Some countries are taking up the promotion of natural farming crops which is very welcome. However a big problem and constraint arises when they say at the same time that they will spread GM crops, forgetting that natural farming cannot co-exist with GM crops. Apart from the high risk of contamination, there is the wider reality that GM crops involve very high environment, safety and health risks.
We should look carefully at what the most senior scientists known also for their commitment to the public interest have been saying. Surely the opinion of such scientists should get preference over those who have been working with multinational corporations known to be very exploitative towards farmers and known also for their attempts of trying to dominate the farm and food systems of developing countries.If according to reviews by very reputed scientists it can be shown that GM crops have been a disaster, then this view should get adequate importance.
Here we may note that GM crops and the herbicides accompanying them have been in court cases in some countries generally courts have been sympathetic to the victims of these crops and the agro-chemicals accompanying them. A case which attracted worldwide attention relates to the award of huge compensation to Johnson, a school groundskeeper, by a California jury on account of his health being damaged severely by a herbicide glyphosate which this groundskeeper had to use regularly, resulting in very painful and life-threatening blood-cell cancer. There was widespread sympathy for this victim and Edward Kennedy, nephew of former President John Kennedy, (he is now a Presidential candidate in the USA) was among the team of lawyers who argued this case.
For people involved in food safety issues this case had an additional significance. The herbicide in question is produced most prominently by a multinational company which is also in the forefront of the spread of GM crops. It has been involved in providing packages in which the company’s GM seeds are closely tied to the marketing of the disputed herbicide whose serious health hazards had been the subject of much debate earlier also. In the course of the hearings of this case, however, it became increasingly clear that the so-called scientific evidence of safety of its products by which the giant multinational company had been swearing had many holes in it and at times its own findings were being passed off as the opinion of reputed scientists.
All the time some of the most eminent scientists have been warning against GM crops. The most eminent scientist of India on this subject Dr. Pushpa M. Bhargava was in the forefront of voicing these warnings. He was the founder of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology and in addition he was also the Vice Chairperson of the National Knowledge Commission. Many people’s science movements looked upon him as their mentor. He had been appointed by the Supreme Court of India as an observer in the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee as he was widely perceived to be not only a very accomplished expert on this issue and that too of the highest integrity but in addition he was also seen on the basis of his past record as a very strong and persistent defender of public interest.
Therefore it is very useful and interesting to see what this very senior scientist with a comprehensive understanding of this issue had to say about GM crops. First of all he made a strong and clear effort to break the myth which had been created by relentless manipulation by the very powerful forces trying to spread GM crops In India. According to this myth most scientific research supports GM crops. While demolishing this myth Dr. Bhargava wrote,
“ There are over 500 research publications by scientists of indisputable integrity , who have no conflict of interest, that establish harmful effects of GM crops on human, animal and plant health, and on the environment and biodiversity. For example, a recent paper by Indian scientists showed that the Bt gene in both cotton and brinjal leads to inhibition of growth and development of the plant. On the other hand, virtually every paper supporting GM crops is by scientists who have a declared conflict of interest or whose credibility and integrity can be doubted.”
In another review of recent trends titled ‘Food Without Choice’ (published in the Tribune ) Prof. Pushpa M. Bhargava, who was an internationally acclaimed authority on this subject, drew pointed attention to the “attempt by a small but powerful minority to propagate genetically modifiedcrops to serve their interests and those of multinational corporations(read the US), the bureaucracy, the political setup and a few unprincipled and unethical scientists and technologists who can be used as tools.” Further he warned,
“The ultimate goal of this attempt in India of which the leader is Monsanto, is to obtain control over Indian agriculture and thus food production. With 60 per cent of our population engaged in agriculture and living in villages, this would essentially mean not only a control over our food security but also over our farmer security, agricultural security and security of the rural sector.”
The strong stand of Dr. Bhargava against GM crops is supported by other eminent scientists in various parts of world. A group of eminent scientists organized under the Independent Science Panel have stated in very clear terms,
“GM crops have failed to deliver the promised benefits and are posing escalating problems on the farm. Transgenic contamination is now widely acknowledged to be unavoidable, and hence there can be no co-existence of GM and non-GM agriculture. Most important of all, GM crops have not been proven safe. On the contrary, sufficient evidence has emerged to raise serious safety concerns, that if ignored could result in irreversible damage to health and the environment. GM crops should be firmly rejected now.”
The Independent Science Panel (ISP) is a panel of scientists from many disciplines and countries, committed to the promotion of science for the public good. In a document titled ‘The case for a GMO-free Sustainable World’ the ISP has stated further,
“By far the most insidious dangers of genetic engineering are inherent to the process itself, which greatly enhances the scope and probability of horizontal gene transfer and recombination, the main route to creating viruses and bacteria that cause disease epidemics. This was highlighted, in 2001, by the ‘accidental’ creation of a killer mouse virus in the course of an apparently innocent genetic engineering experiment. Newer techniques, such as DNA shuffling, are allowing geneticists to create in a matter of minutes in the laboratory millions of recombinant viruses that have never existed in billions of years of evolution. Disease-causing viruses and bacteria and their genetic material are the predominant materials and tools for genetic engineering, as much as for the intentional creation of bio-weapons.”
Several scientists involved in studying the implications and impacts of genetic engineering got together at the International Conference on ‘Redefining of Life Sciences’ organized at Penang, Malaysia, by the Third World Network. They issued a statement (the Penang Statement, or PS) which questioned the scientific basis of genetic engineering. This statement said:
“The new biotechnology based upon genetic engineering makes the assumption that each specific feature of an organism is encoded in one or a few specific, stable genes, so that the transfer of these genes results in the transfer of a discrete feature. This extreme form of genetic reductionism has already been rejected by the majority of biologists and many other members of the intellectual community because it fails to take into account the complex interactions between genes and their cellular, extracellular and external environments that are involved in the development of all traits.
“It has thus been impossible to predict the consequences of transferring a gene from one type of organism to another in a significant number of cases. The limited ability to transfer identifiable molecular characteristics between organisms through genetic engineering does not constitute the demonstration of any comprehensive or reliable system for predicting all the significant effects of transposing genes.”
Hence it is clear that to promote GM crops as a means of increasing crop productivity has no basis in scientific reality and is merely a manipulation tactic of the powerful GM lobby which uses highly selective data to somehow promote its case in the wake of ever-increasing evidence against GM crops. The powerful GM lobby uses many kinds of front-men but behind the scenes it is essentially controlled by the most powerful, resourceful and biggest multinational companies in the food, farming, agro-chemical and related sectors.
One factor that has not received adequate attention is that due to the threat of contamination, it is difficult for normal crops and crops of natural farming and organic crops to remain free from the impact of GM crops once these have been released. As worldwide concern for food safety grows, it is likely that there will be increasing demand for organically grown crops and crops which are not contaminated by GM crops. Therefore we will be surrendering premium world markets if we allow our crops to be contaminated.Star Link (corn engineered to contain a Bt toxin pesticide) was planted on less than 0.5% of US corn acereage, but its recall cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and even then the recall was not entirely successful.
Several eminent scientists representing the Independent Science Panel have also warned against the serious threat of contamination by GM crops,
“Extensive transgenic contamination has occurred in maize landraces growing in remote regions in Mexico despite an official moratorium that has been in place since 1998. High levels of contamination have since been found in Canada. In a test of 33 samples of certified canola (oilseed rape) seed stocks, 32 were found contaminated. New research shows that transgenic pollen, wind-blown and deposited elsewhere, or fallen directly to the ground, is a major source of transgenic contamination. Contamination is generally acknowledged to be unavoidable, hence there can be no co-existence of transgenic and non-transgenic crops.”
“Crops engineered with ‘suicide’ genes for male sterility have been promoted as a means of ‘containing’, i.e., preventing, the spread of transgenes. In reality, the hybrid crops sold to farmers spread both male sterile suicide genes as well herbicide tolerance genes via pollen.”
It is due to the serious threat of contamination that even trials of GM crops are considered unacceptably risky.
As prominent environmentalist Sailendra Nath Ghosh has written,
“According to independent geneticists, the isolation distance needed to be both in time and space. The land on which the GM crop is to be grown should not sow a crop in the previous or the succeeding year. Cross-pollinating crops, unlike the self-pollinating ones, require isolation distance of three to four kms. The implementation of these requirements is impossible under Indian conditions. Farmers would not keep their lands fallow. Crops in adjoining fields are almost always planted up to the boundaries.”
Several of these threats were examined at an international conference of scientists involved in studying the implication and impacts of genetic engineering. This conference on ‘Redefining the Life Sciences’ was organised at Penang, Malaysia, by the Third World Network. These scientists and experts issued a statement called the Penang Statement (PS).
This statement listed a wide range of potential adverse effects of genetic engineering. Of particular concern is the difficulty or impossibility of recalling GEOs which have been released into the environment, or which have escaped from containment and later found to have adverse effects.
The potential ecological risks of applying genetic engineering to agriculture include the possibility that some transgenic crops could become noxious weeds, and others could become a conduit through which new genes may move to wild plants which themselves could then become weeds. The new weeds could adversely affect farm crops as well as wild ecosystems. Similarly, genetically engineered fish, shellfish and insects could become pests under certain conditions.
Plants are presently being engineered to contain parts of a virus in order to become virus-resistant. Some scientists have raised the possibility that widespread use of transgenic virus-resistant plants in agriculture may lead to new strains of viruses or allow a virus to infect a new host. There are concerns that the creation of new viral strains and the broadening of the virus’s host may increase the risks of new viral diseases that adversely affect crops and other plants. Mechanisms have been described whereby genetically engineered plants could plausibly give rise to new plant diseases.
In addition this statement warns that the rapid spread of transgenic crops poses a threat to traditional crop varieties and wild plants that are the major sources of crop genetic diversity.
Some traits of organisms may take decades or even longer to manifest themselves. An organism declared ‘safe’ in the short term could eventually prove to be dangerous.
Another ecological risk is the possibility that field or forestry plants engineered to express toxic substances like pesticides and pharmaceutical drugs may poison certain non-target organisms. Transgenes for insecticidal or fungicidal compounds that are introduced into crops to inhibit pests may unintentionally kill non-target and beneficial insects and fungi. Transgenic crops used to manufacture drugs or industrial oils and chemicals could potentially harm animals, insects and soil microorganisms.
The possible chemical contamination of surface-water and ground-water by microorganisms or plants with unusual or accelerated metabolic processes is a special concern because of the crucial importance of water for all life. It may be impossible to recall and difficult to control harmful GEOs, especially those that may contaminate ground-water.
This statement adds that developing countries in particular face special risks,
“Third World countries face even greater environmental risks than countries of the North because, in contrast, they have many wild relatives of many crops and thus there are more opportunities for various kinds of rogue species to be created.”
Moreover, most Third World countries currently have less scientific expertise and legal or regulatory capacity to monitor, assess and control activities involving genetically engineered organisms, and are thus even more vulnerable to adverse impacts.
Given the high hazards, risks and uncertainties associated with GM crops, these can never be sustainable. Markets and consumers of several countries simply do not accept GM crops.
In a letter written to the Prime Minister of India in 2009 as many as 17 distinguished scientists from the USA, Canada, Europe and New Zealand have pointed out that the claims relating to higher yield and protection of environment made for GM crops are absolutely false. Due to various problems of GM crops, their spread has been highly limited. This letter says,
“More than 95 percent of all GM crops are engineered to either synthesise an insecticide (Bt toxin) or to tolerate a broad spectrum herbicide (e.g. Roundup, Liberty) or both.
“To date there are only four major commercialised GM crops (soya, maize/corn, cotton, canola/oilseed rape) most of which (soya, corn, canola) are used primarily as animal feed. All were commercialised in the late 90s. Since then, no other commercially viable GM crop application has made it to market, especially due to farmers not accepting other GM crops (such as wheat, potatoes, and rice) for negative economic reasons (lack of buyers, loss of export markets).
“GM crops have not been widely accepted around the world. 95 percent of all GM food crops are grown in only five countries: the US, Canada, Australia, Argentina, and Brazil. If you include fibre crops (cotton), India and China would be included. Only one GM crop is approved for cultivation within the European Union, MON810 corn, which has been banned by several member states invoking documented health and especially environmental risks.
“…The basic problem is that GM as employed in agriculture is conceptually flawed, crude, imprecise and poorly controlled technology, that is incapable of generating plants that contain the required multiple, co-ordinately regulated genes that work in an integrated way to respond to environmental challenges.
“…GM has not increased yield potential. Yields from GM crops to date have been no better and in the case of GM soya have been consistently lower. A 2009 report reviewing more than 20 academic studies clearly shows that the cultivation of GM herbicide-tolerant soybeans has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has at best only improved yields marginally. This report found that increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years was due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.
“…GM crops have led to vast increases in pesticide use, not decreases and therefore reduction of agricultural pollution cannot be claimed
“…Climate change brings sudden, extreme, and unpredictable changes in weather, which requires that a cropping system be flexible, resilient and as genetically diverse as possible. GM technology offers just the opposite.
“…Stability of productivity and production is much lower with many of the GM crops commercialised today. Herbicide tolerant GM soya is far more sensitive to heat or drought stress than conventional soya.
“…GM crops are designed to be used in conjunction with synthetic pesticides and fertilisers, which are manufactured from oil and natural gas.
“GM crops do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“Recent data from the US department of agriculture has shown a vast increase in herbicide use since the introduction of GM crops tolerant to the application of these agrochemicals.
“Therefore, the introduction of GM crops has exacerbated rather than reduced agriculture’s carbon footprint and is clearly unsustainable.
“Alternative proven technologies that can reduce the amount of fossil fuel used in farming already exist. This includes methods for reducing fertiliser applications, selecting farm machinery appropriate for each task, managing soil for conservation, limiting irrigation and (using) agro-ecological farming techniques.”
All over the world the controversy over GM crops, also called genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is heating up as more and more evidence becomes available on their extremely serious hazards and threats. What needs to be emphasised is that these warnings have the support of some of the world’s most eminent and well-qualified independent scientists and experts in the field.
As eminent scientists from several countries wrote in a letter to the Prime Minister of India in 2009,
“GM transformation can produce novel biochemical processes that are unpredictable and for which there is no natural history to assume are safe.
“The GM transformation process is highly mutagenic leading to disruptions to host plant genetic structure and function, which in turn leads to disturbances in the biochemistry of the plant. This can lead to novel toxin and allergen production as well as reduced/altered nutritional quality.
“It is not a question of if there are disturbances to gene function and biochemistry but to what degree they will be present within any given GM plant. For example, the levels of more than 40 proteins are altered significantly in the commercialised GM MON810 corn compared to equivalent non-GM corn, which included production of a new allergenic protein.
“Numerous animal feeding studies demonstrate negative health impacts of GM feed on kidney, liver, gut, blood cells, blood biochemistry and the immune system.
“Of greatest concern is that studies show negative health effects with GM crops that have already been approved and which have been grown commercially for 10-13 years. This highlights the inadequacy of the original criteria and set of data on the basis of which marketing approval was and is still being granted.”
In the more specific context of Bt brinjal this letter says,
“Bt toxin is a proven potent immunogen raising justifiable concerns that it can give rise to allergic reactions.
“Animals fed diets containing Bt corn have shown signs of direct toxicity.
“Independent re-evaluation of Monsanto’s own research on their Bt corn crops shows negative health effects even in short-term (90-day) animal feeding studies.
“The Mahyco-Monsanto dossier of the raw experimental data of animal feeding studies with Bt brinjal shows highly statistically significant negative signs of toxicity on the functioning of multiple organ systems such as liver, kidney, blood and pancreas in all animals tested (especially rats, rabbits and goats). It is very important to note that these adverse effects were observed after only at most, a 90-day feeding time, which raises serious concerns about the safety of consuming this product over an entire lifetime. Long-term (at least 2-year) animal feeding studies were not done and are stated as not required by the apex regulator, contrary to the science, which requires these studies to detect chronic slow-onset toxicity and cancer.
“There is therefore, no scientific justification for the safety claim of Bt brinjal by India’s regulators, which are based on an uncritical acceptance of the interpretation of the data submitted by Mahyco-Monsanto. This has been heavily criticised by eminent scientists of international standing.”
In 2003 the Independent Science Panel, which consists of eminent scientists from many countries covering a wide range of relevant disciplines reviewed the evidence on the hazards of GMOs. This review concluded that many GM crops contain gene products known to be harmful. For example, the Bt proteins that kill pests include potent immunogens and allergens. Food crops are increasingly being engineered to produce pharmaceuticals, drugs and vaccines in the open environment, exposing people to the danger of inappropriate medication and their harmful side effects.GM varieties are unstable, with the potential to create new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, and to disrupt gene function in animal and human cells.
This report also said that there have been very few credible studies on GM food safety. Nevertheless, the available findings already give cause for concern. In the still only systematic investigation on GM food ever carried out in the world, ‘growth factor-like’ effects were found in the stomach and small intestine of young rats that were not fully accounted for by the transgene product, and were hence attributable to the transgenic process or the transgenic construct, and may hence be general to all GM food. There have been at least two other, more limited, studies that also raised serious safety concerns.
“There is already experimental evidence that transgenic DNA from plants has been taken up by bacteria in the soil and in the gut of human volunteers. Antibiotic resistance marker genes can spread from transgenic food to pathogenic bacteria, making infections very difficult to treat.
Transgenic DNA is known to survive digestion in the gut and to jump into the genome of mammalian cells, raising the possibility for triggering cancer.The possibility cannot be excluded that feeding GM products such as maize to animals also carries risks, not just for the animals but also for human beings consuming the animal products.
Evidence suggests that transgenic constructs with the CaMV 35S promoter might be especially unstable and prone to horizontal gene transfer and recombination, with all the attendant hazards: gene mutations due to random insertion, cancer, reactivation of dormant viruses and generation of new viruses. This promoter is present in most GM crops being grown commercially today.”
A four-part series of experiments conducted over 3 years by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster (United Kingdom)’ (see The Independent dated March 22, 2005 reporting the findings of this study) concluded that GM crops could be more harmful to many groups of wild life than their conventional equivalents. According to these studies, Bt proteins, incorporated into a significant part of all GM crops, have been found to be harmful to many non-target insects, worms and amphibians.
The Penang Statement (PS) on GM crops stated:
“Some GEOs (Genetically Engineered Organisms) have been made with virus or transposon vectors that have been artificially enhanced to become less species-specific. Since viruses and transposons can cause or induce mutations, there is the concern that enhanced vectors could be carcinogenic to humans, domestic animals and wild animals.
“Persons with allergies may have legitimate concerns that with genetic engineering, once-familiar foods may be made allergenic. Furthermore, they will not be able to protect themselves if the foods are not labelled to state that they have been produced from genetically engineered organisms. Allergenic effects could be carried with the transgene or be stimulated by imbalances in the chemistry of the host plant or organism.
“Another problem is that field workers or neighbours may develop allergies to insecticidal transgenic crops. For example, a spider venom expressed in sugarcane might block a metabolic pathway only in insects and not in humans, but humans can nevertheless develop serious allergies to some venoms.
“With genetic engineering, familiar foods could become dangerous or even toxic. Even if the transgene itself is not dangerous or toxic, it could upset complex biochemical network and create new bioactive compounds or change the concentrations of those normally present. In addition, the properties in proteins may change in a new chemical environment because they may fold in new ways.”
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include India’s Quest for Sustainable Farming and Healthy Food, Protecting Earth for Children, Man over Machine (Gandhian Ideas for Our Times) and When the Two Streams Met (Freedom movement of India). He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
It was 15 years ago: Felicity Arbuthnotrecalls the massacre of Palestinian children during the December 2008-January 2009 invasion of Gaza.
It did not start in 2023.
The killing of children by Israel has been persistent
Veteran War Correspondent Felicity Arbuthnot in solidarity with the Children of Palestine describes the underlying and evolving criminality as well as the Anglo-American complicity.
***
“Light the fire so I can see my tears, On the night of the massacre …” (Samih al-Qasim, b: 1939.)
