality of opportunity, self-reliance and independence, cooperation, justice, charity — all coupled with a vision of economic abundance inspired by “our magnificent industrial products, our technical skills.” In present-day patriotic incantations, this is referred to as “American exceptionalism.”

The other, harder side of America’s manifest destiny was, of course, muscularity. Power. Possessing absolute and never-ending superiority in developing and deploying the world’s most advanced and destructive arsenal of war. Luce did not dwell on this dimension of “internationalism” in his famous essay, but once the world war had been entered and won, he became its fervent apostle — an outspoken advocate of “liberating” China from its new communist rulers, taking over from the beleaguered French colonial military in Vietnam, turning both the Korean and Vietnam conflicts from “limited wars” into opportunities for a wider virtuous war against and in China, and pursuing the rollback of the Iron Curtain with “tactical atomic weapons.” As Luce’s incisive biographer Alan Brinkley documents, at one point Luce even mulled the possibility of “plastering Russia with 500 (or 1,000) A bombs” — a terrifying scenario, but one that the keepers of the U.S. nuclear arsenal actually mapped out in expansive and appalling detail in the 1950s and 1960s, before Luce’s death in 1967.

The “American Century” catchphrase is hyperbole, the slogan never more than a myth, a fantasy, a delusion. Military victory in any traditional sense was largely a chimera after World War II. The so-called Pax Americana itself was riddled with conflict and oppression and egregious betrayals of the professed catechism of American values. At the same time, postwar U.S. hegemony obviously never extended to more than a portion of the globe. Much that took place in the world, including disorder and mayhem, was beyond America’s control.

Yet, not unreasonably, Luce’s catchphrase persists. The twenty-first-century world may be chaotic, with violence erupting from innumerable sources and causes, but the United States does remain the planet’s “sole superpower.” The myth of exceptionalism still holds most Americans in its thrall. U.S. hegemony, however frayed at the edges, continues to be taken for granted in ruling circles, and not only in Washington. And Pentagon planners still emphatically define their mission as “full-spectrum dominance” globally.

Washington’s commitment to modernizing its nuclear arsenal rather than focusing on achieving the thoroughgoing abolition of nuclear weapons has proven unshakable. So has the country’s almost religious devotion to leading the way in developing and deploying ever more “smart” and sophisticated conventional weapons of mass destruction.

Welcome to Henry Luce’s — and America’s — violent century, even if thus far it’s lasted only 75 years. The question is just what to make of it these days.

Counting the Dead

We live in times of bewildering violence. In 2013, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told a Senate committee that the world is “more dangerous than it has ever been.” Statisticians, however, tell a different story: that war and lethal conflict have declined steadily, significantly, even precipitously since World War II.

Much mainstream scholarship now endorses the declinists. In his influential 2011 book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker adopted the labels “the Long Peace” for the four-plus decades of the Cold War (1945-1991), and “the New Peace” for the post-Cold War years to the present. In that book, as well as in post-publication articles, postings, and interviews, he has taken the doomsayers to task. The statistics suggest, he declares, that “today we may be living in the most peaceable era in our species’s existence.”

Clearly, the number and deadliness of global conflicts have indeed declined since World War II. This so-called postwar peace was, and still is, however, saturated in blood and wracked with suffering.

It is reasonable to argue that total war-related fatalities during the Cold War decades were lower than in the six years of World War II (1939–1945) and certainly far less than the toll for the twentieth century’s two world wars combined. It is also undeniable that overall death tolls have declined further since then. The five most devastating intrastate or interstate conflicts of the postwar decades — in China, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and between Iran and Iraq — took place during the Cold War. So did a majority of the most deadly politicides, or political mass killings, and genocides: in the Soviet Union, China (again), Yugoslavia, North Korea, North Vietnam, Sudan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan/Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique, and Cambodia, among other countries. The end of the Cold War certainly did not signal the end of such atrocities (as witness Rwanda, the Congo, and the implosion of Syria). As with major wars, however, the trajectory has been downward.

Unsurprisingly, the declinist argument celebrates the Cold War as less violent than the global conflicts that preceded it, and the decades that followed as statistically less violent than the Cold War. But what motivates the sanitizing of these years, now amounting to three-quarters of a century, with the label “peace”? The answer lies largely in a fixation on major powers. The great Cold War antagonists, the United States and the Soviet Union, bristling with their nuclear arsenals, never came to blows. Indeed, wars between major powers or developed states have become (in Pinker’s words) “all but obsolete.” There has been no World War III, nor is there likely to be.

Such upbeat quantification invites complacent forms of self-congratulation. (How comparatively virtuous we mortals have become!) In the United States, where we-won-the-Cold-War sentiment still runs strong, the relative decline in global violence after 1945 is commonly attributed to the wisdom, virtue, and firepower of U.S. “peacekeeping.” In hawkish circles, nuclear deterrence — the Cold War’s MAD (mutually assured destruction) doctrine that was described early on as a “delicate balance of terror” — is still canonized as an enlightened policy that prevented catastrophic global conflict.

What Doesn’t Get Counted

Branding the long postwar era as an epoch of relative peace is disingenuous, and not just because it deflects attention from the significant death and agony that actually did occur and still does. It also obscures the degree to which the United States bears responsibility for contributing to, rather than impeding, militarization and mayhem after 1945. Ceaseless U.S.-led transformations of the instruments of mass destruction — and the provocative global impact of this technological obsession — are by and large ignored.

Continuities in American-style “warfighting” (a popular Pentagon word) such as heavy reliance on airpower and other forms of brute force are downplayed. So is U.S. support for repressive foreign regimes, as well as the destabilizing impact of many of the nation’s overt and covert overseas interventions. The more subtle and insidious dimension of postwar U.S. militarization — namely, the violence done to civil society by funneling resources into a gargantuan, intrusive, and ever-expanding national security state — goes largely unaddressed in arguments fixated on numerical declines in violence since World War II.

Beyond this, trying to quantify war, conflict, and devastation poses daunting methodological challenges. Data advanced in support of the decline-of-violence argument is dense and often compelling, and derives from a range of respectable sources. Still, it must be kept in mind that the precise quantification of death and violence is almost always impossible. When a source offers fairly exact estimates of something like “war-related excess deaths,” you usually are dealing with investigators deficient in humility and imagination.

Take, for example, World War II, about which countless tens of thousands of studies have been written. Estimates of total “war-related” deaths from that global conflict range from roughly 50 million to more than 80 million. One explanation for such variation is the sheer chaos of armed violence. Another is what the counters choose to count and how they count it. Battle deaths of uniformed combatants are easiest to determine, especially on the winning side. Military bureaucrats can be relied upon to keep careful records of their own killed-in-action — but not, of course, of the enemy they kill. War-related civilian fatalities are even more difficult to assess, although — as in World War II — they commonly are far greater than deaths in combat.

Does the data source go beyond so-called battle-related collateral damage to include deaths caused by war-related famine and disease? Does it take into account deaths that may have occurred long after the conflict itself was over (as from radiation poisoning after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or from the U.S. use of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War)? The difficulty of assessing the toll of civil, tribal, ethnic, and religious conflicts with any exactitude is obvious.

Concentrating on fatalities and their averred downward trajectory also draws attention away from broader humanitarian catastrophes. In mid-2015, for instance, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reported that the number of individuals “forcibly displaced worldwide as a result of persecution, conflict, generalized violence, or human rights violations” had surpassed 60 million and was the highest level recorded since World War II and its immediate aftermath. Roughly two-thirds of these men, women, and children were displaced inside their own countries. The remainder were refugees, and over half of these refugees were children.

Here, then, is a trend line intimately connected to global violence that is not heading downward. In 1996, the U.N.’s estimate was that there were 37.3 million forcibly displaced individuals on the planet. Twenty years later, as 2015 ended, this had risen to 65.3 million — a 75% increase over the last two post-Cold War decades that the declinist literature refers to as the “new peace.”

Other disasters inflicted on civilians are less visible than uprooted populations. Harsh conflict-related economic sanctions, which often cripple hygiene and health-care systems and may precipitate a sharp spike in infant mortality, usually do not find a place in itemizations of military violence. U.S.-led U.N. sanctions imposed against Iraq for 13 years beginning in 1990 in conjunction with the first Gulf War are a stark example of this. An account published in the New York Times Magazine in July 2003 accepted the fact that “at least several hundred thousand children who could reasonably have been expected to live died before their fifth birthday.” And after all-out wars, who counts the maimed, or the orphans and widows, or those the Japanese in the wake of World War II referred to as the “elderly orphaned” — parents bereft of their children?

Figures and tables, moreover, can only hint at the psychological and social violence suffered by combatants and noncombatants alike. It has been suggested, for instance, that one in six people in areas afflicted by war may suffer from mental disorder (as opposed to one in ten in normal times). Even where American military personnel are concerned, trauma did not become a serious focus of concern until 1980, seven years after the U.S. retreat from Vietnam, when post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was officially recognized as a mental-health issue.

In 2008, a massive sampling study of 1.64 million U.S. troops deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq between October 2001 and October 2007 estimated “that approximately 300,000 individuals currently suffer from PTSD or major depression and that 320,000 individuals experienced a probable TBI [traumatic brain injury] during deployment.” As these wars dragged on, the numbers naturally increased. To extend the ramifications of such data to wider circles of family and community — or, indeed, to populations traumatized by violence worldwide — defies statistical enumeration.

Terror Counts and Terror Fears

Largely unmeasurable, too, is violence in a different register: the damage that war, conflict, militarization, and plain existential fear inflict upon civil society and democratic practice. This is true everywhere but has been especially conspicuous in the United States since Washington launched its “global war on terror” in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Here, numbers are perversely provocative, for the lives claimed in twenty-first-century terrorist incidents can be interpreted as confirming the decline-in-violence argument. From 2000 through 2014, according to the widely cited Global Terrorism Index, “more than 61,000 incidents of terrorism claiming over 140,000 lives have been recorded.” Including September 11th, countries in the West experienced less than 5% of these incidents and 3% of the deaths. The Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism, another minutely documented tabulation based on combing global media reports in many languages, puts the number of suicide bombings from 2000 through 2015 at 4,787 attacks in more than 40 countries, resulting in 47,274 deaths.

These atrocities are incontestably horrendous and alarming. Grim as they are, however, the numbers themselves are comparatively low when set against earlier conflicts. For specialists in World War II, the “140,000 lives” estimate carries an almost eerie resonance, since this is the rough figure usually accepted for the death toll from a single act of terror bombing, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The tally is also low compared to contemporary deaths from other causes. Globally, for example, more than 400,000 people are murdered annually. In the United States, the danger of being killed by falling objects or lightning is at least as great as the threat from Islamist militants.

This leaves us with a perplexing question: If the overall incidence of violence, including twenty-first-century terrorism, is relatively low compared to earlier global threats and conflicts, why has the United States responded by becoming an increasingly militarized, secretive, unaccountable, and intrusive “national security state”? Is it really possible that a patchwork of non-state adversaries that do not possess massive firepower or follow traditional rules of engagement has, as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff declared in 2013, made the world more threatening than ever?

For those who do not believe this to be the case, possible explanations for the accelerating militarization of the United States come from many directions. Paranoia may be part of the American DNA — or, indeed, hardwired into the human species. Or perhaps the anticommunist hysteria of the Cold War simply metastasized into a post-9/11 pathological fear of terrorism. Machiavellian fear-mongering certainly enters the picture, led by conservative and neoconservative civilian and military officials of the national security state, along with opportunistic politicians and war profiteers of the usual sort. Cultural critics predictably point an accusing finger as well at the mass media’s addiction to sensationalism and catastrophe, now intensified by the proliferation of digital social media.

To all this must be added the peculiar psychological burden of being a “superpower” and, from the 1990s on, the planet’s “sole superpower” — a situation in which “credibility” is measured mainly in terms of massive cutting-edge military might. It might be argued that this mindset helped “contain Communism” during the Cold War and provides a sense of security to U.S. allies. What it has not done is ensure victory in actual war, although not for want of trying. With some exceptions (Grenada, Panama, the brief 1991 Gulf War, and the Balkans), the U.S. military has not tasted victory since World War II — Korea, Vietnam, and recent and current conflicts in the Greater Middle East being boldface examples of this failure. This, however, has had no impact on the hubris attached to superpower status. Brute force remains the ultimate measure of credibility.