It was that “pinpoint accuracy”, “surgical strike” stuff again, there were “unavoidable tragic errors”, “mistakes”, “scrupulous efforts made to avoid” etc., blah. And as Britain’s Colonel Richard Kemp declared of the fourteen hundred dead of the Christmas and New year onslaught on Gaza in 2008-2009: “Mistakes are not war crimes.” (i)
Colonel Kemp, with impeccable ties to British Intelligence Services, spoke to the BBC from Jerusalem in similar sanguine vein on 21st November(ii) of the then latest twenty four hour bombardment of the tiny, walled in Gaza Strip, where over half the population are children. But Colonel Kemp has seen a fair amount of carnage in his time, from Belfast to the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Seemingly after a while the dead and dismembered are just part of the day job.
The eight day blitz killed one hundred and sixty two Palestinians in what were merciless attacks on families with no where to hide. Nine hundred and ninety nine were injured. Eight hundred and sixty five houses are damaged or destroyed.
Six health centres are damaged, thirty schools, two universities, fifteen NGO offices, twenty seven mosques, fourteen media offices, eleven industrial plants, eighty one commercial stores and a UNRWA food distribution Centre.
In addition seven Ministry offices, fourteen police or security stations, five banks, and two youth clubs. The sports complex where the Palestinians athletes and paralympians trained for the 2012 London Olympics is reduced to rubble, as is the beautiful and most necessary Gaza Interior Ministry.
On Universal Children’s Day, 20th November, an air strike destroyed the Oxfam-supported Al Bajan kindergarten school and damaged the Al Housna kindergarten. (iii) Oxfam’s Sara Almer commented that more than one hundred and fifty children attended these kindergartens. “The children are safe, but the places where they learned and played are now in ruins.” This in an area: “where they already suffer a high level of trauma …”
The Oxfam project was as a result of the devastation caused by “Operation Cast Lead” between 27th December 2008-17th January 2009, when they also repaired the now re-fractured water and sanitation facilities.
There is a shortage of two hundred and thirty schools in Gaza, the Agency points out – and a ban on importing construction materials, which means the further thirty two damaged, the two universities and all else may well stay that way.
Ironically, on the day of the nurseries’ destruction, the UN Secretary General announced, that marking Universal Children’s Day, the launch of a major UN initiative: “Education First.” The day commemorates the adoption of the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1959 and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989. The 1989 Convention entered in to force on September 2nd 1990, under a month after the UN embargo on Iraq, with even baby milk formula importation denied.
“The child … needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth” is included in the preamble to a fine document. (iv)
Four year old twins, Suhaib and Muhammed Hijazi will never learn of the “protection” they are entitled to by the United Nations. They were killed when their home was bombed as the dawn of Universal Children’s Day approached. Their parents, Fouad and Amna died in hospital.
Saraya, eighteen months, won’t grow to read the fine words either, she died of a heart attack, literally frightened to death by the bombardment.
As the lights went off in Gaza’s hospitals, and their generator fuel hovered on empty, Gilad Sharon – youngest son of eighty four year old former Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, who has benefited from Israel’s fine health services and been on life support systems since 2006 – stated: “We need to flatten entire neighbourhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn’t stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren’t surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki too.”
Israel’s Interior Minister Eli Yishai stated that the goal of the attacks were to: “ … send Gaza back to the Middle Ages.” Palestine has no army, navy, air force, no heavy weaponry. Israel is an undeclared nuclear power, regarded as having the fourth strongest military on earth.
Gaza was, of course being bombed by American supplied F-16s and a variety of American weaponry. But as Gaza grieved, America had parades across the land, ate turkey, prayed over their festive dinners on Thanksgiving Day, 22nd November.
Reality would have had them burning, city to city, The UN Declaration and Convention on the Rights of the Child, The UN Declaration on Human Rights, The Geneva Convention, The Nuremberg Principles and making a pyre of all the fine, meaningless words which do not end or mask international lawlessness and inhumanity. A bonfire which might light the lie of the whole murderous hypocrisy of self proclaimed “democratic” nation states.
Notes
i. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Kemp ii. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9771000/9771507.stm iii. http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m92857&hd=&size=1&l=e iv. http://un.by/en/hr/doc/child/
Comments Off on History of Israeli War Crimes, “The Killing of Children has been Persistent”: “Surgical Strikes” against Palestinian Children in 2008-2009. Felicity Arbuthnot
Timely historical analysis: This article was first published in June 2019. Reposted for the 79th anniversary of America’s bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The extent of devastation inflicted upon Japan by the American military during World War II is not broadly known, even today. In reprisal for the attack over Pearl Harbor, which killed almost 2,500 Americans, US aircraft first began unloading bombs on Japan during the afternoon of 18 April 1942 – attacking the capital Tokyo, and also five other major cities, Yokohama, Osaka, Nagoya, Kobe and Yokosuka.
Participating in this opening incursion over Japanese territory, known as the “Doolittle Raid”, were a modest 16 US B-25 medium bombers which killed about 50 Japanese, while meting out minor overall damage. Yet the air strikes represented an embarrassment for Tokyo’s leaders, and they further dealt a sharp psychological blow on the Japanese mindset. To rub salt into wounds, not one of America’s B-25 aircraft was shot down. It was a sign of things to come.
As months elapsed into years, the destruction increased many times over. By 15 June 1945, 66 Japanese cities had been annihilated by the US Army Air Force, through firebombing attacks primarily unleashed by the new B-29 four-engine heavy bombers.
The number of Japanese metropolitan areas destroyed here was the exact figure that the Pentagon compiled when finalizing plans, in mid-September 1945, to eviscerate the Soviet Union. Indeed, 66 Soviet cities were earmarked to be wiped out – with 204 atomic bombs – less than two weeks after Japanese representatives signed surrender terms on 2 September 1945, finally closing out World War II.
Regarding atomic attack proposals against the Japanese Empire, General George Marshall, the US Army Chief of Staff, revealed in 1954 that,
“In the original plans for the invasion of Japan, we wanted nine atomic bombs for three attacks”.
Just prior to Hiroshima the Pentagon had less than half a dozen A-bombs, however.
Photograph of a mock-up of the Little Boy nuclear weapon dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in August 1945. This was the first photograph of the Little Boy bomb casing to ever be released by the U.S. government (it was declassified in 1960). (Source: Public Domain)
The world’s first nuclear attack was unleashed at 8.15am local time in Hiroshima, on 6 August 1945, as a 15 kiloton bomb hurtled through the air when released from a B-29 aircraft. After falling for 44 seconds, the “Little Boy” atomic weapon detonated directly over Shima Hospital in Hiroshima’s city centre, instantly turning into ashes all of its doctors, nurses and patients. In the surrounding landscape, dozens of further hospitals, schools and historical buildings were razed to the ground.
Tens of thousands were killed immediately as ground temperatures momentarily soared from between 3,000 to 4,000 degrees Celsius. Of those people situated within two kilometres of the bomb detonation point, 112,000 would be dead within a year (10 August 1946).
Further thousands were also killed from radiation poisoning and severe burns, among those present in the hundreds of metres beyond the two kilometre radius mark. The majority of the dead and dying were civilians, men too old or sick to serve in the armed forces, along with large numbers of women and children.
Hiroshima’s vital arms and manufacturing complexes, scattered along the city’s periphery, were completely undamaged. These plants accounted for 74% of her total industrial output. Unscathed too was Hiroshima’s crucial port and military embarkation point on the Ota Delta. Almost 95% of Hiroshima’s factory workers were unhurt following the explosion.
On hearing of the atomic blast a few hours afterwards, president Harry Truman heralded it as “the greatest thing in history” and “an overwhelming success”.
Three days later, 9 August, Nagasaki was attacked at 11.02am local time with a more sophisticated 21 kiloton bomb – which was released over the city’s educational, cultural and religious heartland. As with Hiroshima, the Nagasaki bombing left unharmed most of the city’s war-making industries.
A mockup of the Fat Man nuclear device. (Source: Public Domain)
This “Fat Man” bomb killed further tens of thousands; including many hundreds of schoolchildren, along with destroying the city’s main hospitals, cathedrals, temples and schools. Medical facilities in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were decimated, adding significantly to the death tolls.
Echoing Washington’s support for atomic assaults were the Western media, almost without exception. Of 595 newspaper editorials written regarding the nuclear explosions from early August until late December 1945, less than 2% opposed the attacks which would kill more than 200,000 people.
The press also firmly supported the firestorming of both German and Japanese cities, in actuality they had “demanded more bombing of civilian targets”, even criticizing air strikes over military and industrial zones. For example, New York’s Time magazine praised the annihilation of Tokyo, which left around 100,000 dead, as “a dream come true… properly kindled, Japanese cities will burn like autumn leaves”.
Elsewhere, although Japan’s hard-line militarists proposed fighting to the last man, their political leaders were compelled to announce surrender on 15 August 1945, when threatened with further atomic attacks. General Leslie Groves, directing America’s A-bomb project, informed General Marshall on 10 August 1945 that another Nagasaki-type plutonium weapon would be “on the target” and available for use “after 24 August 1945”.
The USSR’s declaration of war on Japan during the evening of 8 August 1945 also influenced Tokyo’s capitulation; with the Red Army, in the following days, cutting through Japan’s elite armies across Manchuria like a hot knife through butter. Another factor was the American guarantee, relayed on 11 August 1945, that Emperor Hirohito – a God-like entity in Japan – could continue in his role following the surrender, though he would have no real power.
Just after the first atomic attack Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary, Hisatsune Sakomizu, estimated that his country could hold out for another two months at most: to October 1945. Japan had long been beaten in the air, as too at sea, while her imports of crude oil, rubber and iron ore ceased to exist. Japanese forces were driven from Burma and throughout the Pacific territories.
In addition, according to high ranking figures like Admirals Chester Nimitz (Pacific Fleet Commander) and William Leahy (Truman’s Chief of Staff), the ongoing, crippling blockade of Japan by sea, coupled with conventional air attacks, would induce their surrender within weeks, making any US land invasion or atomic bombings unnecessary. The A-bombs were in reality dropped as a warning signal to the Soviet Union, America’s new and long-term enemy as highlighted by General Groves in March 1944.
Through non-nuclear bombing, the destruction of dozens of Japan’s metropolitan areas was overseen by Major General Curtis LeMay, who implemented increasingly murderous tactics. It should be remembered, however, that Japan’s army apparatus was particularly sadistic and brutal, committing atrocities predating World War II.
Yet it was Japanese civilians which bore the brunt of America’s military might. On 30 May 1945, LeMay openly boasted at a press conference that US air strikes had killed a million Japanese or more.
By the summer of 1945, over nine million of Japan’s citizens were left homeless, most fleeing to green areas. Just prior to the atomic explosions, 969 Japanese hospitals had also been destroyed by American airplanes.
Almost four years previously, Japan’s seemingly “unprovoked and dastardly attack” on the US naval base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii – as president Franklin D. Roosevelt described it – was based on what were in fact well-grounded fears. For five months preceding Japan’s raid on 7 December 1941, Washington had been moving her B-17 heavy bombers in growing numbers to US bases in the Pacific, such as at Pearl Harbor, and also to Clark Air Base and Del Monte Airfield in the Philippines.
From mid-1941, half of America’s big bombers were shifted from the Atlantic domain towards eastern horizons, something that Japanese strategists were only too aware of.
The reasoning behind this military build up had been outlined in late 1940, by America’s famed pre-war planner and Air Force General, Claire Chennault, who outlined how the B-17s would “burn out the industrial heart of the Empire with fire-bomb attacks on the teeming bamboo ant heaps of Honshu and Kyushu”. President Roosevelt was “simply delighted” when hearing of this plan.
Notwithstanding Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, America would have shortly entered the war regardless – and in opposition to Tokyo – as both states by 1941 were already major rivals with incompatible ambitions in the great Asian and Pacific regions. On 15 November 1941, three weeks before Pearl Harbor, General Marshall told reporters in an “off-the-record briefing” that American aircraft would “set the paper cities of Japan on fire. There won’t be any hesitation about bombing civilians”.
A year before, on 19 December 1940, Roosevelt approved $25 million in military aid to China, Japan’s traditional nemesis, including the gift of aircraft. Twenty-five million dollars in 1940 equates to nearly half a billion dollars today. On 11 March 1941, America’s president signed into law the Lend-Lease Act, a program providing further materiel to the Chinese – and also to other nations like Britain, the Soviet Union and France, all of which were far from benevolent towards Imperial Japan.
For many months, Roosevelt had placed sanctions and an embargo on Japan, such as in response to Tokyo’s September 1940 occupation of Northern French Indochina, which harmed US interests in the vicinity.
On 26 July 1941 Roosevelt froze the entirety of Japanese assets in America, a drastic policy which amounted to a declaration of economic war on Japan, over four months before Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt’s action stripped Japan of a staggering 90% of its oil imports, along with eradicating 75% of her foreign trade.
Within days, the Japanese were forced to dip into their scant oil reserves, which on their current course would be used up by January 1943, unless her armies embarked upon further invasions.
In equal enemy numbers, there were few who could live with the ferocity of the Japanese soldier, who gained notoriety for his cruelty. Tokyo’s war planners turned their hungry gaze to yet more tantalizing conquests, lining up the resource-rich states of Burma, the Philippines, Malaya, Singapore and the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), each of which would be conquered during the first half of 1942.
As the war advanced and tables slowly turned, the Western allies’ terror bombing of civilian areas – not only ranking as war crimes – also stood as a dismal failure in its bid to bring the conflict to swift conclusion. These morally bereft strategies, of which nobody was made accountable, actually prolonged World War II. The long-held idea that blood-drenched air raids would smash the people’s morale, forcing them to revolt against their leaders, was pure fantasy.
In the summer of 1945, Japanese civilians were more interested in laying their hands upon foodstuffs, with the nation gradually starving due to America’s naval blockade. What’s more, any attempt at rebellion would promptly be eliminated by Japan’s military police, the dreaded Kenpeitai.
Western leaders failed to discern the lessons of Germany’s early 1940s Blitz of Britain, which served to strengthen the British public’s morale, not weaken it. This reality soon became clear to Wehrmacht hierarchy; but not so it seems to leaders like Winston Churchill, who was advocating the senseless obliteration of medieval cities like Dresden as late as February 1945.
Targeting women and children with bombs left the German and Japanese war machines largely unmolested. The Nazis’ armaments minister, Albert Speer, was at times left dumbfounded by Allied air tactics over Germany, which often avoided the Reich’s industrial areas.
Across 1944 Speer, much to Hitler’s delight and amazement, actually oversaw an increase in both German aircraft and panzer production, which made possible such attacks as the Ardennes Offensive of December 1944.
The realities behind air bombing escaped the attention of others like LeMay, and his English counterpart Arthur “Bomber” Harris. After it was all over, Harris admitted in his memoirs that the stratagem underlying assaults over urban locations “proved to be wholly unsound”; and that the Allied leaders should have earlier directed their pilots more frequently towards bombardment of factories, communication signals and transportation lines, which would have finished off Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan before 1945.
While LeMay was speaking about the mass deaths of Japanese, which also destroyed more than 3.5 million homes, he did not mention that in mid-1945 much of Japan’s infrastructure still lay untouched; such as the country’s crucially important coal ferry between Hokkaido and Honshu while, incredibly, the rail network remained intact through to August 1945; as too did several industrial zones which LeMay’s B-29s roamed obliviously past.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Charred remains of Japanese civilians after the firebombing of Tokyo on the night of 9–10 March 1945.
[We repost this article by Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay in commemoration of the 79th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. First published by GR on August 8, 2010]
“We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark…. This weapon is to be used against Japan … [We] will use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. … The target will be a purely military one… It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.” (Harry S. Truman (1884-1972), 33rd U.S. President, (Diary, July 25, 1945)
“The World will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.” (Harry S. Truman (1884-1972), 33rd U.S. President, (radio speech to the Nation, August 9, 1945)
“.. In [July] 1945… Secretary of War [Henry L.] Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …The Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent. …During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.
It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude.” (General Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and 34th U.S. President from 1952 to 1960, (Mandate For Change, p. 380)
“Mechanized civilization has just reached the ultimate stage of barbarism. In a near future, we will have to choose between mass suicide and intelligent use of scientific conquests […] This can no longer be simply a prayer; it must become an order which goes upward from the peoples to the governments, an order to make a definitive choice between hell and reason.” (Albert Camus (1913-1960), French philosopher and author, August 8, 1945)
“As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one’s judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible.”(The American Federal Council of Churches‘ Report on Atomic Warfare and the Christian Faith, 1946)
“It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. ” – “The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.” (William Leahy, Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman (“I Was There”, p. 441)
“Completely in charge in their marble homes and granite banks from which they rob the people of the world under the pretence of bringing them culture, Watch out, for … they’ll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces.”(Jean Paul Marat (1743-1793), Swiss-born scientist and physician and actor in the French Revolution)
***
When U.S. President Harry S. Truman decided on his own to use the atom bomb, a barbarous weapon of mass destruction, against the Japanese civilian populations of the cities of Hiroshima and of Nagasaki on August 6 and on August 9, 1945, the United States sided officially on the wrong side of history. General Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and 34th U.S. President from 1952 to 1960, said it in so many words: “…the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” (Newsweek, November 11, 1963). Between 90,000 and 120,000 people died in Hiroshima and between 60,000 and 80,000 died in Nagasaki, for a grand total of between 150,000 and 200,000 most cruel deaths.
It seems that military man Eisenhower was more ethical than Freemason small-town politician Harry S. Truman regarding the fateful decision.
In being the first country to use nuclear weapons against civilian populations, the United States was then in direct violation of internationally accepted principles of war with respect to the wholesale and indiscriminate destruction of populations. Thus, August 1945 is a most dangerous and ominous precedent that marked a new dismal beginning in the history of humanity, a big moral step backward.
In future generations, it most certainly will be considered that the use of the atom bomb against the Japanese civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a historic crime against humanity that will stain the reputation of the United States for centuries to come. It can also be said that President Harry S. Truman, besides lying to the American people about the whole sordid affair (see official quotes above), has left behind him a terrible moral legacy of incalculable consequences to future generations of Americans.
Many self-serving reasons have been advanced for justifying Truman’s decision, such as the objective of saving the lives of American soldiers by shortening the war in the Pacific and avoiding a military invasion of Japan with a quick Japanese surrender. That surrender came on August 15, 1945 and it was made official on September 2 with the signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, nearly one month after the bombing of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nazi Germany had capitulated on May 8, 1945 and World War II was already over in Europe. There was also the diplomatic fear that the Soviet Red Army could have invaded Japan, as they had done in Berlin, thus depriving the United States of a hard fought clear-cut victory against Japan.
But by the end of July 1945, according to military experts, the Japanese military apparatus had de facto been defeated. It is also true that the militarist Japanese Supreme Council for the Direction of the War was stalling with the aim of getting better capitulation terms hoping for a negotiated settlement, especially regarding the future role of their Emperor Hirohito as formal head of state.
In Europe, the allies had caused a recalcitrant Nazi Germany to accept an unconditional surrender and there were other military means to force the Japanese government to surrender. The convenient pretext of rushing a surrender carries no weight compared to the enormity of using the nuclear weapon on two civilian targets. And even if President Truman was anxious to demonstrate the power of the atom bomb and impress his Soviet friends—and possibly also assert himself as a political figure vis-à-vis previous President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had died a few months earlier, on April 12, 1945—this could have been done while targeting remote Japanese military targets, not on targeting entire cities. It seems that there were no moral considerations in this most inhuman decision.
Since that fateful month of August 1945, humanity has embarked upon a disastrous nuclear arms race and is rushing toward oblivion with its eyes open and its mind closed.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The book “The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles”, by Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay, prefaced by Dr. Paul Kurtz, has just been released by Prometheus Books.
August 7th, 2024 by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) is outraged by reports that Canada’s Ambassador to Japan will be boycotting Friday’s memorial service for the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki over the fact that Israel was not invited. The City of Nagasaki had declined to invite the Israeli Ambassador, whose government is involved in the mass killing of civilians in Gaza. CJPME agrees that the presence of Israel, whose current Ministers have called for dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza, would be completely inappropriate, and condemns Canada for this deeply offensive diplomatic statement.
“We condemn this grotesque political stunt by Canada. Boycotting the Nagasaki memorial service to protest the exclusion of Israel, a state which is actively committing genocide, is incredibly disrespectful to the civilian victims of mass killing in both Japan and Gaza,” said Michael Bueckert, Vice President of CJPME. “It is absurd that Canada is standing up for Israel’s right to attend a memorial ceremony for the victims of the United States’ nuclear bomb on Nagasaki, while its ministers casually call for dropping the same weapons on civilians in Gaza. Canada is demonstrating that its priority is not a ceasefire but defending the sensibilities and reputation of a genocidal regime,” Bueckert added.