The traditional American way of war has tended to emphasize the “three Ds” (defeat, destroy, devastate). Since 1996, the Pentagon’s proclaimed mission is to maintain “full-spectrum dominance” in every domain (land, sea, air, space, and information) and, in practice, in every accessible part of the world. The Air Force Global Strike Command, activated in 2009 and responsible for managing two-thirds of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, typically publicizes its readiness for “Global Strike… Any Target, Any Time.”

In 2015, the Department of Defense acknowledged maintaining 4,855 physical “sites” — meaning bases ranging in size from huge contained communities to tiny installations — of which 587 were located overseas in 42 foreign countries. An unofficial investigation that includes small and sometimes impermanent facilities puts the number at around 800 in 80 countries. Over the course of 2015, to cite yet another example of the overwhelming nature of America’s global presence, elite U.S. special operations forces were deployed to around 150 countries, and Washington provided assistance in arming and training security forces in an even larger number of nations.

America’s overseas bases reflect, in part, an enduring inheritance from World War II and the Korean War. The majority of these sites are located in Germany (181), Japan (122), and South Korea (83) and were retained after their original mission of containing communism disappeared with the end of the Cold War. Deployment of elite special operations forces is also a Cold War legacy (exemplified most famously by the Army’s “Green Berets” in Vietnam) that expanded after the demise of the Soviet Union. Dispatching covert missions to three-quarters of the world’s nations, however, is largely a product of the war on terror.
Many of these present-day undertakings require maintaining overseas “lily pad” facilities that are small, temporary, and unpublicized. And many, moreover, are integrated with covert CIA “black operations.” Combating terror involves practicing terror — including, since 2002, an expanding campaign of targeted assassinations by unmanned drones. For the moment, this latest mode of killing remains dominated by the CIA and the U.S. military (with the United Kingdom and Israel following some distance behind).

Counting Nukes

The “delicate balance of terror” that characterized nuclear strategy during the Cold War has not disappeared. Rather, it has been reconfigured. The U.S. and Soviet arsenals that reached a peak of insanity in the 1980s have been reduced by about two-thirds — a praiseworthy accomplishment but one that still leaves the world with around 15,400 nuclear weapons as of January 2016, 93% of them in U.S. and Russian hands. Close to two thousand of the latter on each side are still actively deployed on missiles or at bases with operational forces.

This downsizing, in other words, has not removed the wherewithal to destroy the Earth as we know it many times over. Such destruction could come about indirectly as well as directly, with even a relatively “modest” nuclear exchange between, say, India and Pakistan triggering a cataclysmic climate shift — a “nuclear winter” — that could result in massive global starvation and death. Nor does the fact that seven additional nations now possess nuclear weapons (and more than 40 others are deemed “nuclear weapons capable”) mean that “deterrence” has been enhanced. The future use of nuclear weapons, whether by deliberate decision or by accident, remains an ominous possibility. That threat is intensified by the possibility that nonstate terrorists may somehow obtain and use nuclear devices.

What is striking at this moment in history is that paranoia couched as strategic realism continues to guide U.S. nuclear policy and, following America’s lead, that of the other nuclear powers. As announced by the Obama administration in 2014, the potential for nuclear violence is to be “modernized.” In concrete terms, this translates as a 30-year project that will cost the United States an estimated $1 trillion (not including the usual future cost overruns for producing such weapons), perfect a new arsenal of “smart” and smaller nuclear weapons, and extensively refurbish the existing delivery “triad” of long-range manned bombers, nuclear-armed submarines, and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles carrying nuclear warheads.
Nuclear modernization, of course, is but a small portion of the full spectrum of American might — a military machine so massive that it inspired President Obama to speak with unusual emphasis in his State of the Union address in January 2016.

“The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth,” he declared. “Period. Period. It’s not even close. It’s not even close. It’s not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined.”

Official budgetary expenditures and projections provide a snapshot of this enormous military machine, but here again numbers can be misleading. Thus, the “base budget” for defense announced in early 2016 for fiscal year 2017 amounts to roughly $600 billion, but this falls far short of what the actual outlay will be. When all other discretionary military- and defense-related costs are taken into account — nuclear maintenance and modernization, the “war budget” that pays for so-called overseas contingency operations like military engagements in the Greater Middle East, “black budgets” that fund intelligence operations by agencies including the CIA and the National Security Agency, appropriations for secret high-tech military activities, “veterans affairs” costs (including disability payments), military aid to other countries, huge interest costs on the military-related part of the national debt, and so on — the actual total annual expenditure is close to $1 trillion.

Such stratospheric numbers defy easy comprehension, but one does not need training in statistics to bring them closer to home. Simple arithmetic suffices. The projected bill for just the 30-year nuclear modernization agenda comes to over $90 million a day, or almost $4 million an hour. The $1 trillion price tag for maintaining the nation’s status as “the most powerful nation on Earth” for a single year amounts to roughly $2.74 billion a day, over $114 million an hour.

Creating a capacity for violence greater than the world has ever seen is costly — and remunerative.
So an era of a “new peace”? Think again. We’re only three quarters of the way through America’s violent century and there’s more to come.

John W. Dower is professor emeritus of history at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  He is the author of the National Book Critics Circle Award-winning War Without Mercy and the Pulitzer Prize-winning Embracing Defeat. His new book, The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War Two (Dispatch Books), has just been published. This essay is adapted from chapter one of that densely annotated book. (Sources for the information above appear in the footnotes in that book.)

On Saturday, European Union (EU) heads of state met in Rome, celebrating 60 years of the 1957 Treaty of Rome that founded the European Economic Community, in an exercise designed to highlight the continuing unity of continental Europe despite Britain’s vote to leave the EU last June.

In the event, the summit highlighted instead the growing international conflicts and class tensions that are tearing the EU apart. The 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome could very well be its last. Amid growing concerns that France could elect a neo-fascist president in May and then leave both the EU and the euro currency, leading European officials of all political stripes pointed to the rising danger of war and collapse of Europe. Nonetheless, none of the EU leaders can formulate a clear plan to avoid plunging into the abyss.

Thousands of Italian troops put central Rome on lock-down over the weekend amid official fears of mass protests against the EU, whose austerity policies have devastated Italy. Moreover, differences between EU, Polish, and Greek officials forced EU officials to water down the final communiqué, to avoid the humiliation of having it repudiated by EU member states.

Poland’s far-right Law and Justice (PiS) government opposed references to the formation of a “two-speed Europe,” split between wealthier countries and a periphery of southern or eastern states. The EU has threatened to suspend Poland’s EU voting rights over the PiS’ attempts to emasculate the judiciary, amid a bitter struggle for influence between Berlin, London and Washington in Poland. The PiS apparently feared calls for a “two-speed” EU would be used to marginalize it.

The Coalition of the Radical Left (“Syriza”) government in Greece briefly demanded that the draft communiqué contain provisions on social rights and on handing back power to national parliaments. This was apparently a temporary tactic by Syriza, which faces strikes of port and public sector workers against it in Greece, as well as EU threats to withhold loans to Greece unless it accelerates its austerity measures against the population.

In the event, the communiqué that was adopted epitomized the EU’s response to Brexit: the EU is trying to survive as a coalition of nationalist, anti-immigrant regimes held together by aspirations to become an aggressive military bloc rivaling the United States.

On military policy, it called for a “stronger Europe,” “creating a more competitive and integrated defence industry” and “strengthening [the EU’s] common security and defence.” It also called for continuing EU anti-immigrant policies—which have seen thousands drown in the Mediterranean, as millions flee imperialist wars in Africa and the Middle East—so that EU “external borders are secured, with an efficient, responsible and sustainable migration policy.”

Perhaps most significantly, the EU signaled that it would move away from trying to secure unanimous agreement on policy among EU member states. While the formal endorsement of a “two-speed Europe” arrangement was eliminated at Poland’s insistence, it was replaced with a vague proposal to “act together, at different paces and intensity where necessary, while moving in the same direction.”

However euphemistically formulated, the adoption of a “two-speed” Europe policy marks a major step in the disintegration of the EU, with vast and unforeseeable implications.

The limited post-World War II integration of capitalist Europe was the European bourgeoisie’s response to fascism and two world wars that had claimed tens of millions of lives, leveled much of the continent, and discredited capitalism in Europe. Prosperity from increased trade within Europe was intended to fend off the political challenge posed in the working class by communism, exemplified in the continued existence of the USSR. At the same time, the bourgeoisie saw the pursuit of a united European policy, financed with US aid, as critical to avoiding new wars in Europe.

The preamble to the 1957 Treaty of Rome signed by Germany, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg reflects this long-abandoned strategy. Calling for “ever closer union among the peoples of Europe,” it pledges to ensure the “economic and social progress … by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe” and “the constant improvement of the living and working conditions” of European people.

Since the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 and the EU’s establishment in 1992 in the Maastricht Treaty, the EU has repudiated these conceptions. The NATO wars in the Balkans in the 1990s and above all the latest war drive against Russia, after the announcement of German re-militarization in 2014, went hand with accelerating austerity measures targeting basic social rights won by the working class in previous decades of struggle.

These took the sharpest form in Western Europe with EU austerity measures imposed after the 2008 Wall Street crash that devastated Greece and led to threats to expel Greece from the euro zone.

Deep political shocks are exposing the underlying bankruptcy of the EU and the unviability of attempts to unify Europe on a capitalist basis. With Brexit and the coming to power in Washington of the Trump administration, which has denounced the EU as a tool of German domination, the crisis of the EU has reached a new level of intensity. Even those sections of the European still defending the EU now aim to divide Europe in order to sideline, or even expel from the EU, those European countries that they see as an obstacle to their plans for war and austerity.

Significantly, while figures from all sides are warning of war, no one is trying to articulate a policy to maintain European unity and halt the rapid drive towards war. Instead, the gloomiest predictions prevail. Last week, pro-EU French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron predicted an era of war and pledged to bring back the draft in France, before enthusiastically endorsing a “two-speed Europe” proposal and declaring his alignment on Berlin.

Several EU heads of state met prior to the summit with Pope Francis, who declared that Europe faces a “vacuum of values. … When a body loses its sense of direction and is no longer able to look ahead, it experiences a regression and, in the long run, risks dying.”

Prior to the summit, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker gave an interview to the Financial Times of London to denounce the Trump administration and warn of war in the Balkans. He called Trump’s support for Brexit and Trump’s calls for other countries to leave the EU in order to escape German domination “annoying” and “surprising.”

“I told the [US] vice-president [Mike Pence], ‘Do not say that, do not invite others to leave, because if the European Union collapses, you will have a new war in the western Balkans,’” Juncker said.

He added that the prospect of EU membership was one of the few elements preventing a new war in the Balkans:

“If we leave them alone—Bosnia Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Macedonia, Albania, all those countries—we will have war again.”

In the UK, leading pro-EU Conservative Michael Heseltine issued a denunciation of Brexit, warning that it would only pave the way for German domination of Europe.

Heseltine said,

“Our ability to speak for the Commonwealth within Europe has come to an end. The Americans will shift their focus of interest to Germany. And if I can put it to you, for someone like myself, it was in 1933, the year of my birth, that Hitler was democratically elected in Germany. He unleashed the most horrendous war. This country played a unique role in securing his defeat. So Germany lost the war. We’ve just handed them the opportunity to win the peace. I find that quite unacceptable.”

The UK Independence Party asked if Heseltine had “lost his marbles” and called his statements extraordinary.

“If I was German I would be deeply offended,” a UKIP official said. “I never realised the purpose of Britain’s membership of the EU was to stop German domination of Europe.”

There was high drama last week when Rep. Devin Nunes announced at the White House that he had seen evidence that the communications of the Donald Trump campaign people, and perhaps even Trump himself, had been “incidentally collected” by the US government.

If true, this means that someone authorized the monitoring of Trump campaign communications using Section 702 of the FISA Act. Could it have been then-President Obama? We don’t know. Could it have been other political enemies looking for something to harm the Trump campaign or presidency? It is possible.

There is much we do not yet know about what happened and there is probably quite a bit we will never know. But we do know several very important things about the government spying on Americans.

First there is Section 702 itself. The provision was passed in 2008 as part of a package of amendments to the 1978 FISA bill. As with the PATRIOT Act, we were told that we had to give the government more power to spy on us so that it could catch terrorists. We had to give up some of our liberty for promises of more security, we were told. We were also told that the government would only spy on the bad guys, and that if we had nothing to hide we should have nothing to fear.

We found out five years later from Edward Snowden that the US government viewed Section 702 as a green light for the mass surveillance of Americans. Through programs he revealed, like PRISM, the NSA is able to collect and store our Internet search history, the content of our emails, what files we have shared, who we have chatted with electronically, and more.

That’s why people like NSA whistleblower William Binney said that we know the NSA was spying on Trump because it spies on all of us!

Ironically, FISA itself was passed after the Church Committee Hearings revealed the abuses, criminality, and violations of our privacy that the CIA and other intelligence agencies had been committing for years. FISA was supposed to rein in the intelligence community but, as is often the case in Washington, it did the opposite: it ended up giving the government even more power to spy on us.

So President Trump might have been “wiretapped” by Obama, as he claimed, but unfortunately he will not draw the right conclusions from the violation. He will not see runaway spying on Americans as a grotesque attack on American values. That is unfortunate, because this could have provided a great teaching moment for the president. Seeing how all of us are vulnerable to this kind of government abuse, President Trump could have changed his tune on the PATRIOT Act and all government attacks on our privacy. He could have stood up for liberty, which is really what makes America great.

Section 702 of the FISA Act was renewed in 2012, just before we learned from Snowden how it is abused. It is set to expire this December unless Congress extends it again. Knowing what we now know about this anti-American legislation we must work hard to prevent its renewal. They will try to scare us into supporting the provision, but the loss of our liberty is what should scare us the most!

Bombs do not have a conscience, however named, blessed or created. They go, at least in a rough sense, where directed, and if the deliverer is ill disposed, confused or simply incompetent, disaster follows. Between the ideological rants and principled feelings about killing the enemy, there is only one fact worth nothing: death and the ordinance used to cause it are intimately twinned.

The very concept of a moralised arsenal, or a principled form of humanitarian liberation, is always problematic. An “arsenal for democracy” against the arsenal of a thousand year Reich, a theme dating from the Second World War, is symbolic rather than functional, based on discriminations artificially made. At the end of any war or battle, however intentioned, is a stocked grave.

The narrative on fighting Islamic State is this: good guys size up bad guys and the former will triumph in a dark-light narrative of childish simplicity. But consequentially, it is always difficult to distinguish a Bomber Harris, architect of the Dresden bombing of 1945 that had no military value, from the camp commander who orders murderous gas for extermination camps. We can well draw distinctions about how wars begin, and regimes behind them, but the methods of war, including their outcomes, are also important.

Put the treacle-pudding guff of humanitarian virtue to the side, and what matters is the result, which usually involves fresh graves strewn over fields of dissolved hopes. Politics tends to follow, patching such matters up with comforting cosmetics. Islamic State is an enemy of certain cherished values, which is deemed more than sufficient in terms of getting onto a plane and unleashing a salvo on a civilian packed suburb.

All of this ties rather bloodily in the supposed liberation of Mosul. The operation is not going according to plan. That, of course, presumes a coherent plan to begin with, with neat objectives, spread sheet directives, and boxes to tick.

The Iraqi forces, packed with US coalition participation in terms of coordinated air strikes, has realised that fighting in urban quarters, ballasted by air support, is a costly affair. It is a discovery that had already been made centuries before, and such fighters, it would seem, are none the wiser.

For the insurgent, the civilian is not merely a shield but a gold asset rich in dividends. Guerrillas, liked or otherwise by the local populace, blend in the landscape of rubble and charred ruins, finding protection in shattered remains and broken families.

The whole point, in a sense, is to obliterate the distinction between guerrilla and civilian, a fact that the intervening voices duly answer by inflicting heavy casualties – on civilians. Be it the ubiquitous car bomb or the air strike with delusionary famed weapons of precision, the distinction of being a combatant or civilian is irrelevant.  If you are in Mosul, you either flee, die or chance your luck. Forget the official line, and believe no one.

The casualty rate amongst civilians in the Mosul operation has spiked for the obvious reason that all sides in this conflict wish to capitalise on immediate gains with minimal concern. As Iraqi forces make the bloody advance into a city of half a million, with some 2,000 remaining Islamic State forces, US-led strikes have flattened entire blocks.

The attack on a Mosul block led to as many as 200 civilian deaths, though the response from Iraqi authorities was a steadfast demurral: Islamic State, it was suggested, was behind it with one of their murderous car bombs. Account and counter-account have followed.

According to Amnesty International, hundreds have died in their homes or places of refuge, advised by the Iraqi government to stay put as the cavalry charge in for the rescue.

“Survivors and eyewitnesses in East Mosul said they did not try to flee as the battle got underway because they received repeated instructions from Iraqi authorities to remain in their homes.”[1]

In the newsrooms, civilian casualties are an embarrassment for the Coalition forces, though a confession to error made in good faith always goes down well for the home tax payers fronting the bills for such lethal adventures. This is war, and war can be untidy and imperfect, despite immaculately filled spread-sheets and blueprints for victory.

Removing Islamic State forces from the city should remind the US personnel engaged about the disastrous operations run by the Coalition in Iraq from 2003. Cluttered, dense, and unforgiving, warfare in the streets, where indiscriminate, opportunistically detonated car bombs meet air delivered weapons, can only mean more remorseless suffering.

The pity of war lacks sincerity when monopolised by those who claim the motivations of liberation. Such positions start making combating sides look plain and similar: every warring outfit wants to know they are on the side of the angels when they massacre populations and put a city to the sword. They all ultimately did it for a “good” cause.

The only difference is the hypocrisy associated with those moralist warriors who still claim that God, the Responsibility to Protect, or some fantastic notion of shielding civilians before modern carnage is ever feasible. In war, there is dull, inevitable, cruel death, and in the modern era, the civilian is a pawn to be idealised in terms of protection, and killed in terms of expediency.

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

Note

[1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/03/iraq-civilians-killed-by-airstrikes-in-their-homes-after-they-were-told-not-to-flee-mosul/

This conference comes at a very important time in regard to the political and economic situation here in the city of Detroit, the state of Michigan, throughout the United States and indeed the world.

There has been much ruling class propaganda about the purported financial and employment resurgence in the U.S. Wall Street has apparently welcomed the ascendancy of the Trump administration with the Dow Jones Industrial Average exceeding 21,000 points.

Trump has surrounded himself with Wall Street bankers, oil magnates, Pentagon generals and ideological racists. They represent not the strength of the modern capitalist system but its stark contradictions and weaknesses.

Although the stock market is rising this does not necessarily translate into a qualitative rise in the standard of living for working people, the nationally oppressed and marginalized communities in the recent period. The Bureau of Labor Statistics claimed that during the month of February over 250,000 jobs were created. However, what is not said are the types of employment the new hires working in. When the corporate media outlets say that some of these jobs are within the manufacturing sector it still avoids the reality of declining monetary and social wages for the working class overall.

Moreover, the assault on the working class and poor is unrelenting in areas that extend beyond their places of employment. In Detroit and other municipalities, tens of millions have been displaced over the last decade through home foreclosures, evictions, utility shut-offs, and through the processes characterized as “gentrification.” How would we quantify the losses of people’s homes, neighborhoods and essential services?

In Detroit, municipal employees and retirees have undergone massive cuts in their pensions, annuities and healthcare benefits. Just three years ago over 50 percent of African Americans residing in the state of Michigan were living under emergency management designed to enhance the authority and profitability of the banks and industrial corporations. Under the so-called “Financial Stability Agreement” imposed nearly five years ago at the aegis of Gov. Rick Snyder and adopted in a 5-4 vote by the majority compliant Detroit City Council, the stage was set for full-scale emergency management. This acceptance of the FSA took place during a period of political opposition aimed at overturning EM legislation in its totality.

The U.S. promotes the notion of being a democratic society. Many wars in the 21st century have been launched by the White House and the Pentagon saying that their intentions are to bring democracy to other nations which are post-colonial states. Nevertheless, this propaganda rings a hollow tone if we examine the workings of the capitalist system of governance in states such as Michigan.

In essence it was the industrial abandonment of the city of Flint and the appointments of successive Emergency Managers that lie at the root of the poisoning of the water in the city where the population has been reduced by half over the last four decades. The city of Detroit has gone from a population of 1.8 million in 1950 to one of less than 700,000 today.

Corporate media outlets hail on a daily basis the ostensible “rebirth” of Detroit while tens of thousands of its majority African American community are being forced to leave for the suburbs and other areas of the state and country. Despite the campaign of “ethnic cleansing”, African Americans constitute more than 75 percent of the city making them the largest concentration of this oppressed nation among all major municipalities in the U.S.

This same pattern has been replicated throughout the Midwest. In Chicago, public housing complexes have been razed over the last two decades. Historic African American neighborhoods were targeted, as in Detroit, for predatory lending and disinvestment.

Extortionist methods of high mortgages, rents, property taxes, utility and water costs, insurance rates, compounded by food deserts, the lack of educational resources and city services, are all utilized as effective methods to drive people out of their communities.

The segregation of African Americans and their super-exploitation means in essence that they remain a colonized and neo-colonized people within the U.S. With the advent of Black mayors, congresspersons, city council representatives and other elected officials provided a veneer of self-determination and political equality during the era of the 1960s through the conclusion of the 20th century. However, in many cities where African Americans had occupied these positions they have been removed and replaced by whites.

Detroit is an excellent example where for forty years from Coleman A. Young to Kwame Kilpatrick, African Americans had maintained political control of City Hall. Obviously in the present situation, the ruling class cannot even afford to allow this limited degree of political influence and power. Mike Duggan, the white comprador corporate-designated mayor from Livonia, is symptomatic of this shift in capitalist governance. Not only is the Duggan administration promoted as the only viable solution to the current crises of underdevelopment and job losses, he is falsely portrayed as being superior in administrative skills and efficiency.

Of course the actual record is at variance with this narrative. The revelations surrounding the operations of the Detroit Land Bank Authority (DBLA) and its blight removal program utilizing federal funds has become a focus of a federal criminal investigation. Dan Gilbert, of Quicken Loans, the “Don” of the city who is also promoted as a white savior, occupies the chairmanship of the Detroit Blight Removal Task Force. This entity identifies properties for seizure and demolition. The DLBA has become the largest landlord in the city while Gilbert, a financial and real estate magnate, is also under investigation for criminal fraud involving his misrepresentations to secure Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans for his unsuspecting clients. While former Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick is serving a 28-year sentence for violations of federal law, Gilbert, Duggan and their cohorts are still open for business. Washington and its district attorney have not shut down their nefarious operations, prosecuted them for the misuse of federal funds and placed them in prison for decades.

Consequently, there is much work to be done to expose these contradictions which the masses understand almost instinctively. This is why our work here in the city has linked the plight of African Americans with their counterparts on the continent of Africa.

Our Work in the Struggle to Reverse Imperialism in Africa

Over the last decade the Michigan Emergency Committee Against War & Injustice (MECAWI) has led several campaigns in solidarity with the anti-imperialist struggle in Africa.

The organization was founded in September 2002 during the build-up in the Persian Gulf for the blockade, massive bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq. The U.S. under President George W. Bush had intervened in Afghanistan directly only a year before.

MECAWI’s efforts went beyond Iraq to solidarity actions with Haiti when it was invaded and occupied beginning in the aftermath of its bicentennial in February 2004. Military forces from the U.S., France and Canada overthrew the elected government of President Jean Bertrand Aristide. The president was kidnapped and flown by imperialist military aircraft to the Central African Republic (CAR). Aristide was later granted political asylum in the Republic of South Africa whose then President Thabo Mbeki had visited for the 200th year anniversary of the conclusion of the anti-colonial struggle when African slaves successfully rose and led a revolution against France.