The Associated Press reports that Canada will be joining other Western countries including France, Germany, Italy, the UK, the EU, and the US in sending a political statement to Nagasaki by refusing to send Ambassadors to the event and will only send “lower-ranking envoys.” The countries reportedly signed a joint letter complaining that Israel was being treated similarly to Russia and Belarus, who were also not invited, and urged Nagasaki to reverse its decision and invite Israel.
Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza has killed nearly 40,000 people since October 7, including over 15,000 children, with thousands more missing and presumed dead under the rubble. According to an article in the Lancet, the total number of Palestinians killed by the war through both direct and indirect means is conservatively estimated at 186,000 people. Israel’s Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu has proposed dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza as an option, as have other members of the government, while other Ministers have made similar genocidal statements.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Not long ago a couple of publishers asked about my memoirs. I told them I had no interest. Memoirs are an enormous undertaking, especially when your files haven’t been organized for the purpose.
Moreover, many of mine have been discarded in moves. When you have lived as long as I have and been involved in so many major issues, files are a voluminous collection. Moreover, I have always had a jaundiced eye toward memoirs, being unsure whether they are an exercise in egotism.
In past times I think memoirs, even if they were attempts to control the narrative, something done for us today by the CIA and woke media and universities, still made information available that otherwise would have died with the person. I find this a bit sobering as there is a great deal of information that is going to die with me.
Despite all the winnowing of my files, I still have 25 crates that if I did nothing else for one year I might get through. To organize the information, I would need at least two assistants. I have barely touched the crates, and already I have found important matters long forgotten.
In 2004 NY Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer and I opened a New Year with a jointly authored column in the New York Times. We raised the offshoring issue. American manufacturing jobs and the tech jobs of American professionals were being sent to Asia. We posed the question that if jobs offshoring was free trade, as economists claimed, was free trade any longer in America’s interest? My position was that jobs offshoring is a contradiction of free trade–more later–and Schumer was still in his idealistic period when he was concerned about the displacement of American labor by foreign labor in the production of goods and services that Americans consumed.
Our article caused a firestorm. The Brookings Institution in Washington called a conference and asked us to come and defend our position. C-Span broadcast the conference live and rebroadcast it a number of times. Schumer and I carried the day.
Delighted with the publicity, Schumer suggested a follow-up article. The NY Times was eager. We began a draft, and then it went cold. My explanation is that Wall Street, which was committed to jobs offshoring, got to Schumer and explained campaign contributions to him.
I continued on. Conservatives, free market economists, and libertarians, who are indoctrinated with free trade, but who do not comprehend the theory, called me a heretic. Nevertheless, both the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post were intrigued that the “most ardent” of the “Reagan policymakers” had taken a position against the policy that Wall Street was imposing on the country.
The Wall Street Journal assigned Timothy Aeppel to arrange a series of debates to be published in the Wall Street Journal between me and Columbia University Professor Jagdish Bhagwati. The question was: Is jobs offshoring really free trade?
Adam Smith and David Ricardo’s theory of free trade rests on the principle of comparative advantage. What this means is that a country’s capital remains employed at home and is employed in areas in which the capital is best used. If all countries do this, there are gains from trade, and all countries will be better off than if they are self-sufficient. I have wondered if the free trade theory was used as a stratagem to repeal the British Corn Laws and reduce the income and power of the landed aristocracy.
Both Smith and Ricardo made it completely clear that if a country’s capital left the country, it was pursuing absolute advantage, not comparative advantage, and free trade theory is vitiated. This is the point I made. Without comparative advantage, there is no case for free trade.
The Wall Street Journal wasn’t the only media institution interested in the facts. So was the Washington Post. The Washington Post assigned their economics editor Paul Blustein to interview me and my critics and to do a news report. Blustein interviewed me at least three times prior to writing his story. Keep in mind that Blustein had been a critic during my Treasury days with the Reagan administration. Nevertheless, after giving my critics their say, Blustein wrote:
“Still, mainstream economists can’t answer a key question that Roberts raises, which is how the U.S. economy can generate better employment opportunities to replace the white-collar jobs that are suddenly vanishing.
“Roberts recently got some support for his argument from a heavyweight academic economist, William J. Baumol . . . a past president of the American Economic Association and a book he published with Ralph E. Gomery, [a distinguished mathematician] that pokes some holes in economic orthodoxy by showing that free trade will not necessarily provide mutual gains to countries.”
Today this exchange of ideas in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post and the honest appraisal of one’s opponents is not possible. I am banned from the Wall Street Journal, a newspaper I used to edit. I am banned from the Washington Post for which I was a contributor. I am banned from the NY Times which used to call me and ask me to write on current issues. I am banned from the newspapers of the Scripps Howard News Service. I am banned from the San Diego Union, the San Francisco Examiner, and the Los Angeles Times for which I was a regular contributor.
There is no debate. There are narratives, and the narratives are imposed. Journalism as an occupation no longer exists. Today the struggle is not to get at the heart of an issue, but to have one’s agenda prevail.
In 2013 I returned to the issue of offshoring production for the home market in my book The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism. In the decade since Schumer and I had published our article, the US had lost 54,000 factories. The number of factories employing 1,000 or more declined by 40%. Those employing 500-1,000 declined by 44%. Those employing 250-500 declined by 37%. Factories employing 100-250 declined by 30%. The losses are net of new start ups. The US manufacturing work force shrank by 5,000,000 employees.
In the first decade of the 21st century the population of Detroit, Michigan, declined by 25%. Gary, Indiana, lost 22% of its population. Flint, Michigan lost 18%. Cleveland, Ohio, lost 17%. St Louis, Missouri, lost 20%. Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, South Bend Indiana, and Rochester New York also lost population. These cities were once the home of American manufacturing and industrial might.
Wherever the alleged “gains of trade” might have occurred, it wasn’t in these cities.
The Democrats’ open borders policy might be replenishing these cities’ populations, but the jobs are not there to support them.
There is another reason jobs offshoring did not produce for Americans any gains from trade. When the goods and services produced abroad are brought back into the US to be marketed, they come in as imports. Thus the trade deficit widens, which means the US incurs more foreign debt. Is the growth in debt caused by jobs offshoring covered by gains from trade?
The US has not been governed in a thoughtful way for three decades. The folly will exact a large price.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
“I’m a Barbie Girl, in Barbie World
Life in Plastic, It’s Fantastic
Now I’ve Got Melanoma
Anal blastoma
Going Into Coma
Life in Plastic
It’s Fantastic”
– Aqua, ‘Barbie Girl,’ Armageddon Prose Remix
It seems to me that perhaps most of us mere mortals (perhaps not in this audience, but in the general population) haven’t yet begun to appreciate the massive public health threat that ubiquitous plastic poses — in the air, in the water, in the food, in the condoms, anything and everything — the greatest single ongoing environmental catastrophe on Earth, hands down.
In Thailand, street vendors will drop watermelon or mango or whatever in a plastic bag and then put the plastic bag in another plastic bag for some reason that I could never understand. I asked one or two locals the haunting question why —but, in typical Thai fashion, never got a straight answer.
Something about convenience and keeping up appearances, as only the highly-regarded fruit vendors triple-bag everything.
“Plastics make it possible!” (Sponsored by the America Plastics Council)
Let’s not let a little cancer, a few million strokes, wrecked endocrine systems, thyroid destruction, and autoimmunity get in the way of Progress™.
“Melamine foam sponges used to clean households worldwide release trillions of microplastics each month, a new study has warned.
These sponges, known for their ability to remove even stubborn stains effortlessly, rely on their distinctive abrasive properties.
However, a new study published in the Environmental Science & Technology journal, estimates that fibres from these cleaning products release trillions of toxic microplastic particles globally each month, potentially impacting human health.
The sponges are made of a plastic polymer assembled into a soft, lightweight abrasive foam, making it ideal for making scrubby cleaning products.
But as they wear away with use, the foam breaks down into smaller pieces, releasing microplastic fibres (MPF) into sewer systems with each wash.
These toxic microplastics may be consumed by wildlife, making their way back to humans via the food chain.
They have been linked to several health complications in humans, including immune and endocrine system disruptions, as well as several types of cancers.”
“Doctors have warned of potentially life-threatening effects of plastic pollution after finding a substantially elevated risk of stroke, heart attack and early death in people whose blood vessels were contaminated with microplastics.
Researchers in Naples examined fatty plaques removed from the blood vessels of patients with arterial disease and found that more than half had deposits contaminated with tiny particles of polyethylene or polyvinyl chloride (PVC)…
Those whose plaques contained microplastics were nearly five times more likely to suffer a stroke, heart attack or death from any cause over the following 34 months, compared with those whose plaques were free from plastic contamination.”
“Several brands of condoms and lubricants contain alarming levels of toxic PFAS “forever chemicals”, including styles of Trojan and K-Y Jelly, new research finds.
The testing conducted by the Mamavation consumer advocacy blog comes just as researchers found human skin absorbs the chemicals at much higher levels than previously thought…
PFAS are a class of about 15,000 chemicals often used to make products resistant to water, stains and heat. They are called “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down, and are linked to cancer, liver problems, thyroid issues, birth defects, kidney disease, decreased immunity and other serious health problems.
PFAS are also considered to be reproductive toxicants and endocrine disruptors linked to low birth weight, reduced sperm counts, pregnancy-induced high blood pressure, infertility and shorter duration of breastfeeding.”
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Armageddon Prose.
Ben Bartee, author of Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile, is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. Follow his stuff via Substack. Also, keep tabs via Twitter.
Numerous US nuclear war plans have been formulated from the outset, leading up to the 1956 Strategic Air Command SAC Atomic Weapons Requirements Study (declassified in December 2015) which consisted in targeting 1200 urban areas in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China.
Former Secretary of the Security Council and incumbent Presidential Aide Nikolay Patrushev shared some updates about the US’ naval strategy in his interview for Rossiyskaya Gazeta last week. He said that it’s called “Sea Superiority”, which is self-explanatory, but he added that it also implies integrating the US Navy with its regional satellites’ in order to contain the Russian and Chinese Navies.
Jews are not a monolith. There are plenty of Jews who abhor the racism and violence of the Zionist faction of Jewry. Yet, many uninformed people consider Zionism to express the ethos of Jewishness.
When Banglabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, the first President of Bangladesh, also called the Father of the Nation and revered by millions as such, was assassinated on August 15, 1975 as a part of the wider efforts to overthrow his popular government, there were several aspects of this murder most foul which hadshocked the world.
Pope Francis finally broke his silence and joined these voices on August 3, eight days after the episode. It seems this took some convincing, with reports that the bishop of Rome only did so after talks with… Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, of all people. This is impressive in itself and merits some analysis.
Several Hezbollah drones struck Israeli military sites near the city of Nahariya, north of Acre, on 6 August, just a few hours after several people were killed in an Israeli drone strike on southern Lebanon.
Following the latest orders from the International Court of Justice that Israel halt its military offensive in Rafah, some claimed that while the orders of the Court are of course binding, there’s “no enforcement mechanism.” The Court’s orders were of course the result of South Africa’s invoking the Genocide Convention against Israel and its repeated requests for additional orders from the ICJ.
Fidel Castro was both an incisive analyst as well a powerful voice against nuclear weapons.
In the light of recent developments in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, we bring to the attention of our readers Fidel’s powerful October 15, 2010 statement on the dangers of nuclear war,
Today, the dangers of military escalation in both the Middle East and Eastern Europe are beyond description.
“In a nuclear war the collateral damage would be the life of all humanity”
Israel is a nuclear power.
Let’s be under no illusions. The use of nuclear weapons by Israel in response to Iran’s attack is being discussed behind closed doors both in Tel Aviv and in Washington. That does not mean that it is going to be implemented.
Fidel Castro’s Message to the World against Nuclear War. Calling for World Peace
“The conventional war would be lost by the US and the nuclear war is no alternative for anyone. On the other hand, nuclear war would inevitably become global”
“I think nobody on Earth wishes the human species to disappear.
And that is the reason why I am of the opinion that what should disappear are not just nuclear weapons, but also conventional weapons. We must provide a guarantee for peace to all peoples without distinction
“In a nuclear war the collateral damage would be the life of all humanity. Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!”
“It is about demanding that the world is not led into a nuclear catastrophe, it is to preserve life.”
This interview was recorded at Fidel Castro’s home in Havana by Cuba Debate and Global Research on October 15, 2010
TRANSCRIPT
The use of nuclear weapons in a new war would mean the end of humanity. This was candidly foreseen by scientist Albert Einstein who was able to measure their destructive capability to generate millions of degrees of heat, which would vaporize everything within a wide radius of action. This brilliant researcher had promoted the development of this weapon so that it would not become available to the genocidal Nazi regime.
Each and every government in the world has the obligation to respect the right to life of each and every nation and of the totality of all the peoples on the planet.
Today there is an imminent risk of war with the use of that kind of weapon and I don’t harbour the least doubt that an attack by the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran would inevitably evolve towards a global nuclear conflict.
The World’s peoples have an obligation to demand of their political leaders their Right to Live. When the life of humankind, of your people and your most beloved human beings run such a risk, nobody can afford to be indifferent; not one minute can be lost in demanding respect for that right; tomorrow will be too late.
Albert Einstein himself stated unmistakably: “I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones”. We fully comprehend what he wanted to convey, and he was absolutely right, yet in the wake of a global nuclear war, there wouldn’t be anybody around to make use of those sticks and stones.
There would be “collateral damage”, as the American political and military leaders always affirm, to justify the deaths of innocent people.
In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity.
Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!
Fidel Castro Ruz, October 15, 2010
The Legacy of Fidel Castro Lives
Michel Chossudovsky, April 18, 2024
***
From October 12 to 15, 2010, I had extensive and detailed discussions with Fidel Castro at his home in Havana, pertaining to the dangers of nuclear war, the global economic crisis and the nature of the New World Order. These meetings resulted in a wide-ranging and fruitful interview.
The first part of this interview published by Global Research and Cuba Debate focuses on the dangers of nuclear war.
The World is at a dangerous crossroads. We have reached a critical turning point in our history.
This interview with Fidel Castro provides an understanding of the nature of modern warfare: Were a military operation to be launched against the Islamic Republic of Iran, the US and its allies would be unable to win a conventional war, with the possibility that this war could evolve towards a nuclear war.
The details of ongoing war preparations in relation to Iran have been withheld from the public eye.
How to confront the diabolical and absurd proposition put forth by the US administration that using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran will “make the World a safer place”?
A central concept put forth by Fidel Castro in the interview is the ”Battle of Ideas”.
The leader of the Cuban Revolution believes that only a far-reaching “Battle of Ideas” could change the course of World history. The objective is to prevent the unthinkable, a nuclear war which threatens to destroy life on planet earth.
The corporate media is involved in acts of camouflage. The devastating impacts of a nuclear war are either trivialized or not mentioned. Against this backdrop, Fidel’s message to the World must be heard; people across the land, nationally and internationally, should understand the gravity of the present situation and act forcefully at all levels of society to reverse the tide of war.
The “Battle of Ideas” is part of a revolutionary process. Against a barrage of media disinformation, Fidel Castro’s resolve is to spread the word far and wide, to inform world public opinion, to “make the impossible possible”, to thwart a military adventure which in the real sense of the word threatens the future of humanity.
When a US sponsored nuclear war becomes an “instrument of peace”, condoned and accepted by the World’s institutions and the highest authority including the United Nations, there is no turning back: human society has indelibly been precipitated headlong onto the path of self-destruction.
Fidel’s “Battle of Ideas” must be translated into a worldwide movement. People must mobilize against this diabolical military agenda.
This war can be prevented if people pressure their governments and elected representatives, organize at the local level in towns, villages and municipalities, spread the word, inform their fellow citizens regarding the implications of a thermonuclear war, initiate debate and discussion within the armed forces.
What is required is a mass movement of people which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of war, a global people’s movement which criminalizes war.
In his October 15, 2010 message (see video below), Fidel Castro warned the World on the dangers of nuclear war:
“There would be “collateral damage”, as the American political and military leaders always affirm, to justify the deaths of innocent people. In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity. Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!”
The “Battle of Ideas” consists in confronting the war criminals in high office, in breaking the US-led consensus in favor of a global war, in changing the mindset of hundreds of millions of people, in abolishing nuclear weapons. In essence, the “Battle of Ideas” consists in restoring the truth and establishing the foundations of World peace.
The interview was conducted in Spanish. It was translated into English by Global Research and Cuba Debate.
The original Spanish version as well as translation into English were published by Cuba Debate and Global Research.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, November 2010
Conversations on the Dangers of Nuclear War. 11-15 October 2011
Professor Michel Chossudovsky: I am very honored to have this opportunity to exchange views concerning several fundamental issues affecting human society as a whole. I think that the notion that you have raised in your recent texts regarding the threat against Homo sapiens is fundamental.
What is that threat, the risk of a nuclear war and the threat to human beings, to Homo sapiens?
Commander in Chief Fidel Castro Ruz: Since quite a long time –years I would say- but especially for some months now, I began to worry about the imminence of a dangerous and probable war that could very rapidly evolve towards a nuclear war.
Before that I had concentrated all my efforts on the analysis of the capitalist system in general and the methods that the imperial tyranny has imposed on humanity. The United States applies to the world the violation of the most fundamental rights.
During the Cold War, no one spoke about war or nuclear weapons; people talked about an apparent peace, that is, between the USSR and the United States, the famous MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) was guaranteed. It seemed that the world was going to enjoy the delights of a peace that would last for an unlimited time.
Notice the Book by Bob Woodward entitled Obama’s Wars. Fidel had ordered a copy when it was launched, delivered to him in the UN diplomatic pouch. He had read it cover to cover when I met up with him on October 12, 2010
Michel Chossudovsky: … This notion of “mutual assured destruction” ended with the Cold War and after that the nuclear doctrine was redefined, because we never really thought about a nuclear war during the Cold War. Well, obviously, there was a danger –as even Robert McNamara said at some point in time.
But, after the Cold War, particularly after September 11 [2001], America’s nuclear doctrine started to be redefined.
Fidel Castro Ruz: You asked me when was it that we became aware of the imminent risk of a nuclear war, and that dates back to the period I talked to you about previously, barely six months ago. One of the things that called our attention the most regarding such a war danger was the sinking of the Cheonan during a military maneuver. That was the flagship of the South Korean Navy; an extremely sophisticated vessel. It was at the time when we found on Global Research the journalist’s report that offered a clear and truly coherent information about the sinking of the Cheonan, which could not have been the work of a submarine that had been manufactured by the USSR more than sixty years ago, using an outdated technology which did not require the sophisticated equipment that could be detected by the Cheonan, during a joint maneuver with the most modern US vessels.
The provocation against the Democratic Republic of Korea added up to our own earlier concerns about an aggression against Iran. We had been closely following the political process in that country. We knew perfectly well what happened there during the 1950s, when Iran nationalized the assets of the British Petroleum in that country- which at the time was called the Anglo Persian Oil Company.
In my opinion, the threats against Iran became imminent in June [2010], after the adoption of Resolution 1929 on the 9th of June, 2010, when the United Nations Security Council condemned Iran for the research it is carrying out and the production of small amounts of 20 per cent enriched uranium, and accused it of being a threat to the world. The position adopted by each and every member of the Security Council is known: 12 member States voted in favor –five of them had the right to veto; one of them abstained and 2 –Brazil and Turkey- voted against. Shortly after the Resolution was adopted –the most aggressive resolution of of them all– one US aircraft carrier, embedded in a combat unit, plus a nuclear submarine, went through the Suez Canal with the help of the Egyptian government. Naval units from Israel joined, heading for the Persian Gulf and the seas nearby Iran.
The sanctions imposed by the United States and its NATO allies against Iran was absolutely abusive and unjust. I cannot understand the reason why Russia and China did not veto the dangerous Resolution 1929 of the United Nations Security Council. In my opinion this has complicated the political situation terribly and has placed the world on the brink of war.
I remember previous Israeli attacks against the Arab nuclear research centers. They first attacked and destroyed the one in Iraq in June 1981. They did not ask for anyone’s permission, they did not talk to anybody; they just attacked them and the Iraqis had to endure the strikes.