In 2005, a delegation from South Korea visited the U.S. and we were able to host the delegates in Detroit where they appeared before the Detroit City Council and spoke at a MECAWI-sponsored forum at Wayne State University. The Koreans were here to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the national student uprising of 1980. The demonstrations and unrest shook the foundations of the Pentagon and Wall Street outpost which serves as a bulwark against the reunification of the Peninsula and the attempts aimed at the destabilization of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) based in Pyongyang.

By the concluding months of 2006, the political situation in the Horn of Africa State of Somalia was reaching a boiling point. A coalition of groups under the banner of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), were bringing a modicum of stability to the decades-long war-torn country. The White House under President Bush sought unsuccessfully to utilize pro-western warlords to reverse the advances of the ICU.

By December the neighboring state of Ethiopia, now a close ally of Washington, sent troops into Somalia to enforce imperialist foreign policy designs in the region. Ethiopian military forces were working with Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency CIA) personnel to find another way into Somalia after the enormous defeats suffered by the U.S. and the United Nations between the years of 1993-94. A popular resistance alliance arose in opposition to the Pentagon and UN occupation of Somalia during 1992-1994. The Marines were deployed in December 1992 in what was dubbed Operation Restore Hope. Utilizing the devastation caused by a recent drought in the country, the administration of President George W. Bush, Sr. deployed 12,000 soldiers to ostensibly distribute relief and to establish safe corridors for those impacted by food shortages.

This imperialist intervention of 1992-93 proves disastrous. Within several months a national uprising in response to U.S. military atrocities committed against the Somalian people forced the Marines and the UN so-called peacekeeping operation out of the country.

The previous government of President Mohamed Siad Barre had gone from a 1969 anti-imperialist and socialist-oriented seizure of power by military officers, to making a rightward shift to the U.S. by 1977, leading to a failed invasion of the Ogaden region of Ethiopia. Cuban internationalist forces were in Ethiopia to assist and defend the Provisional Military Administrative Council (PMAC), or the Dergue, which dominated the government in Addis Ababa after the 1974 Revolution against the monarchy. PMAC had committed the country to a socialist path and was providing assistance to the national liberation movements in Southern Africa.

Cuban internationalist forces played an important role during the Somalian invasion of the east of Ethiopia in the Ogaden region during 1977-78. The defeat of this successionist effort undermined the stability of Somalia for decades to come.

However, the Eritrean question was not able to be resolved and the war which began for independence under the His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie I in 1961, continued with greater intensity. The internal national question within Ethiopia itself was manifesting through the guerrilla wars waged by the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) in the north and the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) in the south. The Western Somali Liberation Front (WSLF) was waging a war against the central government seeking federation with its nationality in Somalia, a country which during the period of colonialism was divided by five different states carved out by Italy, Britain, France and Ethiopia.

By 1991, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was collapsing following the pattern which had begun in the late 1980s in Eastern Europe. The economic and military resources needed to maintain the war against the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) and other armed movements was not forthcoming. The State Department under the George Bush, Sr. administration was pressuring the Worker’s Party of Ethiopia (WPE) government under Haile Mengistu Mariam to relinquish control of the state and allow the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), led by the TPLF, to enter Addis Ababa. Also within this deterioration of the WPE government, the EPLF declared independence in Asmara. Two years later the UN-supervised election brought about the inevitable international recognition of Eritrea as an independent state.

In Somalia with the fall of neighboring Ethiopia, Washington no longer was compelled to provide resources for the Siad Barre regime. Internal power struggles worsened to the point of the collapse of the government in Mogadishu. Since 1991, the Somalian state has remained fractured and weak. Today the federal government in Mogadishu is propped-up by the Washington and Brussels funded African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM) consisting of 22,000 troops from several states across the region.

MECAWI foresaw this situation as being an opening for imperialism to re-enter Somalia with force in early 2007. Accompanying the Ethiopian intervention and the threats from Kenya as well was the bombing of the country by both the U.S. and the British Royal Air Force (RAF).

A press statement issued on January 11 to announce a demonstration during a program at Wayne State University (WSU) featuring UN ambassadors from Kenya, Ethiopia, Iraq and Malaysia, MECAWI said:

“Despite the overwhelming vote on November 7 to end the war in Iraq, the Bush administration is not only escalating the conflict but has embarked upon a new military adventure in the East African nation of Somalia. Utilizing the US-backed government of Meles Zenawi in Ethiopia, the Bush regime has engineered an occupation of Somalia, a sovereign nation. In addition, the American military launched a bombing campaign that has resulted in the deaths of over 500 Africans in Somalia since Monday.”

This same release went on to emphasize that:

“Using the same old pretext of fighting terrorism, C130 gunships bombed civilian areas in southern Somalia where these rural communities have no defenses against such deadly weapons of mass destruction. The Michigan Emergency Committee Against War & Injustice is demanding the immediate halt of all military actions against Somalia and the withdrawal of American and Ethiopian military forces from the Horn of Africa nation.”

Sentiment against the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Haiti were reflective of the mood enunciation in this press release. Hundreds of thousands had demonstrated across the U.S. and the world against the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. With respect to the U.S. role dominating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces in Afghanistan, the rationale for the war was losing credibility even among those who supported and justified the intervention. Atrocities of the same nature of which were being perpetrated and exposed in Iraq and Haiti were also taking place in Afghanistan.

Neo-colonialism was being enforced at the barrel of the gun and sharpness of the bombs dropping over wide swaths of territory throughout various geo-political regions of the world. Oil, cheap labor and strategic waterways coveted by the imperialists were the real reasons behind the wars of conquest and genocide. As the economic crisis was deepening in Detroit and other Midwestern municipalities, small towns and rural areas, the Pentagon budget was expanding exponentially. The creation of a Department of Homeland Security (DHS)in the aftermath of the attacks on September 11, 2001, was aimed at the further consolidation of the intelligence and military apparatuses of the state in both the domestic and foreign policy arenas.

Diplomatic ploys engineered by the U.S. were a key element in the renewed imperialist war drive. The presence of such persons on the campus of WSU in the heart of this majority African American and economically targeted city was an affront to the best in its legacy of Civil Rights, Labor, Black Power, Anti-war and Pan-Africanist traditions. Launching an ideological and political challenge to the neo-colonialist approach to both local and global capitalist and imperialist policy was the appropriate response to such a provocation by the Bush administration.

The MECAWI press release of January 11, 2007 appealed to the people saying:

“The United Nations ambassadors from both the US-backed government in Ethiopia and the American-installed occupationist regime in Iraq will be visiting Wayne State University’s Law School on Thursday beginning at 10:00 a.m. We are calling upon anti-war activists, students and community people to come out and picket the appearance of these puppets in order to tell them and their Bushite sponsors that the people want peace not war. We support the Somali and Iraqi peoples’ right to self-determination and independence. A policy of colonialism and imperialism is doomed to failure in the 21st Century. MECAWI is calling on the US Congress to halt all funding for the Iraq occupation and the military interference in the internal affairs of Somalia. We need money for jobs, health care, quality education, senior services and affordable housing, not permanent war and colonial occupations.”

A report written by this author in regard to our intervention at the WSU Law School forum featuring the UN ambassadors, notes:

“MECAWI pointed out that the Bush administration has repeatedly lied about a terrorist threat and weapons of mass destruction in order to provide a rationale for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only the Ambassador from Bangladesh, Mr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury, conveyed an appreciation for questions asked by MECAWI representatives. Two members of MECAWI then continued to shout out critical questions and statements related to recent events in Iraq and Somalia. After the forum was over, MECAWI approached the Ambassador from Kenya, Mr. Z.D.Muburi-Muita, and handed him a copy of a statement issued to the presswhich condemned American involvement in the Horn of Africa and Iraq. The statement was also handed over to the Iraqi Ambassador, Mr. Talib Hamid Al Bayati, as well as the Ethiopian UN Representative, Mr. Dawit Yohannes.”

As the war in Somalia escalated the plans for the formal adoption of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) was announced in 2007. Scheduled to go into effect in February 2008, MECAWI issued a call for a conference on U.S. Imperialism and Africa in Detroit that would denounce AFRICOM and expose it for the danger it represented to the independence and sovereignty of Africa.

On February 23, 2008, the 140th birthday of Pan-Africanist and Communist Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois, MECAWI held a day-long meeting on the contemporary struggle against neo-colonialism and imperialist militarism on the continent. This was the only gathering of its kind internationally. The U.S. Imperialism and Africa conference was self-organized and carried out by local activists from MECAWI and Workers World Party Detroit Branch. Friends of these organizations were attendance and participated. The National Conference of Black Lawyers (NCBL) attended and presented a paper on its legal objection to the creation of AFRICOM.

Papers on issues involving imperialist wars of regime change and domination in Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe and other states were delivered. A newly-released film on Cuban internationalist solidarity with Africa was screened for the first time in the city in its entirety. The revolutionary legacy of Patrice Lumumba, Kwame Nkrumah, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, Shirley Graham Du Bois, Amilcar Cabral, Agostino Neto, Nelson Mandela and other were evoked. The conference provided a wealth of information and a program of ideological and political opposition to the changing role of the Pentagon, the CIA and NATO in Africa.

The anti-colonial and anti-racist history of struggle waged by African Americans was recounted in the effort to illustrate the principled positions which MECAWI was seeking to continue. In the weeks and months to come the Pentagon accelerated its bombing campaigns in Somalia along with the intensification of the occupations of Afghanistan, Iraq and Haiti. These foreign policy assaults were replicated in the U.S. through the worsening economic crisis that had struck Detroit and the state of Michigan with a vengeance in its first wave.

On February 14, 2008, the call for the U.S. Imperialism and Africa Conference was issued to the media saying:

“The Michigan Emergency Committee Against War & Injustice (MECAWI) is an anti-war and anti-imperialist coalition that opposes United States military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, MECAWI has responded to further interventionist maneuvers by the Bush administration in Somalia, Haiti, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Colombia, Cuba, Venezuela and other geo-political regions of the world. Based upon recent political events on the African continent such as: the US-backed invasion of Somalia in 2006; the escalation of destabilization efforts against Sudan, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Chad; as well as the much publicized American plans to establish military bases on the continent through the Africa Command (AFRICOM) that is directly administered from the Pentagon, many of us in the anti-imperialist and anti-war movements see the mounting danger of greater United States military intervention in Africa.”

In an address delivered at the U.S. Imperialism and Africa Conference this writer stressed:

“As a result of the rejection by leading African states, such as Nigeria and South Africa, headquarters for this military program remains in Germany. Consequently, in recent weeks the overall political framing of the AFRICOM project has shifted to a less threatening approach with the American administration later claiming that the program is designed to enhance the capacity of African states to provided adequate security amid the changing concerns of the 21st century. This evolution of political spin continued when Bush was in Ghana, the first country south of the Sahara to gain national independence in 1957 from Britain. Kwame Nkrumah proclaimed on March 6, 1957 that the independence of Ghana was meaningless unless it was linked up with the total independence of the African continent. With the overthrow of Nkrumah in 1966 by a US-backed military and police coup, the country has fallen into the grip of neo-colonialism, what the first Prime Minister and President described as the last stage of imperialism.”

This same lecture continued recognizing:

“To further obscure its imperialist aims, the United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom denied over the BBC on February 20 that the Bush administration had any intentions of building military bases in Africa. So what should the people of Africa and the world believe? And what does this apparent new interest in African affairs mean to the anti-war and peace movements in the United States in light of the ongoing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan?”

Just five years later during the Jubilee commemorations of the 50th anniversary of the formation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the predecessor to the now African Union (AU) initiated in 2002, another conference was held by MECAWI to assess the five years since the launching of AFRICOM. Even though the U.S. defied the proclamations in 2008 that its ambitions were to build military bases in Africa, the escalation of Pentagon, State Department and CIA involvement on the continent had accelerated.

The propaganda had shifted to advancing notions of assisting African nation-states to enhance their national security capacity. Nevertheless, airstrips, CIA stations, drone operations, aerial bombings, special forces and commando raids were becoming more frequent with examples of Somalia and Libya being the most pronounced. The phenomenon of joint military exercises, training programs and the embedding of Pentagon and U.S. intelligence personnel within African military structures had expanded.

The call for the MECAWI Conference on May 18, 2013 said:

“Today in 2013, African states are being invaded once again by troops from the Pentagon, various NATO forces, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives and other intelligence organizations from throughout North America and Europe as well as transnational corporations and banks determined to maintain western hegemony over the continent, its people and resources. Five years ago in 2008, the Michigan Emergency Committee Against War & Injustice (MECAWI) held a similar conference in the wake of the formation of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). In 2008 we predicted that the formation of this Pentagon command specifically geared toward Africa would prove disastrous for the continent. Unfortunately what we anticipated has been proven correct.”

Emphasizing the role of imperialism over the previous five years, the call said:

“AFRICOM coordinated the overthrow of the government in Libya under the martyred Col. Muammar Gaddafi, a longtime leader of his country who served as a co-founder of the AU and its chairman in 2009-2010. Although the headquarters of AFRICOM remains in Stuttgart, Germany, the U.S. has established a military base in Djibouti along with drone and CIA stations in Somalia, Niger and other countries across the continent. The current war in Mali, although said to be waged by France for humanitarian reasons, is merely designed to penetrate the continent and exploit its oil, uranium and gold. Africa is playing a greater role in supplying oil, platinum, natural gas and other strategic resources to the western industrialized capitalist states. Therefore, we believe that a renewed anti-imperialist campaign aimed at enhancing solidarity with Africa and its people is necessary during this period.”

AFRICOM had been formed under the administration of George W. Bush, Jr. nonetheless with the election of President Barack Obama the military command had been strengthened and enhanced. Just two years  earlier, the Obama administration would wage a full-scale war against Libya which toppled the Jamahiriya resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of Africans. Aerial bombardments initiated by the White House soon brought in other NATO air forces and their allies in the Middle East such as Turkey and the Qatar. After the adoption of two pseudo –legal resolutions by the UN Security Council 1980 and 1983, the stage was set to dismantle Africa’s most prosperous state driving its leader Col. Muammar Gaddafi from the capital of Tripoli in August 2011 bringing about his eventual brutal assassination on October 20.

In the case of Libya, many so-called leftists and antiwar activists objectively took the side of imperialism. Not understanding the changing character of western hegemony, these misguided elements fostered the notions that the Pentagon-CIA-NATO forces had some legitimate role inside the North African state to protect civilians. Since when has the imperialists been concerned about protecting the lives of civilians both inside and outside the U.S.? The war against Libya opened Africa further to the military hegemony of Washington, London, Paris and Brussels.

MECAWI organized demonstrations, public forums and wrote extensively on the unjust and imperialist character of the war against Libya. This bombing and ground operation utilizing CIA, Special Forces and State Department personnel under the direction of the-then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton essentially bombed the country back into the stone ages. Clinton laughed at the brutal assassination of Gaddafi and lauded the installment of the counter-revolutionary militias as a triumph for democracy in Africa. The regional AU’s effort to bring about a peaceful resolution to the intervention was disregarded.

Today Libya has gone from the most advanced state in Africa under Gaddafi, where the nation served as chair of the AU in 2009, to being one of the most impoverished—a source of instability and terrorism across North Africa and West Africa. Human trafficking operations involving millions are centered inside the country. The social and political impact of the imperialist dismemberment of Libya has spread throughout North Africa and the Middle East across the Mediterranean into Southern, Central and Eastern Europe.

The fallout surrounding the imperialist war drive led by successive U.S. administrations against Africa and the Middle East extending into Central and Southern Asia has impacted the stability of the European Union (EU). The Brexit vote in Britain to leave the EU can be traced directly by to the machinations of the Pentagon and NATO. What is described in the modern period as “populism” sweeping the imperialist states represents the failure of militarism and unbridled capitalist economic policies. The collapse of the USSR and the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) eliminated the only real alternative to western hegemony emanating from Europe.

Russia after 1917: International Communism, Colonial Questions and the Upsurge of Anti-Imperialism

This year represents the centenary of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Born in the midst of the first imperialist world war, the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP-Bolshevik) later becoming the Communist Party, was able to seize power in October (November 6) just eight months after the popular overthrow of the monarchy. Many including Marx and Engels had been involved in the workers upheavals of 1847-1851 as well as studying the lessons of the Paris Commune (1870-71), themselves seemed to have believed that the first revolution against capitalism would be victorious in one of the more advanced capitalist states in Western Europe such as Germany, France or Britain.

However, the largely unpopular war against Germany would create the political situation for a coalition of workers councils called Soviets, which grew out of the uprisings of 1905, the peasantry starving for bread and land reform along with the battered Russian military suffering from a disorganized war effort and lack of food and supplies on the battlefront, served to provide V.I. Lenin and his comrades the ability to seize power. This revolution took an immediate stand against the imperialist war by signing a treaty with Germany to end Russia’s involvement, also exposing the plot to dominate the West Asia by Britain and France through the Sykes-Picot Agreement signed in 1916, and fostering the liberation of the oppressed nations and nationalities within the Russian sphere of influence.

The Bolsheviks formed the Third International which held its First Congress in 1919. By 1920, Lenin in response to the mass uprisings across the colonial territories in the aftermath of World War I, declared the world socialist movement as being the staunchest allies of the oppressed peoples under the yoke of colonialism and semi-colonialism.

With specific reference to the U.S., the Second Congress of the Communist International in 1920 heard a report from John Reed on the state of the African American people. Based on these analyses and other information provided to the Russian Communist Party and Socialist state, Lenin declared:

“The second main idea of our Theses is that, in the current world situation, after the imperialist war, the mutual relations between states, the world system of states, is determined by the struggle of the smaller number of imperialist nations against the Soviet movement and the Soviet powers with Soviet Russia at their head. If we overlook this question, we cannot pose correctly a single national or colonial question even in the most distant part of the world. It is only from this standpoint that the political questions of the Communist Parties, not only in the civilized but also in the backward countries, can be posed and answered correctly. Thirdly, I would like to emphasize the question of the bourgeois-democratic movement in the backward countries. This was the point that gave rise to some differences of opinion. We debated whether it is correct in principle and theoretically to declare that the Communist International and the Communist Parties have a duty to support the bourgeois-democratic movements in the backward countries, and the outcome of this discussion was that we came to the unanimous decision to talk not about the ‘bourgeois-democratic’ movement but only about the national-revolutionary movement. There can be no doubt of the fact that any nationalist movement can only be a bourgeois-democratic movement, because the great mass of the population of the backward countries consists of the peasantry, which is the representative of bourgeois capitalist relations. It would be utopian to think that proletarian parties, insofar as it is at all possible for them to arise in these countries, will be able to carry out Communist tactics and Communist policies in the backward countries without having a definite relationship with the peasant movement, without supporting it in deeds. But objections were raised that, if we say ‘bourgeois-democratic’, we lose the distinction between the reformist and revolutionary movement which has become quite clear in the backward countries and the colonies recently, simply because the imperialist bourgeoisie has done everything in its power to create a reformist movement among the oppressed peoples too. A certain understanding has emerged between the bourgeoisie of the exploiting countries and that of the colonies, so that very often, even perhaps in most cases, the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries, although they also support national movements, nevertheless fight against all revolutionary movements and revolutionary classes with a certain degree of agreement with the imperialist bourgeoisie, that is to say together with it. This was completely proven in the Commission, and we believed that the only correct thing would be to take this difference into consideration and to replace the words ‘bourgeois-democratic’ almost everywhere with the expression ‘national-revolutionary’. The point about this is that as communists we will only support the bourgeois freedom movements in the colonial countries if these movements are really revolutionary and if their representatives are not opposed to us training and organizing the peasantry in a revolutionary way. If that is no good, then the communists there also have a duty to fight against the reformist bourgeoisie, to which the heroes of the Second International also belong. There are already reformist parties in the colonial countries, and on occasion their representatives call themselves Social Democrats or Socialists. This distinction is now made in all the Theses, and I think that our point of view is thus formulated much more precisely.”

Of course there were no African Americans in attendance at the first three congresses of the CI where these questions were debated and discussed. Later in 1922, a delegation of two African Americans, renowned Jamaican-born poet and novelist Claude McKay and Surinam-born Otto Huiswoud, attended the Fourth Congress of the CI. This gathering was held amid a cultural and political renaissance among the African American people.

The Universal Negro Improvement Association and African Communities League (UNIA-ACL) was in its heyday with Jamaican-born Marcus Garvey attracting millions across the U.S., the Caribbean, Central and South America as well as colonies on the African continent. The Negro World newspaper published in three different languages and attracted Black leftists into its ranks such as Nevis-born Cyril Briggs and Hubert Harrison from St. Croix.

Briggs and Harrison had been associated with the revolutionary nationalist and socialist movements in the U.S. prior to joining the UNIA. Briggs co-founded The Crusader magazine which eventually took an anti-capitalist position. In 1919, Briggs, and others formed the African Blood Brotherhood for African Liberation and Redemption (ABB). Eventually many within the leadership of the ABB joined the early formations which later consolidated as the Communist Party of the U.S. 1919 witnessed over two dozen racial incidents when African Americans came under attack by white mobs and law-enforcement authorities in the aftermath of the first imperialist war in cities such as Chicago and Washington D.C. What distinguished these so-called race riots from others which had occurred during the late 19th and early 20th century was that African Americans fought back against the racists in a disciplined and organized fashion. It was during this period that the ABB was formed as a self-defense organization advocating self-determination and anti-capitalism.

In addition, strikes in the Steel and Coal Mining industries and the Seattle general strike heightened fears of the capitalist class and federal government. A series of bomb attacks attributed to Anarchists also set the stage for a massive wave of repression involving thousands of law-enforcement personnel as they raided homes and offices of suspected radicals ostensibly designed to prevent an uprising aimed at overthrowing the U.S. government on May Day 1920.

Ideological and political differences with Marcus Garvey over the character of the movement led to a split within the UNIA between Briggs, Harrison and the leadership. These contradictions were heightened by the federal government infiltration of the UNIA, Socialist organizations and the eventual Communist Party.

During the post-World War I period the Department of Justice targeted radicals and revolutionaries for disruption, deportation and imprisonment. Hundreds of Socialists, Anarchists and Black Nationalists were victimized in this effort initially launched by the-then Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer in 1919.

Garvey was indicted and convicted on bogus charges of mail fraud during the 1922-23. He was eventually imprisoned in 1925 serving two years in federal prison before being deported back to Jamaica in 1927. Moreover, Africans living in the South still tied to the land in the agriculture system of production were being harassed, super-exploited, imprisoned through contract labor schemes and lynched by the racist mobs, started to rapidly migrate into the industrial and shipping centers of the Northern, Midwestern and Western urban areas. This process of migration brought vitality into the workers’ movement and the African American nation which continued to grow in class and racial consciousness. A plethora of newspapers, magazines, theaters, social organizations and businesses flourished as a result of the legalized and de facto segregation prevalent in the municipalities.

Although Africans relocated in the hope of a better life through good paying employment, quality housing and more social freedom, conditions in their new found homes were just as bad if not worse than what existed in the South.

A statement issued after the 1922 Fourth Congress of the CI in Moscow said of the African American national question that:

“The Communist International must show the black people that they are not the only ones to suffer capitalist and imperialist oppression; that the workers and peasants of Europe, Asia and America are also victims of imperialism; that the black struggle against imperialism is not the struggle of any one single people, but of all the peoples of the world; that in India and China, in Persia and Turkey, in Egypt and Morocco, the oppressed non-white peoples of the colonies are heroically fighting their imperialist exploiters; that these peoples are rising against the same evils, i.e., against racial oppression, inequality and exploitation, and are fighting for the same ends – political, economic and social emancipation and equality.”

These movements outside the U.S. in the colonial and semi-colonial territories were the foreign counterparts of the African American national question. There had been an ongoing debate within the Left over whether the African American people were fighting for inclusion within U.S. society or sought to establish their own autonomous and perhaps independent existence. Judging from the report of John Reed at the Second Congress of 1920, there seems to be a lack of appreciation of the necessity of organizing within the rural areas of the South where African American farmers and agricultural workers were very much a part of the production process which was integral to the capitalist manufacturing centers of the North and Midwest.