In 2007 they repeated that same operation against a research center that was being built by Syria. There is something in that episode that I really don’t quite understand: what was not clear to me were the underlying tactics, or the reasons why Syria did not denounce the Israeli attack against that research center where, undoubtedly, they were doing something, they were working on something for which, as it is known, they were receiving some cooperation from North Korea. That was something legal; they did not commit any violation.
I am saying this here and I am being very honest: I don’t understand why this was not denounced, because, in my opinion, that would have been important. Those are two very important antecedents.
I believe there are many reasons to think that they will try to do the same against Iran: destroy its research centers or the power generation centers of that country. As is known, the power generation uranium residues are the raw material to produce plutonium.
Michel Chossudovsky: It is true that that Security Council Resolution has to some extent contributed to cancelling the program of military cooperation that Russia and China have with Iran, especially Russia cooperates with Iran in the context of the Air Defence System by supplying its S-300 System.
I remember that just after the Security Council’s decision, with the endorsement of China and Russia, the Russian minister of Foreign Affairs said: “Well, we have approved the Resolution but that is not going to invalidate our military cooperation with Iran”. That was in June. But a few months later, Moscow confirmed that military cooperation [with Iran] was going to be frozen, so now Iran is facing a very serious situation, because it needs Russian technology to maintain its security, namely its [S-300] air defence system.
But I think that all the threats against Russia and China are intent upon preventing the two countries from getting involved in the Iran issue. In other words, if there is a war with Iran the other powers, which are China and Russia, aren’t going to intervene in any way; they will be freezing their military cooperation with Iran and therefore this is a way [for the US and NATO] of extending their war in the Middle East without there being a confrontation with China and Russia and I think that this more or less is the scenario right now.
There are many types of threats directed against Russia and China. The fact that China’s borders are militarized –China’s South Sea, the Yellow Sea, the border with Afghanistan, and also the Straits of Taiwan- it is in some way a threat to dissuade China and Russia from playing the role of powers in world geopolitics, thus paving the way and even creating consensus in favour of a war with Iran which is happening under conditions where Iran’s air defence system is being weakened. [With the freeze of its military cooperation agreement with Russia] Iran is a “sitting duck” from the point of view of its ability to defend itself using its air defence system.
Fidel Castro Ruz: In my modest and serene opinion that resolution should have been vetoed. Because, in my opinion, everything has become more complicated in several ways.
Militarily, because of what you are explaining regarding, for example, the commitment that existed and the contract that had been signed to supply Iran with the [Russian] S-300, which are very efficient anti-aircraft weapons in the first place.
There are other things regarding fuel supplies, which are very important for China, because China is the country with the highest economic growth. Its growing economy generates greater demand for oil and gas. Even though there are agreements with Russia for oil and gas supplies, they are also developing wind energy and other forms of renewable energy. They have enormous coal reserves; nuclear energy will not increase much, only 5% for many years. In other words, the need for gas and oil in the Chinese economy is huge, and I cannot imagine, really, how they will be able to get all that energy, and at what price, if the country where they have important investments is destroyed by the US. But the worst risk is the very nature of that war in Iran. Iran is a Muslim country that has millions of trained combatants who are strongly motivated.
There are tens of millions of people who are under [military] orders, they are being politically educated and trained, men and women alike. There are millions of combatants trained and determined to die. These are people who will not be intimidated and who cannot be forced to changing [their behavior]. On the other hand, there are the Afghans –they are being murdered by US drones –there are the Pakistanis, the Iraqis, who have seen one to two million compatriots die as a result of the antiterrorist war invented by Bush. You cannot win a war against the Muslim world; that is sheer madness.
Michel Chossudovsky: But it’s true, their conventional forces are very large, Iran can mobilize in a single day several million troops and they are on the border with Afghanistan and Iraq, and even if there is a blitzkrieg war, the US cannot avoid a conventional war that is waged very close to its military bases in that region.
Fidel Castro Ruz: But the fact is that the US would lose that conventional war. The problem is that nobody can win a conventional war against millions of people; they would not concentrate their forces in large numbers in a single location for the Americans to kill them.
Well, I was a guerrilla fighter and I recall that I had to think seriously about how to use the forces we had and I would never have made the mistake of concentrating those forces in a single location, because the more concentrated the forces, the greater the casualties caused by weapons of mass destruction….
From left to right: Michel Chossudovsky, Randy Alonso Falcon, Fidel Castro Ruz
Michel Chossudovsky: As you mentioned previously, a matter of utmost importance: China and Russia’s decision in the Security Council, their support of Resolution 1929, is in fact harmful to them because, first, Russia cannot export weapons, thus its main source of income is now frozen. Iran was one of the main customers or buyers of Russian weapons, and that was an important source of hard currency earnings which supported Russia`s consumer goods economy thereby covering the needs of the population.
And, on the other hand China requires access to sources of energy as you mentioned. The fact that China and Russia have accepted the consensus in the UN Security Council, is tantamount to saying: “We accept that you kill our economy and, in some ways, our commercial agreements with a third country”. That’s very serious because it [the UNSC Resolution] not only does harm to Iran; is also harms those two countries, and I suppose –even though I am not a politician –that there must be tremendous divisions within the leadership, both in Russia and in China, for that to happen, for Russia to accept not to use its veto power in the Security Council.
I spoke with Russian journalists, who told me that there wasn’t exactly a consensus within the government per se; it was a guideline. But there are people in the [Russian] government with a different point of view regarding the interests of Russia and its stance in the UN Security Council. How do you see this?
Fidel Castro Ruz: How do I see the general situation? The alternative in Iran –let me put it this way –the conventional war would be lost by the US and the nuclear war is not an alternative for anyone.
On the other hand, nuclear war would inevitably become global. Thus the danger in my opinion exists with the current situation in Iran, bearing in mind the reasons you are presenting and many other facts; which brings me to the conclusion that the war would end up being a nuclear war.
Filming of Fidel’s message on October 15.2010. From left to right: Fidel Castro, TV crew, Michel Chossudovsky, Randy Alonso Falcon
Michel Chossudovsky: In other words, since the US and its allies are unable to win the conventional war, they are going to use nuclear weapons, but that too would be a war they couldn’t win, because we are going to lose everything.
Fidel Castro Ruz: Everyone would be losing that war; that would be a war that everyone would lose. What would Russia gain if a nuclear war were unleashed over there? What would China gain? What kind of war would that be? How would the world react? What effect would it have on the world economy? You explained it at the university when you spoke about the centralized defence system designed by the Pentagon. It sounds like science fiction; it doesn’t even remotely resemble the last world war. The other thing which is also very important is the attempt [by the Pentagon] to transform nuclear weapons into conventional tactical weapons.
Today, October 13th, I was reading about the same thing in a news dispatch stating that the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were drawing up strong protests about the fact that the US had just carried out subcritical nuclear tests. They’re called subcritical, which means the use of the nuclear weapon without deploying all the energy that might be achieved with the critical mass.
It reads: “Indignation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of a United States nuclear test.”…
“The Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that suffered a nuclear attack at the end of WW II, deplored today the nuclear test carried out by the US on September last, called sub critical because it does not unleash chain nuclear reactions.
“The test, the first of this kind in that country since 2006, took place on September 15th somewhere in Nevada, United States. It was officially confirmed by the Department of Energy of that country, the Japan Times informed.”
What did that newspaper say?
“I deeply deplore it because I was hoping that President Barack Obama would take on the leadership in eliminating nuclear weapons”, the governor of Nagasaki, Hodo Nakamura, stated today at a press conference.
A series of news items related to that follows.
“The test has also caused several protests among the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including several survivors of the atomic bombs attacks that devastated both cities in August of 1945.
“We cannot tolerate any action of the United States that betrays President Barack Obama’s promise of moving forward to a world without nuclear arms, said Yukio Yoshioka, the deputy director of the Council for the Victims of the Hiroshima Atomic Bomb.
“The government stated that it has no intention of protesting.” It relegates the protest to a social level and then said: “With this, the number of subcritical nuclear tests made by the United States reaches the figure of 26, since July 1997 when the first of them took place.”
Now it says:
“Washington considers that these tests do not violate the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) since they do not unleash any chain reactions, and therefore do not release any nuclear energy, and so they can be considered to be laboratory tests.”
The US says that it has to make these tests because they are necessary to maintain the “security of its nuclear arsenal”, which is the same as saying: since we have these great nuclear arsenals, we are doing this in order to ensure our security.
Michel Chossudovsky: Let us return to the issue of the threat against Iran, because you said that the US and its allies could not win a conventional war. That is true; but nuclear weapons could be used as an alternative to conventional warfare, and this evidently is a threat against humanity, as you have emphasized in your writings.
The reason for my concern is that after the Cold War the idea of nuclear weapons with a “humanitarian face” was developed, saying that those weapons were not really dangerous, that they do not harm civilians, and in some way the nuclear weapons label was changed. Therefore, according to their criteria, [tactical] nuclear weapons are no different from conventional weapons, and now in the military manuals they say that tactical nuclear weapons are weapons that pose no harm to civilians.
Therefore, we might have a situation in which those who decide to attack Iran with a nuclear weapon would not be aware of the consequences that this might have for the Middle East, central Asia, but also for humanity as a whole, because they are going to say: “Well, according to our criteria, these [tactical] nuclear weapons [safe for civilians] are different from those deployed during the Cold War and so, we can use them against Iran as a weapon which does not [affect civilians and] does not threaten global security.”
How do you view that? It’s extremely dangerous, because they themselves believe their own propaganda. It is internal propaganda within the armed forces, within the political apparatus.
When tactical nuclear weapons were recategorized in 2002-2003, Senator Edward Kennedy said at that time that it was a way of blurring the boundary between conventional and nuclear weapons.
But that’s where we are today; we are in an era where nuclear weapons are considered to be no different from the Kalashnikov. I’m exaggerating, but somehow nuclear weapons are now part of the tool box –that’s the word they use, “tool box” –and from there you choose the type of weapon you are going to use, so the nuclear weapon could be used in the conventional war theatre, leading us to the unthinkable, a nuclear war scenario on a regional level, but also with repercussions at the global level.
Fidel Castro Ruz: I heard what you said on the Round Table [Cuban TV] program about such weapons, presumably harmless to people living in the vicinity of the areas where they are to be targeted, the power [explosive yield] could range from one-third of the one that was used in Hiroshima up to six times the power [explosive yield] of that weapon, and today we know perfectly well the terrible damage it causes. One single bomb instantly killed 100,000 people. Just imagine a bomb having six times the power of that one [Hiroshima bomb], or two times that power, or an equivalent power, or 30 per cent that power. It is absurd.
There is also what you explained at the university about the attempt to present it as a humanitarian weapon that could also be available to the troops in the theatre of operations. So at any given moment any commander in the theatre of operations could be authorized to use that weapon as one that was more efficient than other weapons, something that would be considered his duty according to military doctrine and the training he/she received at the military academies.
Michel Chossudovsky: In that sense, I don’t think that this nuclear weapon would be used without the approval, let’s say, of the Pentagon, namely its centralised command structures [e.g. Strategic Command]; but I do think that it could be used without the approval of the President of the United States and Commander in Chief. In other words, it isn’t quite the same logic as that which prevailed during the Cold War where there was the Red Telephone and…
Fidel Castro Ruz: I understand, Professor, what you are saying regarding the use of that weapon as authorized by the senior levels of the Pentagon, and it seems right to me that you should make that clarification so that you won’t be blamed for exaggerating the dangers of that weapon.
But look, after one has learned about the antagonisms and arguments between the Pentagon and the President of the United States, there are really not too many doubts about what the Pentagon decision would be if the chief of the theatre of operations requests to use that weapon because he feels it is necessary or indispensable.
Michel Chossudovsky: There is also another element. The deployment of tactical nuclear weapons now, as far as I know, is being undertaken by several European countries which belong to NATO. This is the case of Belgium, Holland, Turkey, Italy and Germany. Thus, there are plenty of these “little nuclear bombs” very close to the theatre of war, and on the other hand we also have Israel.
Now then, I don’t think that Israel is going to start a war on its own; that would be impossible in terms of strategy and decision-making. In modern warfare, with the centralization of communications, logistics and everything else, starting a major war would be a centralized decision. However, Israel might act if the US gives Israel the green light to launch the first attack. That’s within the realm of possibilities, even though there are some analysts who now say that the war on Iran will start in Lebanon and Syria with a conventional border war, and then that would provide the pretext for an escalation in military operations.
Fidel Castro Ruz: Yesterday, October 13th, a crowd of people welcomed Ahmadinejad in Lebanon like a national hero of that country. I was reading a cable about that this morning.
Besides, we also know about Israel’s concerns regarding that, given the fact that the Lebanese are people with a great fighting spirit who have three times the number of reactive missiles they had in the former conflict with Israel and Lebanon, which was a great concern for Israel because they need –as the Israeli technicians have asserted – the air force to confront that weapon. And so, they state, they could only be attacking Iran for a number of hours, not three days, because they should be paying attention to such a danger. That’s the reason why, from these viewpoints, every day that goes by they are more concerned, because those weapons are part of the Iranian arsenal of conventional weapons. For example, among their conventional weapons, they have hundreds of rocket launchers to fight surface warships in that area of the Caspian Sea. We know that, from the time of the Falklands war, a surface warship can dodge one, two or three rockets. But imagine how a large warship can protect itself against a shower of weapons of that kind. Those are rapid vessels operated by well-trained people, because the Iranians have been training people for 30 years now and they have developed efficient conventional weapons.
You yourself know that, and you know what happened during the last World War, before the emergence of nuclear weapons. Fifty million people died as a result of the destructive power of conventional weaponry.
A war today is not like the war that was waged in the nineteenth century, before the appearance of nuclear weapons. And wars were already highly destructive. Nuclear arms appeared at the very last minute, because Truman wanted to use them. He wanted to test the Hiroshima bomb, creating the critical mass from uranium, and the other one in Nagasaki, which created a critical mass from plutonium. The two bombs killed around 100,000 persons immediately. We don’t know how many were wounded and affected by radiation, who died later on or suffered for long years from these effects. Besides, a nuclear war would create a nuclear winter.
I am talking to you about the dangers of a war, considering the immediate damage it might cause. It would be enough if we only had a limited number of them, the amount of weapons owned by one of the least mighty [nuclear] powers, India or Pakistan. Their explosion would be sufficient to create a nuclear winter from which no human being would survive. That would be impossible, since it would last for 8 to 10 years. In a matter of weeks the sunlight would no longer be visible.
Mankind is less than 200,000 years old. So far everything was normalcy. The laws of nature were being fulfilled; the laws of life developed on planet Earth for more than 3 billion years. Men, the Homo sapiens, the intelligent beings did not exist after 8 tenths of a million years had elapsed, according to all studies. Two hundred years ago, everything was virtually unknown. Today we know the laws governing the evolution of the species. Scientists, theologians, even the most devout religious people who initially echoed the campaign launched by the great ecclesiastical institutions against the Darwinian Theory, today accept the laws of evolution as real, without it preventing their sincere practice of their religious beliefs where, quite often, people find comfort for their most heartfelt hardships.
I think nobody on Earth wishes the human species to disappear. And that is the reason why I am of the opinion that what should disappear are not just nuclear weapons, but also conventional weapons. We must provide a guarantee for peace to all peoples without distinction, to the Iranians as well as the Israelis. Natural resources should be distributed. They should! I don’t mean they will, or that it would be easy to do it. But there would be no other alternative for humanity, in a world of limited dimensions and resources, even if all the scientific potential to create renewable sources of energy is developed. We are almost 7 billion inhabitants, and so we need to implement a demographic policy. We need many things, and when you put them all together and you ask yourself the following question: will human beings be capable of understanding that and overcome all those difficulties? You realize that only enthusiasm can truly lead a person to say that he or she will confront and easily resolve a problem of such proportions.
Michel Chossudovsky: What you have just said is extremely important, when you spoke of Truman. Truman said that Hiroshima was a military base and that there would be no harm to civilians.
This notion of collateral damage; reflects continuity in [America’s] nuclear doctrine ever since the year 1945 up until today. That is, not at the level of reality but at the level of [military] doctrine and propaganda. I mean, in 1945 it was said: Let’s save humanity by killing 100,000 people and deny the fact that Hiroshima was a populated city, namely that it was a military base. But nowadays the falsehoods have become much more sophisticated, more widespread, and nuclear weapons are more advanced. So, we are dealing with the future of humanity and the threat of a nuclear war at a global level. The lies and fiction underlying [US] political and military discourse would lead us to a Worldwide catastrophe in which politicians would be unable to make head or tails of their own lies.
Then, you said that intelligent human beings have existed for 200,000 years, but that same intelligence, which has now been incorporated in various institutions, namely the media, the intelligence services, the United Nations, happens to be what is now going to destroy us. Because we believe our own lies, which leads us towards nuclear war, without realizing that this would be the last war, as Einstein clearly stated. A nuclear war cannot ensure the continuation of humanity; it is a threat against the world.
Fidel Castro Ruz: Those are very good words, Professor. The collateral damage, in this case, could be humanity.
War is a crime and there is no need for any new law to describe it as such, because since Nuremberg, war has already been considered a crime, the biggest crime against humanity and peace, and the most horrible of all crimes.
Michel Chossudovsky.- The Nuremberg texts clearly state: “War is a criminal act, it is the ultimate act of war against peace.” This part of the Nuremberg texts is often quoted. After the Second World War, the Allies wanted to use it against the conquered, and I am not saying that this is not valid, but the crimes that they committed, including the crimes committed against Germany and Japan, are never mentioned. With a nuclear weapon, in the case of Japan.
Michel Chossudovsky.- It is an extremely important issue for me and if we are talking about a “counter-alliance for peace”, the criminalization of war seems to me to be a fundamental aspect. I’m talking about the abolition of war; it is a criminal act that must be eliminated.
Fidel Castro Ruz – Well, who would judge the main criminals?
Michel Chossudovsky.- The problem is that they also control the judicial system and the courts, so the judges are criminals as well. What can we do?
Fidel Castro Ruz I say that this is part of the Battle of Ideas.
It is about demanding that the world not be spearheaded into a nuclear catastrophe, it is to preserve life.
We do not know, but we presume that if man becomes aware of his own existence, that of his people, that of his loved ones, even the U.S. military leaders would be aware of the outcome; although they are taught in life to follow orders, not infrequently genocide, as in the use of tactical or strategic nuclear weapons, because that is what they were taught in the [military] academies.
As all of this is sheer madness, no politician is exempt from the duty of conveying these truths to the people. One must believe in them, otherwise there would be nothing to fight for.
Michel Chossudovsky .- I think what you are saying is that at the present time, the great debate in human history should focus on the danger of nuclear war that threatens the future of humanity, and that any discussion we have about basic needs or economics requires that we prevent the occurrence of war and instate global peace so that we can then plan living standards worldwide based on basic needs; but if we do not solve the problem of war, capitalism will not survive, right?
Fidel Castro Ruz.– No, it cannot survive, in terms of all the analysis we’ve undertaken, it cannot survive. The capitalist system and the market economy that suffocate human life, are not going to disappear overnight, but imperialism based on force, nuclear weapons and conventional weapons with modern technology, has to disappear if we want humanity to survive.
Now, there something occurring at this very moment which characterizes the Worldwide process of disinformation, and it is the following: In Chile 33 miners were trapped 700 meters underground, and the world is rejoicing at the news that 33 miners have been saved. Well, simply, what will the world do if it becomes aware that 6,877,596,300 people need to be saved, if 33 have created universal joy and all the mass media speak only of that these days, why not save the nearly 7 billion people trapped by the terrible danger of perishing in a horrible death like those of Hiroshima or Nagasaki?
Michel Chossudovsky. -This is also, clearly, the issue of media coverage that is given to different events and the propaganda emanating from the media.
I think it was an incredible humanitarian operation that the Chileans undertook, but it is true that if there is a threat to humanity, as you mentioned, it should be on the front page of every newspaper in the world because human society in its totality could be the victim of a decision that has been made, even by a three-star general who is unaware of the consequences [of nuclear weapons].
But here we are talking about how the media, particularly in the West, are hiding the most serious issue that potentially affects the world today, which is the danger of nuclear war and we must take it seriously, because both Hillary Clinton and Obama have said that they have contemplated using nuclear weapon in a so-called preventive war against Iran.
Well, how do we answer? What do you say to Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama regarding their statements pertaining to the unilateral use of nuclear weapons against Iran, a country that poses no danger to anyone?
Fidel Castro Ruz.- Yes, I know two things: What was discussed. This has been revealed recently, namely far-reaching arguments within the Security Council of the United States. That is the value of the book written by Bob Woodward, because it revealed how all these discussions occurred. We know the positions of Biden, Hillary, Obama, and indeed in those discussions, who was firmer against the extension of the war, who was able to argue with the military, it was Obama, that is a fact.
I am writing the latest reflection, actually, about that. The only one who got there, and gave him advice, who had been an opponent because of his Republican Party membership, was Colin Powell. He reminded him that he was the President of the United States, encouraging advice.
I think we should ensure that this message reaches everybody; what we have discussed. I think many read the articles you have published in Global Research. I think we need to disclose, and to the extent that we have these discussions and harbor the idea of disclosure. I am delighted every time you argue, reasonably, and put forth these issues, simply, in my opinion, there is a real deficit of information for the reasons you explained.
Now, we must invent. What are the ways to make all this known? At the time of the Twelve Apostles, there were 12 and no more, and they were given the task of disseminating the teachings a preacher transmitted to them. Sure, they had hundreds of years ahead of them. We, however, we do not have that. But I was looking at the list of personalities, and there are more than 20 prominent people who have been working with Global Research, prestigious people, asking the same questions, but they do not have hundreds of years, but, well, very little time.
Michel Chossudovsky. – The antiwar movement in the United States, Canada and Europe is divided. Some people think the threat comes from Iran, others say they [the Iranians] are terrorists, and there is a lot of disinformation in the movement itself.
Besides, at the World Social Forum the issue of nuclear war is not part of the debate between people of the Left or progressives. During the Cold War there was talk of the danger of nuclear conflict, and people had this awareness.
At the last meeting held in New York on non-proliferation, under the United Nations, the emphasis was on the nuclear threat from non-state entities, from terrorists.
President Obama said that the threat comes from Al Qaeda, which has nuclear weapons. Also, if someone reads Obama’s speeches he is suggesting that the terrorists have the ability of producing small nuclear bombs, what they call “dirty bombs”. Well, it’s a way of [distorting the issues] and shifting the emphasis.
Fidel Castro Ruz. – That is what they tell him [Obama], that is what his own people tell him and have him believe.
Look, what do I do with the reflections? They are distributed in the United Nations, they are sent to all governments, the reflections, of course, are short, to send them to all the governments, and I know there are many people who read them. The problem is whether you are telling the truth or not. Of course, when one collects all this information in relation to a particular problem because the reflections are also diluted on many issues, but I think you have to concentrate on our part, the disclosure of essentials, I cannot cover everything.
Michel Chossudovsky. – I have a question, because there is an important aspect related to the Cuban Revolution. In my opinion, the debate on the future of humanity is also part of a revolutionary discourse. If society as a whole were to be threatened by nuclear war, it is necessary in some form, to have a revolution at the levels of ideas as well as actions against this event, [namely nuclear war].
Fidel Castro Ruz .- We have to say, I repeat, that humanity is trapped 800 meters underground and that we must get it out, we need to do a rescue operation. That is the message we must convey to a large number of people. If people in large numbers believe in that message, they will do what you are doing and they will support what you are supporting. It will no longer depend on who are those who say it, but on the fact that somebody [and eventually everybody] says it.
You have to figure out how you can reach the informed masses. The solution is not the newspapers. There is the Internet, Internet is cheaper, Internet is more accessible. I approached you through the Internet looking for news, not through news agencies, not through the press, not from CNN, but news through a newsletter I receive daily articles on the Internet . Over 100 pages each day.
Yesterday you were arguing that in the United States some time ago two thirds of public opinion was against the war on Iran, and today, fifty-some percent favored military action against Iran.
Michel Chossudovsky .- What happened, even in recent months, it was said: “Yes, nuclear war is very dangerous, it is a threat, but the threat comes from Iran,” and there were signs in New York City saying: ” Say no to nuclear Iran, “and the message of these posters was to present Iran as a threat to global security, even if the threat did not exist because they do not have nuclear weapons.
Anyway, that’s the situation, and The New York Times earlier this week published a text that says, yes, political assassinations are legal.
Then, when we have a press that gives us things like that, with the distribution that they have, it is a lot of work [on our part]. We have limited capabilities to reverse this process [of media disinformation] within the limited distribution outlets of the alternative media. In addition to that, now many of these alternative media are financed by the economic establishment.
Fidel Castro Ruz.- And yet we have to fight.
Michel Chossudovsky .- Yes, we keep struggling, but the message was what you said yesterday. That in the case of a nuclear war, the collateral damage would be humanity as a whole.
Fidel Castro Ruz.- It would be humanity, the life of humanity.
Michel Chossudovsky.- It is true that the Internet should continue to function as an outreach tool to avoid the war.
Fidel Castro Ruz.- Well, it’s the only way we can prevent it. If we were to create world opinion, it’s like the example I mentioned: there are nearly 7 billion people trapped 800 meters underground, we use the phenomenon of Chile to disclose these things.
Michel Chossudovsky .- The comparison you make with the rescue of 33 miners, saying that there are 33 miners below ground there to be rescued, which received extensive media coverage, and you say that we have almost 7 billion people that are 800 meters underground and do not understand what is happening, but we have to rescue them, because humanity as a whole is threatened by the nuclear weapons of the United States and its allies, because they are the ones who say they intend to use them.
Fidel Castro Ruz.- And will use them [the nuclear weapons] if there is no opposition, if there is no resistance. They are deceived; they are drugged with military superiority and modern technology and do not know what they are doing.
They do not understand the consequences; they believe that the prevailed situation can be maintained. It is impossible.
Michel Chossudovsky. – Or they believe that this is simply some sort of conventional weapon.
Fidel Castro Ruz. – Yes, they are deluded and believe that you can still use that weapon. They believe they are in another era, they do not remember what Einstein said when he stated he did not know with what weapons World War III would be fought with, but the World War IV would be fought with sticks and stones. I added there: “… there wouldn’t be anyone to handle the sticks and stones.” That is the reality; I have it written there in the short speech you suggested I develop.
Michel Chossudovsky .- The problem I see is that the use of nuclear weapons will not necessarily lead to the end of humankind from one day to the next, because the radioactive impact is cumulative.
Fidel Castro Ruz. – Repeat that, please.
Michel Chossudovsky. – The nuclear weapon has several different consequences: one is the explosion and destruction in the theater of war, which is the phenomenon of Hiroshima, and the other are the impacts of radiation which increases over time.
Fidel Castro Ruz.- Yes, nuclear winter, as we call it. The prestigious American researcher, University of Rutgers (New Jersey) Professor Emeritus Alan Robock irrefutably showed that the outbreak of a war between two of the eight nuclear powers who possess the least amount of weapons of this kind would result in “nuclear winter”.
He disclosed that at the fore of a group of researchers who used ultra-scientific computer models.
It would be enough to have 100 strategic nuclear weapons of the 25,000 possessed by the eight powers mentioned exploding in order to create temperatures below freezing all over the planet and a long night that would last approximately eight years. Professor Robock exclaims that it is so terrible that people are falling into a “state of denial”, not wanting to think about it; it is easier to pretend that it doesn’t exist”. He told me that personally, at an international conference he was giving, where I had the honor of conversing with him.
Well, but I start from an assumption: If a war breaks out in Iran, it will inevitably become nuclear war and a global war. So that’s why yesterday we were saying it was not right to allow such an agreement in the Security Council, because it makes everything easier, do you see?
Such a war in Iran today would not remain confined to the local level, because the Iranians would not give in to use of force. If it remained conventional, it would be a war the United States and Europe could not win, and I argue that it would rapidly turn into a nuclear war. If the United States were to make the mistake of using tactical nuclear weapons, there would be consternation throughout the world and the US would eventually lose control of the situation.
Obama has had a heated discussion with the Pentagon about what to do in Afghanistan; imagine Obama’s situation with American and Israeli soldiers fighting against millions of Iranians. The Saudis are not going to fight in Iran, nor are the Pakistanis or any other Arab or Muslim soldiers. What could happen is that the Yanks have serious conflicts with the Pakistani tribes which they are attacking and killing with their drones, and they know that. When you strike a blow against those tribes, first attacking and then warning the government, not saying anything beforehand; that is one of the things that irritates the Pakistanis. There is a strong anti-American feeling there.
It’s a mistake to think that the Iranians would give up if they used tactical nuclear weapons against them, and the world really would be shocked, but then it may be too late.
Michel Chossudovsky .- They cannot win a conventional war.
Fidel Castro Ruz .- They cannot win.
Michel Chossudovsky. – And that we can see in Iraq; in Afghanistan they can destroy an entire country, but they cannot win from a military standpoint.
Fidel Castro Ruz. – But to destroy it [a country] at what price, at what cost to the world, at what economic costs, in the march towards catastrophe? The problems you mentioned are compounded, the American people would react, because the American people are often slow to react, but they react in the end. The American people react to casualties, the dead.
A lot of people supported the Nixon administration during the war in Vietnam, he even suggested the use of nuclear weapons in that country to Kissinger, but he dissuaded him from taking that criminal step. The United States was obliged by the American people to end the war; it had to negotiate and had to hand over the south. Iran would have to give up the oil in the area. In Vietnam what did they hand over? An expense. Ultimately, they are now back in Vietnam, buying oil, trading. In Iran they would lose many lives, and perhaps a large part of the oil facilities in the area would be destroyed.
In the present situation, is likely they would not understand our message. If war breaks out, my opinion is that they, and the world, would gain nothing. If it were solely a conventional war, which is very unlikely, they would lose irretrievably, and if it becomes a global nuclear war, humanity would lose.
Michel Chossudovsky.- Iran has conventional forces that are …significant.
Fidel Castro Ruz.- Millions.
Michel Chossudovsky.- Land forces, but also rockets and also Iran has the ability to defend itself.
Fidel Castro Ruz.- While there remains one single man with a gun, this is an enemy they will have to defeat.
Michel Chossudovsky.- And there are several millions with guns.
Fidel Castro Ruz.- Millions, and they will have to sacrifice many American lives, unfortunately it would be only then that Americans would react, if they don’t react now they will react later when it will be too late; we must write, we must divulge this as much as we can. Remember that the Christians were persecuted, they led them off to the catacombs, they killed them, they threw them to the lions, but they held on to their beliefs for centuries and later that was what they did to the Moslems, and the Moslems never yielded.
There is a real war against the Moslem world. Why are those lessons of history being forgotten? I have read many of the articles you wrote about the risks of that war.
Michel Chossudovsky.- Let us return to the matter of Iran. I believe that it is very important that world opinion comprehends the war scenario. You clearly state that they would lose the war, the conventional war, they are losing it in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran has more conventional forces than those of NATO in Afghanistan.
Fidel Castro Ruz.- Much more experienced and motivated. They are now in conflict with those forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and one they don’t mention: the Pakistanis of the same ethnic group as those in the resistance in Afghanistan. In White House discussions, they consider that the war is lost, that’s what the book by Bob Woodward entitled “Obama’s Wars” tells us. Imagine the situation if in addition to that, they append a war to liquidate whatever remains after the initial blows they inflict on Iran.
So they will be thrust into a conventional war situation that they cannot win, or they will be obliged to wage a global nuclear war, under conditions of a worldwide upheaval. And I don’t know who can justify the type of war they have to wage; they have 450 targets marked out in Iran, and of these some, according to them, will have to be attacked with tactical nuclear warheads because of their location in mountainous areas and at the depth at which they are situated [underground]. Many Russian personnel and persons from other nationalities collaborating with them will die in that confrontation.
What will be the reaction of world opinion in the face of that blow which today is being irresponsibly promoted by the media with the backing of many Americans?
Michel Chossudovsky.- One issue, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, they are all neighbouring countries in a certain way. Iran shares borders with Afghanistan and with Iraq, and the United States and NATO have military facilities in the countries they occupy. What’s going to happen? I suppose that the Iranian troops are immediately going to cross the border.
Fidel Castro Ruz.- Well, I don’t know what tactic they’re going to use, but if one were in their place, the most advisable is to not concentrate their troops, because if the troops are concentrated they will be victims of the attack with tactical nuclear weapons. In other words, in accordance with the nature of the threat as it is being described, the best thing would be for them to use a tactic similar to ours in southern Angola when we suspected that South Africa had nuclear weapons; we created tactical groups of 1000 men with land and anti-air fire power. Nuclear weapons could never within their reach target a large number of soldiers. Anti-air rocketry and other similar weapons was supporting our forces. Weapons and the conditions of the terrain change and tactics must continuously change.
Michel Chossudovsky.- Dispersed.
Fidel Castro Ruz.- Dispersed, but not isolated men, there were around 1000 men with appropriate weapons, the terrain was sandy, wherever they got to they had to dig in and protect themselves underground, always keeping the maximum distance between components. The enemy was never given an opportunity to aim a decisive blow against the 60,000 Cuban and Angolan soldiers in southern Angola.
What we did in that sister country is what, a thousand strong army, operating with traditional criteria, would have done. Fine, we were not 100 000, in southern Angola there were 60,000 men, Cubans and Angolans; due to technical requirements the tactical groups were mainly made up of Cubans because they handled tanks, rockets, anti-aircraft guns, communications, but the infantry was made up of Cuban and Angolan soldiers, with great fighting spirit, who didn’t hesitate one second in confronting the white Apartheid army supported by the United States and Israel. Who handled the numerous nuclear weapons that they had at that moment?
In the case of Iran, we are getting news that they are digging into the ground, and when they are asked about it, they say that they are making cemeteries to bury the invaders. I don’t know if this is meant to be ironic, but I think that one would really have to dig quite a lot to protect their forces from the attack which is threatening them.
Michel Chossudovsky.- Sure, but Iran has the possibility of mobilizing millions of troops.
Fidel Castro Ruz.- Not just troops, but the command posts are also decisive. In my opinion, dispersion is very important. The attackers will try to prevent the transmission of orders. Every combat unit must know beforehand what they have to do under different circumstances. The attacker will try to strike and destabilize the chain of command with its radio-electronic weapons. All those factors must be kept in mind. Mankind has never experienced a similar predicament.
Anyway, Afghanistan is “a joke” and Iraq, too, when you compare them with what they are going to bump into in Iran: the weaponry, the training, the mentality, the kind of soldier… If 31 years ago, Iranian combatants cleaned the mine fields by advancing over them, they will undoubtedly be the most fearsome adversaries that the United States has ever come across.
***
The interview was conducted in Spanish.
Our thanks and appreciation to Cuba Debate for the transcription as well as the translation from Spanish.
***
Fidel’s Message on the Dangers of Nuclear War
Recorded on the last day of the Conversations, October 15, 2010 the original Global Research/Cuba Debate video (our copyright) was removed on alleged copyright infringements alongside many other Youtube postings.
TRANSCRIPT
The use of nuclear weapons in a new war would mean the end of humanity. This was candidly foreseen by scientist Albert Einstein who was able to measure their destructive capability to generate millions of degrees of heat, which would vaporize everything within a wide radius of action. This brilliant researcher had promoted the development of this weapon so that it would not become available to the genocidal Nazi regime.
Each and every government in the world has the obligation to respect the right to life of each and every nation and of the totality of all the peoples on the planet.
Today there is an imminent risk of war with the use of that kind of weapon and I don’t harbour the least doubt that an attack by the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran would inevitably evolve towards a global nuclear conflict.
The World’s peoples have an obligation to demand of their political leaders their Right to Live. When the life of humankind, of your people and your most beloved human beings run such a risk, nobody can afford to be indifferent; not one minute can be lost in demanding respect for that right; tomorrow will be too late.
Albert Einstein himself stated unmistakably: “I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones”. We fully comprehend what he wanted to convey, and he was absolutely right, yet in the wake of a global nuclear war, there wouldn’t be anybody around to make use of those sticks and stones.
There would be “collateral damage”, as the American political and military leaders always affirm, to justify the deaths of innocent people.
In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity.
Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!
Fidel Castro Ruz
October 15, 2010
Michel Chossudovsky Book’s published in 2011, following his October 2010 meeting with Fidel Castro
Russia’s response to these newfound threats will likely take the form of more joint and coordinated actions with China.
Former Secretary of the Security Council and incumbent Presidential Aide Nikolay Patrushev shared some updates about the US’ naval strategy in his interview for Rossiyskaya Gazeta last week. He said that it’s called “Sea Superiority”, which is self-explanatory, but he added that it also implies integrating the US Navy with its regional satellites’ in order to contain the Russian and Chinese Navies. This strategy accordingly focuses on the Black Sea and Asia-Pacific regions.
Beginning with the first, the US is trying to pressure Turkiye into loosening its enforcement of the Montreux Convention so as to allow more extra-regional NATO naval assets into the Black Sea. In parallel with this, the US is building new logistics centers in Bulgaria and Romania as well as planning to deploy long-range weapons there too. There’s also some superficial talk from Ukraine and its partners about ensuring “freedom of navigation” in the Azov Sea, Patrushev said, but that’s unrealistic of course.
As for the second region, Japan is designated as the center of NATO’s attention, and it’s already carried out a whopping 30x more drills with the bloc and other US military allies this year compared to the last one. Apart from that island nation, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea – all of four of which are collectively called the “Indo-Pacific Four” (IP4) by NATO – round out the rest of its partners. Altogether, they’re having a very destabilizing effect on the Asia-Pacific, but the US lies that they’re stabilizing it.
In response to these threats, Patrushev said that Russia is comprehensively modernizing its fleet and building many new high-tech vessels. He also mentioned that President Putin decreed that industry employees across the board from production workers to engineers receive higher wages. He was mum about other details though but that makes sense for national security reasons. The impression is that the Kremlin is well aware of the US’ newfound naval threats and preparing to properly handle them.
Reflecting on the insight that this top official just shared, it’s clear that Russia does indeed consider itself and China to be the targets of what Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov earlier described as the US’ “dual containment” strategy, with the innuendo being that more joint responses can be expected. This can take the form of more naval and air drills as well as coordinated action like their nuclear-capable bombers both approaching Alaska at the same time last week.
Nevertheless, no matter how convincing the optics may appear, Russia and China will not enter into a mutual defense alliance since neither wants to sacrifice their troops’ lives for the others’ halfway across the world in their respective regions. These pieces here and here from 2023 clarify that while Russian-Chinese ties can be classified as an Entente, these are real limits to their “no-limits” cooperation, such as regarding India and Vietnam as explained in the two preceding hyperlinked analyses.
Any military alliance with China would instantly destroy the Asian balancing act that Russia has worked so hard to perfect over the past decade, and which it recently recalibrated earlier in the summer, so nobody should expect it to inflict such damage to its grand strategy. That said, it’ll likely work a lot closer with China in the air and naval domains in the coming future through joint and coordinated actions, though it remains to be seen whether this will deter the US and its satellites from crossing their red lines.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Much has been written on how divisive the “Woke” spectacle of the July 26 Olympics opening ceremony was. The controversial spectacle prompted condemnation from Muslim and Christian religious leaders worldwide.
Pope Francisfinally broke his silence and joined these voices on August 3, eight days after the episode. It seems this took some convincing, with reports that the bishop of Rome only did so after talks with… Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, of all people. This is impressive in itself and merits some analysis.
The Olympics opening was so offensive that, with the global backlash, in an underreported development, the videos have been removed from the official websites – they can no longer be found in the Olympic Committee’s YouTube channel. The same thing happened with the NBC Sports YouTube channel, the official broadcaster of the Games in the USA. No official explanation has been provided yet, but the reason is clear enough, with condemnations from politicians and religious leaders piling up – and with American company C Spire pulling its advertising out of the Olympics. Even Jean-Luc Melenchon, the leader of left-wing party France Unbowed (LFI), condemned it. The Paris Olympics organizers have apologized, albeit claiming they had no intention to offend anyone.
The opening ceremony, broadcast worldwide, was not family-friendly: it displayed, among other things, a threesome, a Lady Gaga’s performance, male genitalia exposure, and more infamously, a tableau vivant called “’La Cène Sur Un Scène Sur La Seine”, a word-play which of course means“The Last Supper on the stage on the [River] Seine.” It was basically a parody of Jesus Christ’s Last Supper involving artists in drag and Greek Gods. All of this would fit well in a Madonna or Marilyn Manson concert in any Western capital but this kind of provocation is unprecedented in such an event.