Racial conflict in the South was often prompted by the division of labor along national lines. Many white farmers remained landless and poor however they were indoctrinated by the ruling class that their interests lay with the plantation owners whom had survived the destruction of the Civil War and Reconstruction periods. In major cities such as Memphis, Atlanta, Winston-Salem, etc., African Americans had carved out an existence through the utilization of religious, cultural and social institutions. These also came under attack by white racism. By the final decade of the 19th century and first years of the 20th, migration began to increase. This migration was not limited to the North, Midwest and West it also occurred in areas such as Kansas and Oklahoma. These migration patterns were not exclusively spontaneous. There were organizations that eased the strain on moving to other regions of the country. African American newspapers such as the Chicago Daily Defender carried ads which promoted migration and groups such as the National Urban League were founded and funded by some capitalist corporations to facilitate the transferal of African labor from the rural South to the industrialized centers of the U.S.

In an effort to embrace the anti-colonial and revolutionary nationalist struggles as their own as well, the resolution adopted at the Fourth Congress of the CI continued stressing:

“The Communist International represents the revolutionary workers and peasants of the entire world in their struggle against the power of imperialism – it is not just an organization of the enslaved white workers of Europe and America, but is as much an organization of the oppressed non-white peoples of the world, and so feels duty-bound to encourage and support the international organizations of the black people in their struggle against the common enemy. The black question has become an integral part of the world revolution. The Third International has already recognized what valuable help the colored Asiatic peoples can give to the proletarian revolution, and it realizes that in the semi-capitalist countries the co-operation of our oppressed black brothers is extremely important for the proletarian revolution and for the destruction of capitalist power. Therefore the Fourth Congress gives Communists the special responsibility of closely applying the “Theses on the Colonial Question” to the situation of the blacks. The Fourth Congress considers it essential to support all forms of the black movement which aim either to undermine or weaken capitalism and imperialism or to prevent their further expansion. The Communist International will fight for the racial equality of blacks and whites, for equal wages and equal social and political rights. The Communist International will do all it can to force the trade unions to admit black workers wherever admittance is legal, and will insist on a special campaign to achieve this end. If this proves unsuccessful, it will organize blacks into their own unions and then make special use of the united front tactic to force the general unions to admit them.The Communist International will immediately take steps to convene an international black conference or congress in Moscow.”

Leading elements within the ABB which grew out of the resistance to racist state and mob violence after World War I joined the Communist Party during the mid to late 1920s. Eventually the ABB was dissolved and the American Negro Labor Congress (ANLC) was formed in 1925. The organization was the first attempt on the part of the CP to organize mass organizations among the African American people. ANLC cadre held a conference to draft a program of action although this effort gained limited results. A newspaper called the Negro Champion was published in an attempt to intervene in the political and ideological struggles taking place among the African American people.

On an internationalist level, the League Against Imperialism (LAI) was founded during this same time period. The first gathering was held in Brussels, Belgium and organized by German Communist Willi Munzenberg in February 1927. Delegates were invited to the first meeting from China, India, South Africa, Indonesia, Senegal and Algeria. Leading figures in the anti-colonial movements from these geo-political regions such as Lamin Senghor (Senegal),  Virendranath Chattopadhyaya (India), J.T. Gumede of the African National Congress (ANC) of South Africa, Messali Hadj of the Algerian North-African Star, and Mohammad Hatta of the Perhimpoenan Indonesia were reported to have been in attendance.

Including the Chinese nationalist Kuomintang led by Chiang Kai- shek, the involvement of these forces along with the Communist Party would not last long. On April 12, 1927, the Kuomintang military forces marched on Shanghai where they massacred the Communists and allied workers. Later that year in December, the Kuomintang crushed theCanton Commune. As a result, the coalition of Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China was dissolved, leading to the Chinese Civil War. Later in 1931, the Japanese imperialists invaded Manchuria.

LAI was headquartered in Berlin during the period of 1927-33, when the Nazi Party came to power. Anti-imperialist and anti-colonial work was severely set back as fascism spread throughout the European continent after 1933.

The League Against Imperialism did enormous work in Britain expressing solidarity with the anti-colonial struggle in India. Nonetheless, there were disagreements with Nehru of India in 1930-31 over criticism related to the policies of the Congress Party. He was expelled from the LAI in 1931. By 1937, the LAI had gone out of existence as an international organization.

Paralleling the LAI was the work of the International Trade Union Committee of Negro Workers (ITUCNW) which was an affiliate of the Red International of Labor Unions (RILU) and the Third International. This organization formed in 1928 was led by African American Communist James Ford who was quickly replaced by Trinidad-born George Padmore. The ITUCNW came amid the positions on the African American and African national questions emanating from the Sixth, (1928) Congresses of the CI. Prior to this the efforts of the Workers (Communist) Party had been extremely limited.

Cyril Briggs admitted in a lengthy article published in The Communist magazine in September 1929 that:

“In attempting to evaluate the work of our Party among the Negro workers and farmers during the past ten years, it is necessary to begin with the frank admission that the task of winning the Negro masses to our program was seriously and sincerely taken up only since the Sixth World Congress. Most of our Negro work prior to the Congress was of a sporadic nature intended in the main as gesture for the benefit of the Comintern.”

Later Briggs quotes the Sixth Congress resolution on the Negro Question in the U.S. which said:

“the Negro masses will not be won for the revolutionary struggles until such time as the most conscious section of the white workers show, by action, that they are fighting with the Negroes against all racial discrimination and persecution… to mobilize and rally the broad masses of the white workers for active participation in this struggle.” (p. 494)

This same article continues in relationship to the demand by the Sixth Congress that white chauvinism, prevalent in both the left and right factions of the Party, be rejected categorically:

“An aggressive fight against all forms of white chauvinism must be accompanied by a widespread and thorough educational campaign in the spirit of internationalism within the Party, utilizing for this purpose to the fullest possible extent the Party schools, the Party press and the public platform, to stamp out all forms of antagonism, or even indifference among our white comrades toward the Negro work. This educational work should be conducted simultaneously with a campaign to draw the white workers and the poor farmers into the struggle for the support of the demands for the Negro workers.” (pp. 494-5)

The ITUCNW published The International Negro Workers’ Review in March 1931. It was later renamed The Negro Worker. In July 1930, the International Conference of Negro Workers was convened in Hamburg, Germany utilizing the base of the Western Secretariat of the COMINTERN located there. This meeting was originally scheduled to be held in London however the repression leveled against the working class and anti-colonial struggle by Britain prevented the gathering.

Specifically related to the attendance at the 1930 Conference, Susan Campbell said:

“Present in Hamburg were 17 delegates representing six African-American organizations, British Guiana, Trinidad, Jamaica, several west African countries, and South Africa. Information on who these delegates were is both lacking and in some cases (partly because of pseudo-names) contradictory. Jamaica was represented by S.M. DeLeon, Trinidad by Vivian Henry of the Trinidad Workingmen’s Association, and British Guiana/Guyana by pioneer trade unionist Hubert Critchlow. There for Sierra Leone, under the alias ‘E. Richards’, was Isaac Theophilis Akkuna (I.T.A.) Wallace-Johnson; for South Africa, Albert Nzula. Also present were Johnstone (Jomo) Kenyatta, two men identified only as ‘S. Norton’ and ‘Akrong’ from the Gold Coast/Ghana, and Frank Macaulay, who had cooperated with Wallace-Johnson in the Nigerian Workers’ Union. Padmore, although from Trinidad, had counted as an African-American delegate, together with James W. Ford, I. Hawkins, and J. Reid. The Gambian delegate, listed as George Small, was almost certainly E.F. Small, editor of The Gambia Outlook and organizer of one of west Africa’s first unions, the Bathurst Trade Union. In late 1929 Small’s union had led a general strike that tied up the Gambian economy for 18 days. British Colonial Under-Secretary Drummond Shiels, a prominent member of the Fabian Society, had commented “the union has unfortunate affiliations and has been run rather on Communist lines.” Otto Huiswoud seems not to have been present; likely he was already off as part of a COMINTERN ‘mission’ to the South African Communist Party he is known to have undertaken around this time.” (The Negro Workers: A Comintern Publication of 1928-37)

The resolutions passed at the ITUCNW Conference in Hamburg took a hard line against what was described as “Negro reformism.” This tendency was characterized as “the most dangerous obstacle to the development of the struggle of Negro workers.” There was much criticism of the role of the Socialist International as represented by the British Labor Party.  ITUCNW said of the Labor Party that it was “the best proof of the real policy of these imperialist agents.”

ITUCNW resolutions demanded the full independence of all colonial territories along with the right to self-determination for all oppressed nations. In the aftermath of the Conference many of the delegates traveled to Moscow to attend the Congress of the RILU. However, in 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany. Padmore was arrested and jailed for several months. He was then deported to Paris where it appeared the authorities were working with the German fascist regime to gain access to Padmore’s collection of documents shedding light on the strength and work of the ITUCNW and the RILU.

Soon after this, Padmore broke with the COMINTERN over its shift in foreign policy in relationship to Britain and France. Moscow viewed Germany as the principle threat to the Soviet Union and its influence.

Padmore initially claimed it was the financial problems associated with the ITUCNW as his reason for departure.

Nonetheless, Campbell recalled:

“in September 1933 Padmore bid ‘Au Revoir’ to his editorship of the Negro Worker, then begun castigating the COMINTERN for its cynical abandonment of the colonial workers’ cause in the interests of Popular Front rapprochement with Britain and France. Here is should be noted that while the Popular Front era is usually thought of as having begun with the July-August 1935 Seventh (and last) COMINTERN Congress, its start can be more accurately dated to the 13th Plenum of the Executive Committee of the COMINTERN, held shortly after Hitler’s January 30th 1933 assumption of power.”

Later in early 1934, Padmore officially severed his ties with the COMINTERN. James Ford went so far as to label Padmore a “police agent.” Padmore then wrote a public letter criticizing the new COMINTERN position having it published in the NAACP’s Crisis magazine. Earl Browder, the-then General Secretary of the CPUSA, replied to Padmore’s criticism which also appeared in the Crisis.

During his Paris sojourn, Padmore continued his work in the Pan-African struggle. He collaborated with Nancy Cunard, the author of the anthology “Negro.” By late 1935 and early 1936, Padmore relocated to London where he teamed up with his childhood friend C.L.R. James who was working within the Trotskyist movement in Britain. They formed the International African Service Bureau (IASB) publishing the International African Opinion. Later in 1944, long after James had traveled to the U.S. for a lecture tour that extended for fifteen years, the IASB was dissolved and the Pan-African Federation was formed which went on to organized the Fifth Pan-African Congress in Manchester in October 1945.

The Fifth Pan-African Congress was led by George Padmore, Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois and Kwame Nkrumah, who had just arrived in Britain from studying for a decade in the U.S. Nkrumah left for the Gold Coast in 1947, eventually forming the Convention People’s Party (CPP) in 1949 which led the British colony to independence by 1957, becoming the base of the anti-colonial and Pan-African struggle until 1966 when Nkrumah was overthrown in a CIA-backed coup against his government.

Post World War II and the Socialist Camp

During the years of the second imperialist world war from 1939-1945, the anti-colonial movement was reawakened in the colonies of the British and the French. Africans from Morocco, Egypt, Algeria and South Africa intensified their struggle against colonial occupation. On August 12, 1946, African mineworkers in Witwatersrand went on strike for higher pay and better conditions of employment. After one week, the racist state still dominated by British imperialism, ruthlessly suppressed the work stoppage. Nine people were reported killed by the police and over 1,200 people were injured.

The brutality of the state had a profound impact on the consciousness of the national liberation movement of the African National Congress (ANC). The ANC had assisted in the formation of the African Mineworkers Union dating back to 1941. J.B. Marks, an ANC leader, played a critical role in the organization of the union.

African workers earned 1200 percent less than white miners. Although European mineworkers had been involved in labor struggles dating back to the 1880s, they were eventually accommodated by capital and most became staunch defenders of the racist system of colonialism. The 1946 African Mineworkers strike was broken by the racist colonial state. However, its impact on the consciousness of the masses was enduring. In 1949, the ANC Youth League, formed in 1943, drafted its program of action calling for more militant activity on the part of the liberation movement.