Traditionally, the opening ceremonies of Olympic games, which have their own “diplomacy” and etiquette, emphasize the culture and history of the host country in a manner that is inclusive to audiences worldwide. Jesus Christ is of course respected by Muslims as well, who believe he is a Prophet and God’s Messenger. It turns out the supposed parade of “diversity” was (as is often the case with Western “woke” ideology), actually non-inclusive to children, families, religious people, the Global South and most of the world. It is no wonder, then, that such an intense backlash came about.
In a brief 90-word statement, the Vatican said that “the Holy See was saddened by certain scenes during the opening ceremony of the Paris Olympic Games” and thus “cannot but join its voice with the others that have been raised in these last days to deplore the offense made to numerous Christians and believers of other religions.” It stated such events should celebrate international common values rather than “ridiculing the religious convictions of many people”, and added that freedom of expression should be “limited by respect for others” – something the “woke” ideologues themselves agree with, although they would differ on just whom should also be respected (not religious people, it seems).
So far, no big deal. The point here is that, according to America Magazine and many other sources, the Vatican had decided not to issue any statement condemning the event because the French bishops had already done so. The reasoning here is unclear: this could be part of Pope Francis’ usually conciliatory approach and his efforts to emphasize tolerance. In any case, it has been reported that, on August 1, President Erdogan of Turkey, called the Pope following the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, in Tehran, and also took the opportunity to urge the pontiff to “raise voices together and take a common stance in this regard” (the Olympics’ episode), which “offended Muslims as much as the Christian world.” Erdogan had previously told his AK Party that he would try to persuade the Roman pontiff – and persuade him he did, it seems.
This has led John L. Allen Jr. to enquire, in his piece for the Catholic Herald, why it took “a Muslim” to persuade the Catholic leader to join the chorus (as he titled his piece). After all, for a week, several Catholic players (including some Bishops) tried to persuade the Pope to comment on the matter – to no avail. Erdogan did it. Part of the explanations lies in the fact that the Pope is also a Head of State. Allen Jr. reasoning is that the bishop of Rome could be “disinclined to pick a diplomatic fight with France” in light of an already tense situation there, involving a debate on abortion. John L. Allen Jr. is considered to be the most authoritative Anglophone writer on Vatican affairs.
The same expert also notes that Erdogan was clever in “packaging” his Olympics appeal within a discussion about the Israeli military campaign in Gaza. During the call, he suggested the Pope engaged in conversations with countries supporting Israel as part of diplomatic endeavors to prevent an escalation. Playing precisely that role is in the Holy See’s interest and this is why the Pope was happy, Allen Jr. argues, to toss Erdogan “a bone” on the Olympic topic so as to thereby further secure the Turkish leader’s backing. This would be part of reorienting the Vatican “away from its historical profile as a Western institution towards a more truly global, non-aligned role, and a key part of that agenda has been outreach to the Islamic world.”
To sum it up, the recent Pope-Erdogan episode demonstrates the decline of the US-led West’s moral authority, especially from the point of view of the Global South, the Islamic world, and Christians in general. It shows how the “woke” ideology, often described as a tool for Washington’s soft power (some prefer to talk about “woke imperialism”) is backfiring. Some analysts even point out it has become a liability to US national security itself. The episode also demonstrates how Erdogan, despite his more incendiary recent statements (about militarily intervening in Israel-Palestine), still wants Turkey to be a peace-broker in the Holy Land, while projecting it and himself as a kind of leader of the Islamic world – or of the Global South itself. Those are ambitious and challenging goals: for one thing, playing mediator in the cause of Palestine would require a certain neutrality which Ankara clearly does not possess. In any case, such goals are also part of a Turkish neo-Ottomanist agenda, which, as I wrote, faces a lot of opposition from many different players in the Middle East, Central Asia and beyond. In this particular Pope move, however, Erdogan can certainly boast a success story.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Several Hezbollah drones struck Israeli military sites near the city of Nahariya, north of Acre, on 6 August, just a few hours after several people were killed in an Israeli drone strike on southern Lebanon.
“In response to the attack and assassination carried out by the Israeli enemy in the town of Abba, the Islamic Resistance fighters launched an air attack on Tuesday 06-08-2024 with a squadron of suicide drones that targeted the headquarters of the Golani Brigade and the headquarters of the Egoz Unit 621 in the Shraga barracks north of occupied Acre, hitting their targets accurately and achieving confirmed hits,” Hezbollah said in a statement.
A Hezbollah member was assassinated in the southern village of Abba on Monday.
Video footage circulating social media showed Hezbollah drones flying over Nahariya. Other footage shows plumes of smoke in the distance as a result of explosions.
BREAKING | Hebrew media reports that three drones targeted a base and vehicle in Nahariya north of Haifa. Footage shows a drone launched by Lebanon flying over its skies. Injuries reported. pic.twitter.com/VSVDJ1jgmt
“The medical teams of the Rescue Union provided first aid to a 30-year-old man who was fatally injured near Nahariya,” said a spokesperson for the Israeli Rescue Union.
“While I was driving, citizens signaled me to stop after a car had an accident after hearing the alarm and apparently as a result of being hit by shrapnel. I stopped to help him with a bag of medical equipment that I received from the Rescue Union and went over to help him while stopping the bleeding and first dressing – on his body and car were found with shrapnel wounds. He was then taken to Nahariya hospital in critical condition,” said one of the Rescue Union’s medics.
Nahariya Hospital announced that 19 Israelis were injured, including one critically. Hebrew reports on Telegram said two soldiers were wounded in the Shagra barracks. Israel’s ambulance service said it treated wounded in three different locations.
“For about ten minutes, two drones traveled about 20 kilometers deep inside Israel today, flying in the northern sky on a clear path on the way to the target until they exploded, without being intercepted,” Israeli army radio said about the attack.
The Hezbollah attack came hours after five people were killed in an Israeli drone strike on southern Lebanon earlier on Tuesday.
Hezbollah had targeted Israeli forces in the Avivim settlement that morning.
The attack also comes as regional tensions are at an all-time high following Israel’s assassinations of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on 31 July and top Hezbollah war commander Fuad Shukr in Beirut the day before.
The attack on Beirut killed several civilians, including young children.
Tel Aviv is anticipating retaliation from the Islamic Republic and Hezbollah, as both have vowed harsh responses to the Israeli attacks.
Israel is also expecting a Yemeni response to its attack on Hodeidah port last month.
A Hezbollah source told The Cradle on 5 August that Iran, Lebanon, and Yemen will launch simultaneous retaliatory strikes against Israel to overwhelm its Iron Dome system.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
The back-to-back assassinations of Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr in Beirut and Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran were acts of either strategic folly or willful pyromania. While Israel has claimed responsibility for the former and remained cryptic about the latter, there is little doubt that it orchestrated both — and even some of its allies believe that, this time, the Israelis went too far.
Israeli politicians were quick to latch onto a pretext for a high-level strike on Hezbollah — a rocket attack from Lebanon that killed 12 Syrian Druze children and youth in the occupied Golan Heights, for which Hezbollah denied involvement — despite local residents vehemently protesting their calls for retribution. Shukr and Haniyeh were certainly key members of their respective groups, but Israel knows very well that both organizations have internal mechanisms and contingency plans to replace them; after all, these are hardly the first assassinations that the two resistance movements have experienced.
Crucially, as Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah and Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khameneideclared, the killing of two senior figures in foreign capitals, executed in the space of a few hours, was an unambiguous message that broke the so-called “red lines” established between the fighting parties over the past 10 months. Now, the world is holding its breath for a retaliation to an unnecessary power play, inching us closer to a conflagration unlike any we’ve seen in decades.
The volatile effects of Israel’s military hubris have been clear from the very first days of “Operation Iron Swords,” the brutal campaign launched on the Gaza Strip after Hamas’ deadly October 7 assault. But international politics has always put more stock in the killing of symbolic leaders than of civilians.
Indeed, although October 7 thrust the entire Middle East into a violent vortex, we have repeatedly been told that the threshold of a “regional war” has not yet been crossed. The battling actors, experts insist, are still playing a risky but calibrated game to re-establish mutual “deterrence,” permitting certain levels of violence that can still be read as avoiding all-out havoc.
In many ways, however, this is a discursive trick that downplays the harrowing truth on the ground: we have already been in the throes of that regional war for months. The evidence is in the bodies and debris piling up inGaza and southern Lebanon, and in the activation of the Western-led alliance and the Axis of Resistance across multiple fronts — from U.S. warships in the Mediterranean to Houthi militias in the Red Sea, from Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon to a missile barrage from Iran.
This confrontation can become infinitely worse. Yet the very reason that international actors have belatedly jolted into action this past week is the same reason the war is being pushed into its most hazardous phase yet: that certain lives, and certain interests, matter more than others.
Arrogance and Ambitions
For Western governments, the main danger posed by the assassinations of Shukr and Haniyeh is not the untold number of Arabs or Iranians who might be killed in an escalation of hostilities. If anything, the past 10 months have shown that as long as Palestinians were the primary casualties, an elongated war was a tolerable, if regrettable, state of affairs. As a result, Western capitals, chief among them Washington, declined to pull out all the stops to curb the fighting, instead buying time for Israel to try to advance its declared aims in Gaza and Lebanon — even as it was clear that the Israelis would fail.
Now, however, Western governments are panicking. They not only fear what an escalated war might do to the global order, including stoking security chaos and disrupting economic supply chains. It is also the very real prospect that such a war could incur a massive Israeli death toll — and with it, the unprecedented weakening of the Israeli state.
This withering process arguably began at the start of 2023, during the country’s internal battles over the far right’s judicial overhaul, but it has been rapidly expedited by October 7 and the Gaza operation. The full damage of Israel’s current military attrition and loss of global standing have yet to sink in, but a serious attack by Hezbollah or Iran will likely worsen that decline.
Image: Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, left, and Knesset Foreign Affairs and Security Committee Chairman Yuli Edelstein attend a briefing at Gallant’s office in Tel Aviv, January 30, 2024. (Photo credit: Ariel Hermoni/Defense Ministry)
Even if some in Israel admit that the military may have overreached, national ego could compel them to respond again; Defense Minister Yoav Gallant is already directing the army to prepare for a “quick transition to offense.” The constant desire to settle scores and claim some kind of victory may trounce any rationale for putting the guns down.
One might have expected Israel’s own leaders to recognize that worsening spiral, with the country’s economy tanking, its army growing weary, and its northern and southern populations displaced. But these leaders are too blinded by ideological ambitions, nationalist arrogance, and fear for their own political survival to consider any path other than militarism and bombast.
It is not just Benjamin Netanyahu, whose own security cabinet admits that the prime minister is directly sabotaging a hostage deal with Hamas. From Gallant to IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi, much of the political and military brass has a vested interest in some form of a prolonged conflict. All of them were in charge on the day that Israel suffered its worst security failure in decades, and all of them are fighting to restore their reputations if not their careers; an endless emergency, they believe, can help to stretch their days in office.
Meanwhile, the far-right ministers in government, led by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, are embracing the crisis in order to pursue their messianic goals. Their constituents on the ground, chiefly settlers in the West Bank, are matching legislative advances for formal annexation with army-backed pogroms against Palestinian communities, consolidating their vision of Greater Israel while promoting plans to resettle Gaza as well.
More Foresight Than the White House
It is precisely these officials that President Joe Biden and other Western leaders have gifted with near-total impunity, despite every indication of their ulterior motives, their blatant war crimes, and even growing resentment from the Israeli public itself. For 10 months, the world’s most powerful governments have played dumb and helpless, pretending they had little leverage over a state that is hustling for more weapons, funds, and diplomatic backing for its onslaught. And Biden, even as he is reportedly realizing how much he is being “lied to” by Netanyahu, has still kept America’s taps open, ensuring that the reins of power remain in the hands of the fools and pyromaniacs.
Now, Washington — and for that matter, the Arab signatories to the Abraham Accords — are reaping the bitter fruits of one of their biggest mistakes: embracing the idea that bypassing the Palestinians would pave the way to regional peace. Hamas’ October 7 attack shattered that misguided belief, but the Biden administration has not absorbed the lesson.
In fact, the United States has preferred to launch airstrikes in Yemen and Iraq, threaten the world’s top courts, and indulge Netanyahu in Washington with standing ovations, rather than force Israel into a ceasefire in Gaza. The fact that millions of protesters worldwide took to city streets and campuses to demand a stop to the war from its very first days, and the Biden administration didn’t, shows how much more foresight regular citizens have compared to the decision-makers sitting in the White House.
But catastrophe is not inevitable. In the diplomatic void left by the United States, others have stepped up in recent months to try and stem the fallout. Qatar is still mediating negotiations between Hamas and Israel, despite the latter regularly insulting and undermining its hosts’ efforts, and now assassinating one of the other side’s chief negotiators.
China, which traditionally stayed clear of deep involvement in the conflict, facilitated the latest efforts at Palestinian reconciliation, when 14 factions, including Fatah and Hamas, signed a declaration of unity in Beijing last month. The new Labour-led British government has reversed its predecessor’s cuts to UNRWA, withdrawn its objections to the International Criminal Court’s applications for arrest warrants, and is reportedly close to halting certain arms sales to Israel.
Importantly, the International Court of Justice, which has recognized the plausibility of an unfolding genocide in Gaza, has unequivocally deemed Israel’s occupation illegal, and demanded firm actions to bring about its end. And ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan is waiting for the greenlight to order Netanyahu and Gallant to stand trial at The Hague, along with Hamas’ Gaza chief Yahya Sinwar (who, if reports of commander Mohammed Deif’s killing are true, is now the only surviving Hamas suspect).
All of these are miniscule measures compared to Washington’s massive leverage, or the more serious economic and political pressures that other governments still hold. But they are indicators of where international policy is finally heading. The United States needn’t find itself woefully catching up to these shifts, but getting ahead means accepting the truth that its most valued ally in the region — and U.S. power itself — has been a source of more devastation than peace.
Exercising Outsized Power
The Palestinians, for their part, are outnumbered, outgunned, and outmatched by regional and global forces beyond their control, suffering a genocidal campaign more destructive than the 1948 Nakba. Israel’s killing fields have ripped apart every Palestinian family in Gaza, turned much of the Strip into valleys of rubble, and condemned 2 million besieged people, half of them children, to a lifetime of physical and psychosocial trauma.
Hamas is surviving through its armed resistance and political organs, but it has taken heavy military blows, lost much international legitimacy after the October 7 massacres, and is scrambling for control and support in Gaza itself. The Fatah-led Palestinian Authority has once again demonstrated its total incapacity to aid its people, glued to its role as the occupation’s police force while rapidly slipping into political and financial bankruptcy.
Yet Palestinians have also proven that they carry outsized power in the face of these colossal barriers — and they must exercise it accordingly. While the foremost priority is to ensure the survival of Palestinians in Gaza from missiles, starvation, and disease, it is also vital to assert their political agency at a time when external actors — from the Israeli army to Arab and Western states — are drawing up plans to dictate their fate.
As such, the Beijing unity declaration is a crucial, albeit imperfect, initiative to mobilize around. Although President Mahmoud Abbas and his loyalists are likely to try and thwart reconciliation efforts, many members of Fatah and Hamas are recognizing the urgent need to cooperate in order to restore their legitimacy and preserve Palestinian ownership of their affairs. Palestinian civil society will need to exert pressure on the elites to translate their statements into tangible actions, while insisting on opening avenues for popular and democratic participation.
Efforts to establish a Gaza reconstructioncouncil, led by Palestinians and aided by financial and technical support from abroad, should be elevated to ensure the Strip does not become a playground for foreign interference, neither from the West nor the East. A plan will also need to be drawn up for a national security apparatus that integrates Fatah security forces, Hamas’ police, and other armed groups to have the capacity and credibility to restore order and safety among the population.
Questions of statehood and peace negotiations should not be the priority or precondition of this national program: survival, rehabilitation, and reorganization must take precedence. And international actors must respect that.
But all of this will mean little if Palestinians remain captive to the geopolitical dynamics that have thwarted their cause for a century, and brought the region to the verge of calamity. As much as Western powers may skirt around the problem, a ceasefire in Gaza remains the keystone to regional de-escalation, and Palestinian liberation the blueprint for regional hope.
Palestine is hardly the first epicenter of the Middle East’s regional battles, but it may be the final crack that shatters any semblance of the international order that failed to prevent such a war. What comes next will be defined by what happens in Gaza — and Palestinians must seize the tools to sculpt it.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Amjad Iraqi is a senior editor at +972 Magazine. He is also an associate fellow with Chatham House’s MENA Programme, a policy member of the think tank Al-Shabaka, and was previously an advocacy coordinator at the legal center Adalah. In addition to +972, he has written for the London Review of Books, The New York Review of Books, The Nation, and The Guardian, among others. He is a Palestinian citizen of Israel, currently based in London.
The six consecutive years of drought in Morocco have been excruciating. The impact on the price of basic food items, such as meat and olive oil, has been striking. In recent years, the rainy season’s onset has been unpredictable, making it difficult to know when to plant, whether rain will come at all, or whether we are in a new trend to which we must adjust.
At the same time, human ingenuity and Moroccan national frameworks for sustainability can reduce the heavy burden of the drought. Morocco is poised to see this struggle through, and how it does can illuminate a pathway to help other nations endure through their own severe water scarcity.
Every essential national framework is in place to encourage people at the local level to adapt and to show their resiliency. In fact, the severity of the drought requiring adaptation could further operationalize Morocco’s already established charters, policies, and programs for people’s participation in natural resource management. Indeed, local communities applying Morocco’s pairing of sustainable development with participatory democratic procedures to address the water crisis could significantly fulfill its national goal of establishing decentralized administrations. After all, the more that sub-national (private-public) partners work together to implement community-identified initiatives, the more that decentralized management systems take practical form.
Morocco’s national investments in desalinization and other large-scale projects that increase and strategically disperse its water supply for regional balance are, by established global standards, exceptional. These investments also epitomize the rational justification of Morocco’s devolutionary path to decentralization, enabling the national level to assist its less advantaged regions. In this regard, led by His Majesty King Mohammed VI, Morocco is well on its way to achieving its goals in an incredibly challenging situation by integrating these initiatives with renewable energy and the nationally recognized urgency.
However, community management of local opportunities and new and restored water infrastructure remain elusive, and the critical widespread rural mobilization is not catalyzed to the extent necessary for greater success.
A sustainable development process that results in locally identified and implemented water systems advancing conservation yet enabling higher production—which is in fact Morocco’s approach—looks like this: in rural places where water scarcity is most seriously acute, women and men gather in different places (as is done traditionally) to examine as individuals and as a group their experienced difficulties in life related to social relationships, work and money outlooks, and health, education, and livelihood opportunities.
By first introspectively looking at their inner hurdles, strengths, and discovery processes determining their future and projects they want most of all, this experience in rural places commonly leads individuals to issues of water for drinking and irrigation combined with sustainable water delivery. A participatory planning approach resting upon the community’s own determination of their development objectives and action plans and their commitment to their projects’ maintenance and long-term durability is the primary factor of sustainability.
In Morocco, this process is not only found in the nation’s municipal charter, which requires long- and short-term plans to be developed by its local council members alongside the jurisdiction’s residents, but is also the central premise of the funding arm of the Moroccan government’s National Initiative for Human Development (NIHD). Further, the feature of decentralized administration of development has a home in the nation’s Constitution, and women being a driving force is codified in the country’s progressively evolving family code (Moudouwana).
This relentless drought, that too shall pass, requires for us in Morocco to add the maximal possible level of investment into the already established Moroccan strategies to community sustainability. This means that we need to train thousands of agricultural extensionists and guardians of the nation’s forests, thousands of university students and rural school teachers, thousands of members of municipal councils and civil society, and community and religious leaders in the methods for facilitating interactive participatory dialogue and activities for personal group empowerment and planning of local priority initiatives. This is especially true of those initiatives that involve water containment and maximization of utility including not just basins, towers, pipes, and drip systems, but also building the hundreds of thousands of terraces and planting hundreds of millions of endemic varieties of trees that will capture water, enable more gradual flow, without losing Morocco’s precious water to runoff (yes, trees conserve water!).
Finance for local community associations and cooperatives for all matters concerning local management of water and its efficient utility should be directed not just from the Ministry of Agriculture, but prioritized by budgets across ministries whenever possible and most especially from the NIHD. Since water infrastructure is by far the costliest locally-prioritized project, NIHD should reduce its 25 percent finance matching requirement from community beneficiaries and co-create project proposals with local groups (since rural illiteracy rates are of national concern), making the NIHD funding accessible to those who seek it.
Essentially, the combination of Morocco’s public frameworks to advance sustainable development, all integrating people’s participation and management, requires facilitators to catalyze and assist the design and implementation of water infrastructure and projects. The procurements necessary for their completion would be enabled by the support and reform of Morocco’s funding mechanisms.
In this way, Morocco through decentralized community-driven water projects in the face of a terrible drought, will powerfully entrench and scale its model, and in so doing inspire other countries on how people’s participation can be the determinant feature that turns a devastating situation into one that is made transformationally better for time to come.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Yossef Ben-Meir is President of the High Atlas Foundation in Marrakech, Morocco. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: A new irrigation basin in the Al Haouz province of Morocco, as part of the rebuilding efforts in the aftermath of the 8 September 2023 earthquake (photo by the High Atlas Foundation, 2024).
“Social media went a little bonkers last week when an interview of Texas Children’s Hospital’s Dr. Peter Hotez began circulating with the Big Pharma insider calling for the United Nations and NATO to deploy security forces against ‘anti-vaxxers’ in the United States. Dr. Hotez’s statements first appeared on the YouTube channel of an international pediatric conference that took place in Colombia, but the interview then jumped onto X.
In clips of Hotez’s interview that continue to circulate on X, he claims ‘anti-vaxxers’ caused hundreds of thousands of deaths* in the United States.”
*This is full reality inversion. The Science™ killed untold millions, with its so-called “vaccines” that weren’t actually vaccines. Thanks to the tireless work of independent journalists and whistleblowers from within the industry, thousands and perhaps millions of lives were saved, not taken.
Hotez’s comments (emphasis added):
“What I’ve said to the Biden administration is, the health sector can’t solve this on its own. We’re going to have to bring in Homeland Security, the Commerce Department, Justice Department to help us understand how to do this.
I’ve said the same with…I met with [WHO general director] Dr. Tedros last month…to say, I don’t know that the World Health Organization can solve this on our own. We need the other United Nations agencies—NATO. This is a security problem, because it’s no longer a theoretical construct or some arcane academic exercise. Two hundred thousand Americans died because of anti-vaccine aggression, anti-science aggression.
And so, this is now a lethal force…and now I feel as a pediatric vaccine scientist…it’s important, just as important for me to make new vaccines, to save lives. The other side of saving lives is countering this anti-vaccine aggression.”
The word games these people play in the service of magically morphing from perpetrators into victims is mesmerizing. Opposition to aggressive biomedical terrorism, in defense of human life, somehow becomes “aggression.”
Even if there were such “aggression” on the scale that Hotez claims, it’s wouldn’t be “anti-science” — it would be counterterrorism against criminals who hide behind The Science™. If it must be called “aggression,” it would be “anti-Hotez aggression.”
Science is a method of analysis, not an entity. No one owns it; no one gets to use it as a shield to deflect criticism.
I have no doubt Peter Hotez will require 24/7 personal security for the rest of his miserable life. While I don’t encourage violence against him — because it’s illegal, not because it’s immoral — I can’t say I feel the least bit bad about it.
Among all of the reasons to hope there is a God, I pray there is one at the very least for the sake of damning this demonic butterball to eternal hellfire for the suffering he has unleashed on billions of people worldwide. Death would be too easy of an escape for him.
On a related, if gratuitous, note, here is the shameless fatass discussing his obscene eating habits with Joe Rogan and, coward that he is, hiding behind his autistic child to justify it because, he explains, eating trash together is how they bond — as if the poor kid didn’t have enough problems already.
In honor of Peter Hotez blocking me for sharing this clip of him on The Joe Rogan Experience blaming his autistic daughter for his poor diet, I’m sharing it again.
No matter how bad things get, remember: you could’ve drawn the short end of the birth lottery stick and been condemned to a life as Peter Hotez’s child.
How much does Hotez weigh? What is his body fat percentage? We can only eyeball it, but I’d wager 35 BMI and 40% body fat.
Armageddon Prose Rule For Life: Refuse all health advice from morbidly obese people, even ones in white coats with fancy job titles, as their state speaks either to their ignorance or else a profound lack of self-discipline — neither of which you should accept in a healthcare provider, or any kind of mentor for that matter.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Armageddon Prose.
Ben Bartee, author of Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile, is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. Follow his stuff via Substack. Also, keep tabs via Twitter.
Despite all the military support NATO has given to the Kiev regime, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky is not satisfied with the current cooperation and demands even more Western involvement. According to him, the West must lose its fear of escalating the war and take more aggressive initiatives – including direct participation in hostilities. This Ukrainian rhetoric creates pressure for moves that could easily cause the war to go out of control and pass the point of no return.
In a recent statement, Zelensky once again called on his Western partners to take direct and open initiatives in the war, participating on the ground in hostilities.
He wants NATO countries to publicly engage in air defense maneuvers in Ukraine, shooting down Russian missiles and drones using Western systems and aircraft. According to Zelensky, Western countries are “too fearful.” He criticizes NATO members’ caution in escalating the war, urging them to lose their “fear” and act more decisively against Moscow, ignoring any consequences. Zelensky speaks in a completely irresponsible manner, as if a deeper NATO intervention could not pose any risk to the global security architecture.
The Ukrainian president also said that he is already working on some joint initiatives with “neighboring” countries to make it possible for them to expand their participation in the conflict. He hopes that the West will then take deeper steps in the war and help Kiev directly, which would supposedly create chances to “change the game” on the battlefield.
“[Western nations] are always concerned about possible escalation. We are fighting against that. We will work on it (…) [Ukraine is considering] technical possibilities for neighboring nations to use military aircraft against missiles that strike Ukraine,” he said.
Zelensky’s words come amid a recently signed agreement with Poland to allow Polish troops on Ukrainian soil to fire at Russian air rockets. Despite having signed the agreement, the Poles are reluctant to take this step, fearing that the consequences could spiral out of control. Warsaw is waiting for NATO to provide solid security guarantees – or, in other words, to promise intervention in the event of Russian retaliation.
“We need clear cooperation within NATO here, because such actions require joint NATO responsibility (…) We will include other NATO allies in this conversation. So, we treat the matter seriously as open, but not yet finalized,” Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said when commenting on the deal to provide direct support to Ukraine.
Recently, Zelensky has been betting on a strategy of individual agreements to try to strengthen Ukraine. With NATO having made it clear that it is not interested in going to war with Russia directly, the Ukrainian president has only been able to seek individual deals with some member countries, thus trying to bring them into the conflict without the full participation of the Atlantic alliance. The member countries, however, are aware that if they voluntarily begin to participate in hostilities, NATO will have no obligation to defend them collectively in the event of a Russian response.
NATO’s collective defense clause establishes the alliance’s intervention only in the event of a country being attacked, with no such obligation if the member country is the aggressor state. Intervening in an existing conflict and shooting down aircraft and missiles is literally a matter of “casus belli”. Russia would have the right to respond militarily to such provocations, which would make Poland and any other partner country of Ukraine a legitimate target for Russian forces, without NATO having any obligation to protect them. This obviously creates fear in the states that support Kiev, which is why they are reluctant to comply with Zelensky’s request.
It must be remembered that this entire scenario refers only to a situation of public and open participation. In practice, Western troops have been operating in Ukraine for a long time. Soldiers use the label of mercenaries to supply Kiev’s ranks, mainly in special forces units. Specialized military personnel have been on the ground since 2022 operating Western-supplied defense systems, as well as working in intelligence and strategic planning offices. The war has been direct for a long time, but Zelensky is not satisfied with this. He wants the hostilities to be something more than a de facto reality, becoming something public.
It is possible to see that there is a truly “suicidal” aspect in the actions of the neo-Nazi regime. With no hope of reversing the military situation, Ukraine has no choice but to resort to any form of escalation, even if this carries the risk of an open and nuclear world war. For Kiev, the more internationalized the conflict, the better, since this increases the remote “hope” that NATO will intervene in favor of its proxy.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
“I like to believe that people, in the long run, are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.” — Dwight Eisenhower
Following the latest orders from the International Court of Justice that Israel halt its military offensive in Rafah, some claimed that while the orders of the Court are of course binding, there’s “no enforcement mechanism.” The Court’s orders were of course the result of South Africa’s invoking the Genocide Convention against Israel and its repeated requests for additional orders from the ICJ.
In fact, there is such an enforcement mechanism — it’s the UN Security Council. The ICJ is a court that issues orders. The UNSC should act like a sheriff which implements those orders.
The problem of course is that the US government has misused its veto power to prevent the UNSC from actually ensuring security, vetoingnumerousresolutionson Palestine since October. And another UNSC draft resolution by Algeria is now in the works and it’s evident that the US government will veto and/or water it down.
But there is a mechanism to address such a situation. It’s called Uniting for Peace, whereby the UN General Assembly asserts itself in a situation threatening the peace when the Security Council won’t or can’t. Uniting for Peace (UNGA Resolution 377, from 1950, PDF) states:
“Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security. If not in session at the time, the General Assembly may meet in emergency special session within twenty-four hours of the request therefor. Such emergency special session shall be called if requested by the Security Council on the vote of any seven members, or by a majority of the Members of the United Nations”.
The UNGA actually held a vote for a ceasefire in Gaza (153 countries voting yes) last year using United for Peace but it didn’t invoke meaningful collective measures.
Uniting for Peace has been used numerous times, perhaps most successfully in the 1956 war, which actually involved Gaza. In choreographed manner, Israel and then Britain and France invaded Egypt after Gamal Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. The French and British vetoes at the Security Council of course prevented it from taking appropriate action. Most of the rest of the world — including the US and USSR together — moved to use Uniting for Peace.
This was the first time UN peacekeepers were used. The United Nations Emergency Force was created to ensure the withdrawal of the invading armies.
“In Egypt the United Nations caused the world to turn away from war. Through a series of resolutions, the General Assembly effectively mobilized world opinion to achieve a cease-fire, and France and the United Kingdom shortly agreed to withdraw their forces. The Assembly’s moral pressure played a powerful part in securing the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Egyptian territory in March of this year.”
“Israel kept its troops in Gaza until March 19, 1957, when the United States finally compelled the Israeli Government to withdraw its troops.”
Demands
Legal experts note that similar measures could be taken now.
In fact, Francis Boyle, who represented Bosnia in its Genocide Convention case before the ICJ and who was the leading proponent for a country invoking the Genocide Convention against Israel, always argued that invoking the Convention should be followed by the GA using Uniting for Peace “for enforcement against Israel.” See piece from 2014, during Israel’s attack then which killed over 1,000 Palestinians. Boyle in the news release “New World Court Order Against Israel: Could Uniting for Peace Stop Israel’s Assault?” outlines a number of steps that can be taken and other legal scholars agree, also see a recent interview below (he also recently appeared with me on a recent CodePink talk):
“The U.S. government is continuing to veto and delay at the UN Security Council as Israel violates international law with its bombing in Gaza and other actions. There’s a whole host of things that should be happening under international law that are not being done. This is partly a result of U.S. government obstruction, but there are other factors as well. …
“The General Assembly can use Uniting for Peace to get around the U.S. veto. This is how the U.S. was able to fight the Korean War under the UN flag. The General Assembly can call on member states to impose a trade embargo on Israel, it can even call on member states to organize a military force. It could suspend Israel.”
On March 25, with only five days left in the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, the UNSC finally passed a resolution calling for a ceasefire during Ramadan. But even that meager measure was immediately undermined with the US government claiming the resolution was “non-binding.”
UN whistleblower Craig Mokhiber, who headed the New York office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said then:
“You could have seen a resolution with teeth, with substance, resolution that included diplomatic, military, political, economic sanctions — not the enforcement of those sanctions, but the call for those sanctions — the deployment of a protection force, the establishment of a tribunal, the establishment of permanent mechanisms, as was the case within the United Nations during apartheid in South Africa. So, there are actions that could be taken here, but the nonveto has slowed action in the General Assembly, while at the same time allowing the United States to claim that, yes, the resolution passed, but somehow it’s not binding.”
Boyle notes that part of the utility of Uniting for Peace is that it has already been invoked in the case of Palestine and can be reconvened at any time; there’s no need to wait for another US government veto.
Demanding Demands
While US government machinations have done a great deal to enable Israel’s carnage, other states who say they are opposed to it have not done what they can.
Global citizens last year successfully urged South Africa to invoke the Genocide Convention against Israel and the South African government stepped up. Then they urged other states to join, which Nicaragua, Columbia, Libya and most recently Mexico have done, with others saying they will.
Now, global citizens can use some of the same resources, like this spreadsheet put together by a volunteer:
“Suspend Israel from participation in its activities as the General Assembly did to the former criminal apartheid regime in South Africa and to the genocidal Yugoslavia;
“Set up an International Criminal Tribunal for Israel in order to prosecute its highest level civilian and military officials for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide;
“Recommend economic sanctions against Israel;
“Recommend UN members sever diplomatic relations with Israel;
“Admit Palestine as a full fledged UN member state.”
New York State of Mind: From Columbia to Colombia
Activism might take an especially poignant form at UN headquarters in New York City, as well as government buildings around the world. In NYC there have of course been vibrant protests at Columbia University and elsewhere, often attacked by police.
The activist Randy Credico has been driving a truck around NYC, and especially around the UN, showing the gruesome reality of Israel’s carnage.
An immediate task for activists — student and otherwise — in NYC may be to direct efforts at the UN. Protesters who have been targeted and imprisoned will be in an especially strong place to urge representatives from various countries at their UN missions to go beyond the solemn speeches which we have seen many of since October about the horrors being rained down upon Palestinians. What’s needed is maximal action.
“On April 15, 1967, amidst growing opposition to the U.S. war in Vietnam, large-scale anti-war protests were held in New York, San Francisco, and many other cities.
“In New York, the protest began in Central Park, where more than 150 draft cards were burned, and concluded at the United Nations with speeches by Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and others.” Seemorephotos and video of MLK at the UN protest.
Getting Beyond UN Speeches
Many global political figures have made speeches at the UN and elsewhere denouncing the Israeli and US governments. And that’s good. But not good enough.
Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has scored headline after headline saying that Israel is committing genocide — strangely getting more and better attention than Nicaragua’s remarkable legal action against Germany for enabling Israel’s genocide. And Brazil did finally just recall its ambassador to Israel, but that’s no substitute to movement toward sanctions and other measures which can be furthered by using Uniting for Peace. Nor is Ireland, Norway and Spain finally recognizing Palestine, which most of the world did decades ago.
As of last year, the leaders of Colombia, Türkiye, Bolivia, Venezuela, Jordan, Pakistan, Algeria, Iran, Qatar, Oman and of course the Palestinians themselves all called Israel’s slaughter a “genocide” — yet none invoke the Genocide Convention until South Africa did so on Dec. 29. Now, they are failing to rally and push for maximal action using Uniting for Peace at the UN General Assembly.
“With the torment in Gaza, we believe that this helpless and dysfunctional structure of the United Nations will be questioned all over the world. Look, I am saying very openly: Nothing can continue as business as usual after Gaza.”
Erdoğan and others need to be made to live up to those words.
The US government will loudly proclaim that a General Assembly resolution is not binding. But standing against a unified vote of the world will further isolate the US establishment. And in any case, the US government has claimed that UN Security Council resolutions are not binding when it was convenient for it to do so.
The US and Israeli governments will only be stopped by concerted action coming from different directions. Strong action using Uniting for Peace will empower Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions and other movements.
It may also be a major step in developing a better world system.
Malaysia has put forward proposals to break the grip of a single member of the UNSC’ veto:
“The exercise of the veto by the members of the security council should be regulated to prohibit it from being used unjustifiably or abused by permanent members against the wishes of the majority of member states.”
What better step than the General Assembly coming together forcefully for peace to make that happen?
It’s past time that the various missions to the UN and the associated governments proclaiming their desire for peace get well beyond comfortable posturing and engage in serious movement.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Amidst the ongoing turmoil in Bangladesh, it is important to remember the extremely important and at the same time extremely tragic events in Bangladesh in 1975.
When Banglabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, the first President of Bangladesh, also called the Father of the Nation and revered by millions as such, was assassinated on August 15, 1975 as a part of the wider efforts to overthrow his popular government, there were several aspects of this murder most foul which hadshocked the world.
All the family members present in the house (together with servants) were killed, including Mujib’s wife, a motherly figure for many beyond the family, daughters in law, three sons, including a 10-year-child, each one shot separately. Another minister with family members was also killed. Other senior-most leaders were sent to prison and killed there. When an army officer involved in the assassination was asked why the 10 year old child was killed, he replied that the idea was to kill the entire family and spare no one.
Sheikh Hasina (daughter of Mujibur Rehman, later Prime minister of Bangladesh for a long time, ousted now) with one sister could escape because in August 1975 she was in W. Germany and from there she came to India.
No killer was punished and no action was taken against them for 21 years. Instead the killers—mostly junior army officers at that time—were given lucrative civil service jobs, several of them in the more prized foreign services. So they could spread out to other parts of the world and lived a life of luxury. Neither the national legal system did anything, nor was anything effective done internationally for ensuring the due punishment to them for so heinous a crime.
It was only after Sheikh Hasina was elected Prime Minister in 1996 that the process of justice started moving. Some of the killers could be been punished. Even then the entire truth could not be uncovered, or at least stated officially. So it is unlikely that the complete truth of the killing of Banglabandhu will ever be known for certainty. The reason is that the complete story has important international aspects which were difficult even for the government led for several years by the daughter of Sheikh Mujibur Rehman to state openly.
In his widely discussed book ‘Trial of Henry Kissinger’ Christopher Hitchens has stated clearly regarding those times of Bangladesh, “ (USA) Ambassador (in Bangladesh) Bosterbecame convinced that his CIA station was operating a back channel without his knowledge. Such an operation would have been meaningless, and pointlessly risky, if it did not extend homeward to Washington where, as is now notorious, the threads of the Forty Committee and National Security Council, were very closely held in one fist.” This fist, as this book explains, was that of Henry Kissinger.
Due to the investigative writings of Lawrence Lifschultz, Kai Bird, Christopher Hitchens and others publishedin reputed newspapers and journals of Bangladesh, India and several othercountries as well, some basic aspects of this heinous crime are now fairly well known.
1. It is fairly well-recognized that some influential persons of Bangladesh establishment, particularly in the army, had outwardly aligned themselves to liberation forces of Mujibur Rehman but had kept their links to Pakistan and religious fundamentalist forces intact, waiting for an opportunity to oust Mujibur Rehman. Ziaur Rehman, a senior army officer, was the most manipulative, shrewd and cruel among these persons and could go to any length to advance his interests.
2. Kissinger who was all powerful in the USA had seen the liberation of Bangladesh as a humiliation for his diplomacy that had to be avenged by ousting Mujib. Therefore he had instructed the CIA Station Chief in Dacca regarding a plan to oust Mujib. As per his mandate the CIA station chief in Dacca, who of course kept his actual assignment hidden under the officiallystated designation of being a political officer, had started exploring who can be useful in ousting Mujib and contacts had been established with various persons including Ziaur.
3. Around 1974-75 these attempts had started taking a more definite turn. The role of Ziaur Rehman was to be the important behind-the-scene role of managing the army at higher levels so that the actual killers could be reassured that no action will be taken against them after the killings and actually they will be rewarded with better opportunities. Talk of such planning was in the air.
4. The USA Ambassador in Dacca Davis Eugene Boster was a man of principles. Hearing these rumors he had given strict instructions that embassy staff is not to be involved in any coup or killing effort and should keep away from any such plotters and plot that may come to their notice. However he had very uneasy feeling that his instructions were not being followed and some sinister work was being done by the CIA station head bypassing him, on the basis of direct contacts at a very high level in the USA. Due to this duality there was a lot of tension in the USA embassy at that time.
5. Hence just a few days before the assassination when the CIA head in Dacca wanted to have a detailed secretive talk with Ziaur Rehman, he avoided a direct meeting and instead shrewdly arranged to meet at a dinner to be hosted by a prominent businessman who was also close to the Mujib family. As the dinner had just these two guests they could find enough time to talk separately in the garden. The businessman did not know the real identity of his American guest of course and later, after the assassination, when he could add two and two together, he deeply regretted the hosting of the dinner (at the prompting of the American guest), but by then it was too late to make any amends.