By 1950, after the passage of the Suppression of Communism Act, outlawing the Communist Party of South Africa, there were strikes and mass demonstrations surrounding May Day resulting in the deaths of 16 people by the police. In 1952, the Defiance Against Unjust Laws Campaign began lastly four years until 1956. These events prompted the formation of the Federation of South African Women in 1954 bringing together women patriots from the African, Indian, Colored and white progressive movements.

In 1955, thousands met in Kliptown to announce the Freedom Charter, a revolutionary democratic document that called for the abolition of the racist apartheid system, the nationalization of the mines and white-controlled lands inside the country.

The South African apartheid regime indicted over 150 activists for treason. The trials lasted for four years ending in the acquittal of the members of the Congress Alliance in 1960 which consisted of the ANC, Indian National Congress, Congress of Democrats, among others. On March 21, 1960, the police massacred 69 people outside a police station in Sharpeville and near a bus terminal in Langa Flats. The ANC, along with the newly-formed Pan-Africanist Congress were banned and remained so for another thirty years when they were allowed to operate openly in February 1990.

These mass struggles characterized the national liberation movement in South Africa, Ghana, Guinea and other areas. Nevertheless, in Algeria the National Liberation Front (FLN) was forced to take up arms against French imperialism in 1954. The guerrilla movement waged a military campaign until 1961 when the stage was set for the national independence of the North African state in 1962. The ANC and the South African Communist Party (SACP) formed Um Khonto we Sizwe (MK) which embarked upon an armed struggle in December 1961.

The guerilla unit carried out attacks on power stations and government offices in its initial phase. Leaders of MK were arrested between 1962 and 1964. Later the Rivonia Trial was held placing Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Ahmed Kathrada, Dennis Goldberg and others in prison for life without parole.

Although the apartheid regime expected that the ANC and SACP were eliminated as threats to the state and economic system, by 1976, the mass movement emerged again when students in the thousands demonstrated and struck against Bantu education. Hundreds of youth were killed, wounded and arrested during 1976-77. Thousands of additional youth fled the country into exile where they received training in camps established by the ANC, PAC and the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM).

In 1980, the ideological and political orientation of the national liberation movement in South Africa had swung decisively in favor of the ANC. The form of the movement focused on igniting unrest within the military, labor and mass arenas of struggle. These developments in South Africa were not occurring within a vacuum.

The former Portuguese colonies of Guinea Bissau, Mozambique and Angola were focal points for the armed phase of the African Revolution. Portugal, a fascist colonial state, had been one of the earliest European nations to initiate the Atlantic Slave Trade. Nonetheless, Portugal was overshadowed by Britain and France in the colonial scramble for Africa.

Making tremendous gains in the armed struggle in Guinea Bissau and Mozambique, the African Party for the Independence of Guinea (PAIGC)and the Mozambique Liberation Front (FRELIMO) were poised to declare independence by 1974. A coup of younger military officers in Lisbon in April 1974 pledged to decolonize their holdings on the continent. Guinea Bissau became independent in 1974 while Mozambique followed later in June 1975.

The situation in Angola was more complicated since there were three organizations claiming to be the legitimate national liberation movements in the oil-rich country. The Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) has done the bulk of the fighting during the revolutionary war starting in 1961 and extending to 1975 when an agreement was reached for a peaceful transition to power.

Nevertheless, two other organizations, the National Front for the Liberation of Angola (FNLA) based largely in Zaire ( now the Democratic Republic of Congo) under the-then leadership of the imperialist-backed military strongman Mobutu Sese Seko, who had been involved in the overthrow and assassination of Congolese patriot and elected Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, and the Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) headed by Jonas Savimbi, a dubious character who had later been discovered to be a collaborator with the Portuguese colonial authorities, were the groups favored by the imperialists.

CIA operatives and mercenaries sought to ensure the victory of the counter-revolutionary forces against the MPLA which was supported by Cuba and the Soviet Union along with having an alliance with the South West African People’s Organization (SWAPO), the ANC and the South African Communist Party (SACP). Cuban internationalist forces intervened in Angola on the eve of independence in November 1975 in the midst of an invasion by the South African Defense Forces (SADF).

The Cubans fighting alongside their MPLA comrades pushed back the SADF consolidating the independence of Angola under revolutionary leadership.

By 1988, after a monumental battle at Cuito Cuanavale, the racist apartheid regime in defeat agreed to withdraw from southern Angola and to grant independence to Namibia, then known as South West Africa, a colony of Pretoria. These advances in the African Revolution coupled with the growing armed and mass struggle led by the ANC and its allies in South Africa, prompted the release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners during 1987-90 and the lifting of bans on other political activists living in exile when many then returned to South Africa after 1990.

The African Revolution was not uniform in its response to the neo-colonialism. As early as 1961, the independent states had split into a minority anti-imperialist and socialist-oriented camp led by Ghana, Guinea, Algeria and Mali, in opposition to the more moderate governments which resisted the calls by Dr. Kwame Nkrumah and others for political and economic integration. The setbacks in Congo, Cameroon, Nyasaland (Malawi) and similar post-colonial states where the reactionary and moderate political elements supported by imperialism seized control of the governments, served as an impediment to the realization of genuine independence and sovereignty.

Kwame Nkrumah in his ground breaking work entitled “Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism”, published in late 1965, clearly identified the U.S. as the leading power which was committed to the halting of the forward progress of the African Revolution. Nkrumah in the chapter entitled “The Mechanism of Neo-Colonialism” says:

“In order to halt foreign interference in the affairs of developing countries it is necessary to study, understand, expose and actively combat neo-colonialism in whatever guise it may appear. For the methods of neo-colonialists are subtle and varied. They operate not only in the economic field, but also in the political, religious, ideological and cultural spheres. Faced with the militant peoples of the ex-colonial territories in Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America, imperialism simply switches tactics. Without a qualm it dispenses with its flags, and even with certain of its more hated expatriate officials. This means, so it claims, that it is ‘giving’ independence to its former subjects, to be followed by ‘aid’ for their development. Under cover of such phrases, however, it devises innumerable ways to accomplish objectives formerly achieved by naked colonialism.”

This same idea is further elaborated by Nkrumah when he illustrates that:

“It is this sum total of these modern attempts to perpetuate colonialism while at the same time talking about ‘freedom’, which has come to be known as neo-colonialism. Foremost among the neo-colonialists is the United States, which has long exercised its power in Latin America. Fumblingly at first she turned towards Europe, and then with more certainty after world war two when most countries of that continent were indebted to her. Since then, with methodical thoroughness and touching attention to detail, the Pentagon set about consolidating its ascendancy, evidence of which can be seen all around the world.”

Challenges of the 21st Century

As Nkrumah articulated in Neo-Colonialism fifty-two years ago, the U.S. remains the dominant imperialist power in the world today. This is even more evident with the fall of the USSR and the allied Socialist states in Eastern and Southern Europe.

However, the struggle against imperialism and for Socialism is by no means over. The People’s Republic of China, the world’s most populace state, remains under the control of the Communist Party. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has survived for more than sixty years since the imperialist war led by the U.S. attempted to overthrow Kim Il Sung during the early 1950s. Vietnam has been a united country for over four decades after both French and U.S. imperialism sought to eliminate the Communist and national liberation forces through a war of genocide and occupation which lasted from 1945 to 1975.

On the African continent the ANC, SWAPO, ZANU-PF, MPLA and FRELIMO remain in power in Southern Africa after the defeat of settler-colonialism. Strikes launched by trade unions and students are occurring with greater frequency across Africa in states such as Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa.

Our task in the U.S. is to demonstrate unconditional solidarity with the peoples of Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Latin American in the face of mounting imperialist pressure. The wars in Libya, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Somalia and the DRC are a manifestation of neo-colonialism where the imperialist countries of the West are seeking to maintain control of the strategic minerals, land, waterways and productive labor of the African people.

These developments in Africa and other areas of the so-called “Global South” are by no means episodic, they are consistent. The approach of the anti-imperialist movement in the West therefore must be unrelenting. Irrespective of the class and political character of any individual state on the continent, the people must be defended against neo-colonialism and imperialist machinations.

Genuine anti-imperialists should demand the dismantlement of AFRICOM, the halting of the interference of the Pentagon and the CIA in African affairs and the payment of reparations to the nations of Somalia, Libya, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Ghana and others which have been the subject of military bombing campaigns, direct or indirect interventions and the strangling of their national economies through sanctions and other forms of effective warfare.

In Ivory Coast in 2011, the French imperialists supported by the Obama White House destabilized and overthrew the government of President Laurent Gbagbo. The president was arrested by French commandos and transported to The Netherlands to stand trial before the dreaded International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC has focused primarily on the pursuit, targeting, arrest and prosecution of African governmental leaders and rebel commanders.

At the same time the ICC has not lifted a finger against Washington, London, Paris and Brussels which has waged unjust wars against the peoples of the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America since the conclusion of World War II. Millions have died and been displaced in wars that have been started by imperialism just over the last quarter century. Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Syria, Yemen, Colombia, Cuba, Brazil, Venezuela and additional states have had their economies and political systems either destroyed or severely crippled by the western capitalist governments.

Institutions such as the ICC serve as surrogates of the imperialist system. They are the enemy of the majority of the world’s peoples and should be dealt with as such by anti-imperialist forces based in the West.

States such as Zimbabwe, South Africa and even Greece should be defended by progressive forces in the U.S. since their difficulties stem from their efforts to re-correct the ills imposed upon them by the U.S. and its allies. This international proletarian solidarity is a method of forming closer ties with the workers and the oppressed in the post-colonial and semi-colonial nations.

An alliance of revolutionary workers movements in the West with the peoples’ struggles and organizations of the Global South will guarantee the overthrow of imperialism. This is our task in the present period as we build a revolutionary party and movement to take on imperialism in the center of its operations here in the U.S.

Note: This report was written and delivered in part to the Midwest Regional Conference on Socialism and National Liberation held in Detroit, Michigan at Wayne State University on March 25-26, 2017. The Conference was sponsored jointly by the WSU chapter of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the Detroit branch of Workers World Party (WWP). Azikiwe addressed the Conference on a panel entitled “Fighting Capitalism Around the World.” Other panelists in this session were Lorena Buni, Chairwoman and National Solidarity Officer of Anakbayan USA; Mond Jones of the Detroit branch of Workers World Party; Claude “Toutou” St. Germain, leader of the Boston Fanmi Lavalas of Haiti; Randi Nord of the Detroit branch of Workers World Party and editor of Geopolitics Alert; Yvonne Jones, co-founder of the Detroit Active and Retired Employees Association (DAREA); and Joe Mchahwar of the Detroit branch of Workers World Party. This panel was chaired by Kayla Pauli of Workers World Party in Michigan. The Conference was attended by delegates from at least 12 different states and some 20 cities.

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the National Defense Forces (NDF) have recaptured the villages of Jubb Madi, Zakia, and Rasm al-Khamis ash-Sharqi from ISIS terrorists in the Deir Hafer plain in the northern province of Aleppo.

The important crossroad town of al-Mahdum is the next target of the government operation. Then, government forces will likely attempt to outflank the ISIS-held Jirah Military Airbase from the southern direction and to encircle it.

Heavy clashes continued in northern Hama with the joint militant forces attempting to capture the government stronghold of Hama.

The Ahrar al-Sham militant group announced that it had joined Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) and its allies in their military effort aimed at capturing the Syrian government-controlled city of Hama. Ahrar al-Sham is the most powerful “opposition” group which is involved in the Turkish Euphrates Shield Operation in northern Syria. This is yet another confirmation that Ankara has once again changed attitude towards the Syrian conflict.

Moderate forces have captured Tel Dakwa from ISIS units in northeastern Suweida. This is the most recent in a series of advances by ‘moderate’ militants against ISIS in the area. Earlier this week, ISIS defenses collapsed in northeastern Suweida. As a result, Syrian government forces and ‘opposition’ forces gained large areas from the terrorist group.

The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have recaptured the villages of Mazrat, Sahl al Khashab, and Ayed Kebir from ISIS terrorists in the province of Raqqah. SDF units also advanced on ISIS positions at Yemamah and the Ayd hill.

Meanwhile, fresh photos of armoured vehicles supplied by the United States to the SDF appeared online. This confirmed that the US continues massive deliveries of arms, munitions, and equipment to strengthen their proxy force on the ground. SDF units will likely use the vehicles during the upcoming advance on the ISIS self-proclaimed capital of Raqqah.

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

America’s rage for endless wars is the greatest threat to world peace, stability and security. Russia fears a possible preemptive US nuclear attack on its territory. 

According to Russia’s General Staff deputy head of operations Gen. Viktor Poznikhir,

“(t)he presence of American ABM sites in Europe and ABM-capable ships in the seas and oceans close to Russia’s territory creates a powerful clandestine potential for delivering a surprise nuclear missile strike against Russia.”

“The presence of the global ABM system lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, because it gives the US the illusion of impunity for using strategic offensive weapons from under the protection of the ABM ‘umbrella.’”

“The ABM shield is a symbol of the build-up of rocket forces in the world and a trigger for a new arms race.”

Since the onset of Western-instigated Cold War in the late 1940s, “analysts” in Washington and at the Pentagon believed nuclear war on Russia was winnable.

Madness persists, undermining global security, threatening humanity more than ever with neocons in charge of US militarism and war-making.

Intense US hostility toward Russia negates the chance for nuclear sanity, increases the unthinkable – mass annihilation from possible nuclear war.

In testimony before House Armed Services Committee members, CENTCOM commander General Joseph Votel lied about Iran, calling the Islamic Republic “the greatest longterm threat to (Middle East) stability.”

America and Israel earned that dubious distinction long ago – threatening the region and world peace.

Votel: Iran seeks regional “hegemon(y).”

Fact: Iran seeks mutual cooperation among all nations. It seeks world peace, forthrightly opposing US-led imperial wars.

Votel: “(H)umanitarian cris(es) are exploited by violent extremist organizations and terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIS.”

“These groups have clearly indicated their desire and intent to attack the US homeland, our interests abroad and the interests of our partners and allies.”

Fact: America bears full responsibility for creating humanitarian crises in the Middle East, North Africa and central Asia. NATO, Israel and their rogue allies share blame.

Fact: America created and supports al-Qaeda, ISIS and other terrorist groups. Chances of them attacking the US homeland are virtually nil. Votel lied claiming otherwise.

Votel: “(T)he central region has come to represent the nexus for many of the security challenges our nation faces.”

Fact: America’s only threats are invented ones, no others. They’re used to enlist public and congressional support for out-of-control defense spending – funds used for militarism and endless wars of aggression against nations threatening no one.

Votel: An investigation will be conducted on the March 17 Mosul airstrike killing hundreds of civilians – “to establish what happened, establish what the facts are, identify accountability, and…lessons learned…”

Fact: America indiscriminately massacres civilians in all its wars. Investigations when conducted are systematically whitewashed to avoid accountability for Nuremberg-level high crimes.

Fact: Eyewitness survivors blamed US-led warplanes for the March 17 massacre. Facts don’t need to be “establish(ed).” They’re indisputable.

Mass Pentagon-led slaughter of civilians will continue in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. US war criminals remain unaccountable for high crimes of war and against humanity.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Funeral services were held on March 29 for Ahmed Mohamed “Kathy” Kathrada, a longtime member of the South African Communist Party (SACP) and the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa.

Kathrada died at the age of 87 after undergoing neurosurgery. His memorial was attended by hundreds of family members and friends who paid tribute to the veteran of the decades-long national liberation struggle that brought the ANC to power in 1994.

Born on August 21, 1929 to Indian immigrant parents living in the Western Transvaal (now the North West Province), Kathrada was subjected to discriminatory practices of the racist system then dominated by the British with the Boers playing a supplementary role.

Coming from the Indian population in the settler-colonial state of the former Union of South Africa, Kathrada played an instrumental role in forming coalitions among the oppressed national groups across the country during the 1940s and 1950s. In 1941, at the age of 12, he joined the Young Communist League, an affiliate of the Communist Party of South Africa (CPSA).

He was heavily influenced by Dr. Yusuf Dadoo, a leading member of the Indian Congress movement and the Communist Party. Dadoo was an important figure in the Non-European United Front (NEUF) which initially opposed African and Indian involvement in the military services during the early phase of World War II.

After Nazi Germany invaded the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in June 1941, Dadoo and other Communists shifted their positions in support of the war on the basis that European fascism was a greater threat to oppressed peoples and Moscow. This position prompted opposition within the NEUF with many feeling that Africans and Indians should not fight within the ranks of the British military under any circumstances.

Nonetheless, the CPSA continued to campaign against racism inside the country during the War with the founding of the Anti-Segregation Council to oppose the Pegging Act. Later Dadoo and other leftists were able to turn the tide against more moderate forces in the Indian Congress movement. After WWII, the cooperation between the Natal and Transvaal Indian Congresses and the African National Congress intensified.

The ANC Youth League (ANCYL), which was formed in 1943, drafted its Program of Action in 1949. The post-World War II atmosphere among Africans and larger sections of the Indian population groups in South Africa became decisively militant and confrontational against the racist state.

These events within the African and Indian Congresses led to Kathrada and other coming into closer cooperation with Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, J.B. Marks and other ANC leaders. 1947 saw a major advancement in the national liberation movement with the signing of the Dadoo-Naicker-Xuma Pact which solidified the Alliance between the ANC and the South African Indian Congress. Kathrada worked as a coordinator of joint actions among the youth wings of the ANC and SAIC.

In 1948, the National Party won a substantial margin in the all-white elections making the Boer ruling elites the leading force within the Union of South Africa. A renewed system of colonial occupation known as “apartheid” was formerly instituted.

Mass Struggle and the Congress Alliance

During the early 1950s, a series of laws including the Suppression of Communism Act, the Pass Laws, Stock Limitation Regulations, the Group Areas Act, the Separate Representation of Voters Act, and the Bantu Authorities Act were passed by the National Party regime designed to thwart the burgeoning unity in action among the Indian, African, Colored and progressive whites. Soon the Defiance Against Unjust Laws Campaign was begun in 1952, bringing thousands into the mass struggle to end apartheid.

By 1954, the Federation of South African Women (FEDSAW) was created bringing together political forces from the African, Indian, Colored and left-wing whites. This organization mounted demonstrations against the pass laws requiring Africans to carry documentation at all times. The lack of these passes could land people in detention.

A major advancement in the movement happened on October 27, 1955, after 2,000 women demonstrated at the Union Buildings in Pretoria. The action was organized largely by the ANC Women’s League and the FEDSAW. They sought to deliver a statement demanding the repeal of pass laws to cabinet ministers who refused to accept the documents.

In less than one year, another larger demonstration took place which has been characterized as a turning point in the struggle. According to the South African History website,

“Ida Mntwana led the march (October 27, 1955) and the marchers were mainly African women from the Johannesburg region. The Minister of Native Affairs, Dr. Verwoerd, under whose jurisdiction the pass laws fell, pointedly refused to receive a multiracial delegation. On August 9, 1956, 20,000 women from all parts of South Africa staged a second march on the Union Buildings. Prime Minister Strijdom, who had been notified of the women`s mission, was not there to receive them.” (http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/federation-south-african-women-fedsaw)

The Armed Phase of the South African Revolution

Kathrada although under banning orders for political activities was heavily involved in the formation and early operations of the ANC-SACP military wing Um Khonto we Sizwe (MK). In July 1963, after going underground, Kathrada along with other MK leaders were arrested at the Lilliesleaf Farm in Rivonia during a law-enforcement raid. Mandela had already been arrested the year before with the assistance of the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and charged with leaving the country illegally. Mandela had traveled in 1961-62 to Ethiopia and Morocco to receive military training. He was caught at a roadblock where he was posing as a driver for a white family.

In 1964, Kathrada along with Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, Dennis Goldberg, Raymond Mhlaba, Elias Motsoaledi and Andrew Mlangeni were tried for treason and found guilty in an apartheid court. Although the defendants felt they would be hung, the ANC-SACP leaders were given life in prison without parole under hard labor conditions. Mandela, the last of the group to be released, served twenty seven and a half years in prison at Robben Island, Pollsmoor and at a residence in the Western Cape.

By the time the leadership of the ANC and SACP were released the support and membership within the national liberation movement had grown exponentially. MK under ANC leadership issued a declaration in August 1990 suspending the armed struggle in preparation for negotiations. After many attempts to sabotage the transition process where thousands more people lost their lives in apartheid-regime backed violence and targeted assassinations, the ANC was able to win the right to hold democratic elections on April 27-28, 1994. The ANC won nearly two-thirds of the vote in order to constitute a coalition government with the National Party and other small groupings. The NP withdrew from the government in 1995. The ANC has controlled the executive and legislative branches of the South African state since this time period.

Kathrada and Post-Apartheid South Africa

“Kathy”, as he was popularly known, was elected to parliament during the 1994 elections. Five years later he declined to seek re-elections therefore ending his involvement in electoral politics. South Africa has undergone tremendous reforms since 1994. However, fundamental aspects of capitalist rule have not been fundamentally altered.

Issues of land ownership, control of mining and finance, are still major sources of debate and struggle. Factionalism within the ANC, which has always existed to a limited degree, has taken on wider dimensions in recent years.

It was pointed out at the memorial services for Kathrada that he had written an open letter to President Jacob Zuma, the current leader of the Party that perhaps he should step down in light of accusations of constitutional violations. Former Vice-President under Thabo Mbeki and interim President Kgalema Motlanthe spoke at the memorial largely praising the contributions Kathrada.

Nonetheless, he said as well that:

“It would be disingenuous to pay tribute to the life of comrade Ahmed Kathrada and pretend that he was not deeply disturbed by the current post-apartheid failure of politics.”

Zuma was not in attendance at the memorial saying that he was absent in respect of the family’s wishes.

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA), the 5th Legion, and the Tiger Forces successfully counter-attacked Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), Ahrar al-Sham, Jaish al-Izzah, and Abnaa al-Sham in northern Hama, recapturing the Samsam hill, the nearby points north of Qumhana, and the al-Sheha hill south of Arzah. If government forces are able to retake Khattab from HTS-led forces, this will mean that they retake the initiative in the area.

Pro-government sources reported that the militants had suffered major casualties in the recent clashes but didn’t provide numbers. Meanwhile, about 20 Syrian soldiers were reportedly killed by HTS-led forces in the area of Majdal.

On March 29th, the SAA’s Tiger Forces entered the important town of Deir Hafer in the province of Aleppo. ISIS terrorists withdrew from Deir Hafer earlier this month, but the Syrian army and the National Defense Forces were not able to enter the town because of a high number of IEDs in the area.

Since then, government forces have been waiting for engineer units (most likely Russian) which will be able to demine the town.

The SAA and its local allies also continued developing an advance southeast of Deir Hafer, aiming for the ISIS-held Jirah Military Airbase.

As soon as the military airbase is back under SAA control, government forces will likely advance further in the Maskaneh Plain east of the Jabbul Lake. The important ISIS-held town of Masakah will be the target of this advance.

In the province of Homs, government forces advanced against ISIS in the countryside of Palmyra. Government troops recaptured the Antar Mount and the Afghans hill from ISIS.

If the SAA continues its advance in the direction of the Uqayrabat crossroad, this will mean that government forces are going to advance along the road heading to Palmyra.

Another option is to shift the direction of the anti-ISIS advance to Arak. However, large-scale operations in the area are unlikely due to the complicated situation in northern Hama.

The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) further tightened the siege over the ISIS-controlled town of Tabqa after capturing the nearby areas, including the Tabqa-Raqqah road and de-facto encircled the town.

The operation in Tabqa and at the Tabqa dam will take some additional time for the SDF and its US backers, but the Kurdish leadership already has a view toward the fate of Raqqah when the city is liberated from ISIS.

According to a statement by co-chair of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), Saleh Muslim, the Kurds are going to add Arab-dominated regions, which have been seized by Kurdish forces, to their self-proclaimed autonomous region in northern Syria.

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