To this we may add the well-known history of post assassination days—the speedy rise of Ziaur to become the President of Bangladesh, the strong steps taken by Ziaur to move close to the USA and its western allies while distancing Bangladesh from India and the Soviet Union, the strengthening of fundamentalist forces within Bangladesh who had collaborated with Pakistan to kill so many people, the definite moving away from secularism.
The Sheikh Hasina government was fully committed to punishing those persons who were involved in the actual killing, but what is ultimately more important is to know who all were involved in planning the killings and in giving the go-ahead to the killers, for they would not have moved for such a shocking crime without some reassurance of their own safety and reward from higher levels. But as a complete exposure of this has strong international ramifications concerning very powerful forces, it was not possible even for the Bangladesh government led by the daughter of Banglabandhu to acknowledge all the known aspects officially.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Bharat Dogra is a journalist and author. His recent books include Planet in Peril, A Day in 2071, Man over Machine (Gandhian Ideas for Our Times) and Protecting Earth for Children. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Banani Graveyard in Dhaka (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)
After two weeks of speculation over who would join her at the top of the Democratic Party’s presidential ticket, Vice President Kamala Harris chose Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on Aug. 6.
Harris made the announcement the morning after she was officially nominated as the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate in a virtual roll call.
“I’m all in. Vice President Harris is showing us the politics of what’s possible. It reminds me a bit of the first day of school,” Walz wrote in a post on social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. “So, let’s get this done, folks!”
Speaking at their first joint rally in Philadelphia later that day, Harris described Waltz as “a fighter for the middle class” and “a patriot who believes … in the extraordinary promise of America,” as she said she does.
Other candidates who made the vice presidential shortlist include Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, and Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg.
Shapiro, opening the rally for Harris, praised Walz as “an outstanding governor.”
“I’m going to be working my tail off to make sure we make Kamala Harris and Tim Walz the next leaders of the United States,” Shapiro said.
Tricia Jones, 67, of Philadelphia, told The Epoch Times that she was surprised that Harris chose Walz over her state’s governor, but said she was “extremely happy” about the selection.
“I think Tim Walz has the ability to speak to different populations, especially the youth population, and generate the youth vote,“ she said. ”And also I think he has the talent to be able to speak Midwestern, and that’s really essential in the swing states.”
President Joe Biden greets Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz at Minneapolis-Saint Paul Joint Air Reserve Station on April 3, 2023. (Official White House Photo by Cameron Smith)
From the National Guard to Congress
Walz, 60, began his career in the Army National Guard, serving for 24 years, before becoming a high school teacher in Mankato, Minnesota. He was first elected to Congress in 2006, defeating incumbent Republican Gil Gutknecht in Minnesota’s First Congressional District, and was reelected for another five terms.
He was the highest-ranking enlisted soldier to serve in Congress and was rated the seventh most bipartisan representative in the 114th Congress by the Lugar Center at Georgetown University.
Walz defeated Republican Hennepin County Commissioner Jeff Johnson in 2018 to become the 41st governor of Minnesota.
Swing State, Rural, Progressive Appeal
Political strategist Brian Darling told The Epoch Times that Walz is perceived as someone who can speak to swing state voters, although he hails from Minnesota, which hasn’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate in 52 years. A group of nearly 50 progressive leaders from states throughout the country co-signed a letter on July 30 urging Harris to pass on Shapiro and pick either Walz or Beshear.
The group suggested the Democratic Party needed a vice presidential candidate who would “represent and connect with rural communities that have felt left behind in recent elections.”
They celebrated Walz as a “democratic representative in a rural district before becoming governor” and a perfect candidate to “win back rural voters across the country.”
Walz is seen as popular with Midwestern and union voters and is sometimes highlighted for his military background. His appeal to rural voters and military veterans could help him in blue-wall states such as Michigan and Wisconsin.
In office, Walz spearheaded a plan to provide universal free school meals for students, pushed to get Minnesota on 100 percent “clean electricity” by 2040, and expanded paid leave for workers. The governor also signed a hands-free driving bill into law, which prohibits the use of cellphones while driving.
Republican Response
House Speaker Mike Johnson called Harris and Walz the “most radical left-wing ticket in American history” in a post on X.
“I look forward to highlighting the vast differences between their policies and the America First agenda that President Trump and Senator Vance are fighting for every day,” he said.
In a statement posted to a campaign fundraising website, former President Donald Trump said Walz would support “open borders” immigration policies and “rubber stamp” energy and climate strategies similar to the Green New Deal, a bill Harris co-sponsored while in the U.S. Senate.
Marc Ellinger, chairman of the Republican National Lawyers Association, criticized Walz for his handling of the protests and riots that broke out in 2020 after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
“The American people do not want what Tim Walz allowed to happen in Minneapolis coming to their communities,” Ellinger said.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis echoed Ellinger’s concerns over the 2020 protests after Harris announced her running mate pick.
“We would never allow that to happen in the state of Florida. … That is not a prescription for America to work its way back,” he said in a statement.
Democrats Unite Behind Harris–Walz
President Joe Biden,posting to X, called Harris’s pick a “great decision.”
“The Harris–Walz ticket will be a powerful voice for working people and America’s great middle class,” Biden said, adding that the two will be the “strongest defenders” for personal freedoms and democracy. He called on Americans to “rally behind” the ticket.
The first major decision a party nominee makes is their choice for Vice President. And Kamala Harris has made a great decision in choosing Governor Tim Walz to be her running mate.
I've known Tim Walz for nearly two decades, first during his time in Congress and as Governor. A…
Former President Barack Obama also celebrated the selection of Walz, calling the military veteran an “outstanding governor” who believes government works to serve “not just some of us, but all of us” in a statement on X.
“By selecting Tim Walz to be her vice president from a pool of outstanding Democrats, Kamala Harris has chosen an ideal partner—and made it clear exactly what she stands for,” Obama said.
Like Vice President Harris, Governor @Tim_Walz believes that government works to serve us. Not just some of us, but all of us. That’s what makes him an outstanding governor, and that’s what will make him an even better vice president. Michelle and I couldn’t be happier for Tim… pic.twitter.com/s0RmVs7bGL
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called Walz a “great choice” in a post on X, calling on Democrats to “get to work” ahead of the election.
“There’s no doubt the Harris/Walz ticket will lead us to victory in November and build a future Americans can be proud of,” Schumer said.
Great choice, @KamalaHarris. Let’s get to work! There’s no doubt the Harris/Walz ticket will lead us to victory in November and build a future Americans can be proud of. https://t.co/HiQCNG0YNW
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Jacob Burg reports on the state of Florida for The Epoch Times. He covers a variety of topics including crime, politics, science, education, wildlife, family issues, and features. He previously wrote about sports, politics, and breaking news for the Sarasota Herald Tribune.
Lawrence Wilson covers politics for The Epoch Times.
Featured image: Tim Walz and Kamala Harris together in March 2024, prior to the start of the Harris 2024 campaign. Walz would go on to become the campaign’s vice presidential candidate. (From the Public Domain)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
.
First published on January 29, 2024, revised February 1 and 4, 2024
Update. A New Wave of Criminal Initiatives
The ICJ Judgment of January 26, 2024 assigns the Netanyahu government representing the State of Israel –accused by the Republic of South Africa of genocide against the People of Palestine– with a mandate to “take all measures within its power” to “prevent and punish” those responsible for having committed “Genocidal Acts”. (under Article IV of the Genocide Convention)
Sounds contradictory? What the ICJ judgment intimates –from a twisted legal standpoint– is that Netanyahu’s Cabinet “appointed” to implement the “prevent and punish” mandate cannot be accused ofhaving committed“Genocidal Acts”.
In substance, this contradictory mandate –which was intended to protect the people of Gaza–, provides the Netanyahu government with a pretext to “prevent and punish” Palestinians for allegedly having committed genocidal acts against Israelis. i.e. Netanyahu can not “Prevent and Punish himself”. (See our detailed analysis below in the section on “Fake Justice”). (See The Republic of South Africa’s 84 page document submitted to the ICJ)
Video. Palestine. Fake Justice at the International Court of Justice
The ICJ not only refused to propose a “Cease Fire”, its January 26, 2024 Judgment failed to question the role of the Likud coalition government, which was largely responsible for the planning prior to October 7 of a comprehensive genocide agenda, with the support of Washington.
We had predicted that this vote would contribute to a new wave of criminal initiatives on the part of the Netanyahu government. On January 26, Netanyahu confirmed that the genocide was ongoing and would continue despite the ICJ Judgment.
“We will not compromise on anything less than total victory. That means eliminating Hamas, …”
Israel’s Plan: Mass Starvation
While rhetorical condemnations against Israel prevail, what the peace movement fails to acknowledge is that no legal obstruction or hindrance was formulated by the World Court with a view to curbing the tide of atrocities against Palestinians including an Israeli project to engineer starvation throughout the Gaza Strip.
“Gaza is experiencing mass starvation like no other in recent history. Before the outbreak of fighting in October, food security in Gaza was precarious, but very few children – less than 1% – suffered severe acute malnutrition, the most dangerous kind. Today, almost all Gazans, of any age, anywhere in the territory, are at risk.
There is no instance since the second world war in which an entire population has been reduced to extreme hunger and destitution with such speed. And there’s no case in which the international obligation to stop it has been so clear.”
These facts underpinned South Africa’s recent case against Israel at the international court of justice. The international genocide convention, article 2c, prohibits “deliberately inflicting [on a group] conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. (Guardian)
Washington Supports the Genocide. The Issue of “Conflict of Interest” and “Recusal”
What is at stake is the criminalization of the international judicial process. The ICJ has granted Israel with the full endorsement of the U.S. a de facto “green light” to continue and “escalate the genocide”.
Criminal acts are now being committed in the occupied West Bank, coupled with an increase in the deployment of IDF forces.
In Gaza, IDF commanders have ordered soldiers to “Setting fire to homes belonging to non-combatant civilians, for the mere purpose of punishment”,
Barely a few days after the ICJ Judgment, plans were announced to establish a cohesive network of Jewish settlements in Gaza.
The Biden administration responding to Netanyahu has ordered to cut funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which is slated to trigger famine and the collapse of social services:
UNRWA provides food, shelter, health care, education … for the 5.7 million UNRWA-registered Palestinian refugees in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, February 1-4, 2024, April 25, 2024
.
.
Part I
.
The Criminalization of International Law
.
“Fake Justice” at The Hague
.
The ICJ “Appoints” Netanyahu to “Prevent” and “Punish”
.
Those Responsible for “Genocidal Acts”
by
Michel Chossudovsky
Introduction
While the ICJ has rejected Israel’s attempt to dismiss South Africa’s assertions, the Judgment –which is full of contradictions– is ultimately supportive of the Likud government.
Moreover, no ceasefire was declared by the ICJ with a view to saving lives. Since October 7, amply documented, the atrocities committed against the People of Palestine are beyond description. At least 10,000 children have been killed: “That is one Palestinian child killed every 15 minutes… Thousands more are missing under the rubble, most of them are presumed dead.”
Of significance: The Judgment intimates that the Israeli military rather than the Netanyahu government should be held responsible for committing criminal acts in violation of Article 2 of the Genocide Convention. What this “statement” suggests is that “Netanyahu’s hands are clean”. Nonsense!
There is ample evidence that the genocide was carefully planned well in advance of October 7, 2023 by Netanyahu’s Cabinet.
There is a command structure within the Israeli military. Israeli soldiers and pilots obey the “illegal orders” emanating from the Netanyahu government.
The ICJ is under Washington’s Spotlight.Let us be under no illusions, the U.S has firmly endorsed Israel’s criminal undertaking:
“The US said the ICJ ruling was consistent with Washington’s view that Israel has the right to take action, in accordance with international law, to ensure the October 7 attack cannot be repeated.
“We continue to believe that allegations of genocide are unfoundedand note the court did not make a finding about genocide or call for a ceasefire in its ruling and that it called for the unconditional, immediate release of all hostages being held by Hamas,” a State Department spokesperson said. Al Jazeera, January 26, 2024, emphasis added)
The President of the ICJ Joan E. Donoghue was a legal advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton under the Obama administration. Joan Donoghue takes her instructions from Washington.
Moreover, the conduct of the genocide is a joint Israel-US endeavor with US forces involved in Israel’s combat units.
Nobody in the media nor in the peace movement has underscored the fact that the President of the ICJ is de facto in “conflict of interest”.
“The anger of the World has been pacified for a while with the false celebration of a fake “victory” at The Hague. The US chief judge at ICJ must be laughing.
Israel’s genocide will continue while the US and its chief justice at the ICJ keep the world at bay for very long with new false words and delaying actions.” (Karsten Riise, Global Research emphasis added)
Video: Palestine. “Fake Justice” and Genocide
Michel Chossudovsky with Caroline Mailloux, Lux Media
The Crimes Committed by Israel are “Genocidal In Character”
According to The Republic of South Africa —referring to Article II of the Genocide Convention–, the crimes committed by the State of Israel “are genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group. …”:
“The acts in question include killing Palestinians in Gaza, causing them serious bodily and mental harm, and inflicting on them conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction.
… That intent is also properly to be inferred from the nature and conduct of Israel’s military operation in Gaza, having regard inter alia to Israel’s failure to provide or ensure essential food, water, medicine, fuel, shelter and other humanitarian assistance for the besieged and blockaded Palestinian people, which has pushed them to the brink of famine.
The acts are all attributable to [The state of] Israel, which has failed to prevent genocide and is committing genocide in manifest violation of the Genocide Convention. … “ (emphasis added)
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers [politicians], public officials or private individuals
The main actors behind the genocide against Palestine are the “Constitutionally Responsible Rulers”,namely “civilian politicians”.
In the Judgment –referring to Article IV— (see below) the ICJ calls upon the Netanyahu government acting on behalf of the State of Israel, to prevent and punish those individuals who allegedly committed crimes of genocide:
“The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention. (ICJ, emphasis added)
The exact text of the motion is:
“The State of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip;…”
What the ICJ judgment intimates is that the “Constitutionally Responsible Rulers (CRRs)” acting on behalf of the State of Israel (identified in Article IV), namely the members of Netanyahu’s Cabinet are “Innocent”. They cannot “prevent and punish” themselves.
And that is where “Fake Justice” comes in
“Constitutionally Responsible Rulers (CRRs)” Netanyahu, Galant, Ben-Gvir, Katz, Smotrich, et al are the architects of the Genocide. Yet they have been assigned by the ICJ with a mandate “To Prevent and Punish the Direct and Public Incitement to Commit Genocide…” (See text of Motion above).
The CRRs within Netanyahu’s Cabinet acting on behalf of the State of Israel-– who carefully planned prior to October 7, 2023 a genocidal attack against the People of Palestine have been “appointed” by the ICJ to “take all measures within its power” to “prevent” and “punish”“public officials”, “private individuals”, members of the Military who are carrying out acts of “direct and public incitement to commit genocide”.
Prevention and Punishment is not contemplated against Israel’s Netanyahu Clique of CRRs “who have blood on their hands.”
What does this imply?
De facto the main architects of the genocide are the “Constitutionally Responsible Rulers (CRRs)” —referred to in Article IV of the Genocide Convention.— (It’s as if the Category “Constitutionally Responsible Rulers” had been removed from Article IV of the Genocide Convention).
Under present circumstances, this “take all measures within its power” concept is tantamount to the criminalization of International Law: The CRRs “Criminals in High Office” (Netanayahu et al) are invited to take law enforcement in their own hands.
The option to entrust Netanyahu’s Cabinet with the “Prevent and Punish” assignment was a decision of the World Court. The 17 Judges could have demanded that the Israeli government cease all genocidal actions. They could also have recommended that the “prevent and punish” mandate be assigned to a United Nations body, including the UN Security Council.
The Netanyahu government has ordered the most hideous crimes against the People of Palestine.
And now the World Court has instructed a criminal government led by Netanyahu (who has a criminal record) to “take all measures within its power” to “prevent” and “punish” “public officials, “private individuals” (Article IV) as well as combatants within the Israeli military.
Visibly, the prevent and punish requirement is not meant to apply to the so-called “Constitutionally Responsible Rulers (CRRs)”, namely “civilian politicians” (i.e. “the good guys”) namely the “REAL CRIMINALS” in blatant contradiction of Article IV.
It’s an absurd proposition. It unfortunately disallows Netanyahu to “prevent and punish himself”.
And this is really what is required under international law.
Ceasefire Denied
While the Court acknowledges that criminal acts may have been committed by the State of Israel, it categorically refuses South Africa’s provisional demands including a “Ceasefire”, which would have served to interrupt at least temporarily the ongoing atrocities against the People of Palestine.
Does this not constitute a “criminal act” by the ICJ, which indelibly will result in countless deaths of Palestinian civilians? Or is a “mistake” in the formulation of the Motion?
What this signifies is that Netanyahu’s Genocide (from a strategic angle) is virtually unscathed, while sustaining rhetorical and meaningless condemnations against the State of Israel.
Throughout history, wars and war crimes have invariably been instigated by “civilian politicians”.
The Israeli military has been “Obeying Illegalorders” emanating from a government which is firmly committed to the conduct of genocide against the People of Palestine.
And now the IJC Judgment enables Israel’s “Constitutionally Responsible Rulers”, namelycivilian politicians to place the blame on the Israeli Military.
In a bitter irony, the ICJ’s “prevent and punish mandate” will allow the Netanyahu clique to reinforce their stranglehold on the Israeli protest movement as well as target Israelis who have taken a firm stance against the genocide.
The Road Ahead: Resistance within the Armed Forces. “Disobey Illegal Orders. Abandon the Battlefield”
There is resistance within the Armed Forces. Voices within Israel’s military have spoken out against the Netanyahu government. There is a Protest Movement in Israel.
In response to the ICJ slanted decision, what is required is to initiate a Worldwide campaign entitled:
The objective is to undermine the conduct of the genocide as well reverse the course of history.
It is a proposal which sofar has not been the object of debate by anti-war activists in solidarity with Palestine.
Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter defines the responsibility of combatants “to refuse the orders of Government or a superior … “provided a moral choice [is] possible“.
Based on the Nuremberg Charter, what is required is a campaign encouraging:
Israeli, American and NATO Combatants to “Disobey Unlawful Orders” and “Abandon the Battlefield”.
The Campaign would focus on making that“moral choice” possible, namely to enable enlisted Israeli, American, and NATO service men and women to “Abandon the Battlefield”.
The Abandon the Battlefield campaign will in large part be waged in Israel. In regards to Israel, already there are unfolding divisions in the IDF command structures, political divisions, coupled with a mass protest movement against Netanyahu. The use of a False Flag justification to wage the Genocide is amply documented.
IDF soldiers and commanders must be informed and briefed on the significance of Nuremberg Principle IV.
Inasmuch as the U.S. and its allies are waging a hegemonic war in major regions of the World, Abandon the Battlefield should be a call for action by the anti-war movement Worldwide.
Now let me turn my attention to Nuremberg Principle VI, which defines the crimes punishable under The Nuremberg Charter.
Nuremberg Charter. Principle VI
Both Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu as well as President Joe Biden are responsible for “war crimes”, “crimes against peace” and “crimes against humanity” as defined under Principle VI of the Nuremberg Charter:
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill- treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds.
“The fact that a person [e.g. Israeli, U.S.soldiers, pilots] acted pursuant to order of his [her] Government or of a superior does not relieve him [her] from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him [her].”
Let us make that “moral choice” possible, to enlisted Israeli, American, and NATO service men and women.
Let us call upon Israeli and American soldiers and pilots “to abandon the battlefield”, as an act of refusal to participate in a criminal undertaking against the People of Gaza.
While it is predicated on international law, its conduct does not require the political rubber stamp of the ICJ. It is part of a grassroots campaign in Israel and the Middle East as well as Worldwide.
Solidarity With Palestine
Let us have tears to our eyes in solidarity with the People of Palestine, in building a mass movement Worldwide, which confronts the ongoing slaughter before our very eyes.
Let us recall The Christmas Truce of 1914, more than 109 years ago:
“Something happened in the early months of the “War to End All Wars” that put a tiny little blip of hope in the historical timeline of the organized mass slaughter that is war. The event was regarded by the professional military officer class to be so profound and so important (and so disturbing) that strategies were immediately put in place that would ensure that such an event could never happen again.” (Dr. Gary G. Kohls)
The men learned in many ways that the official enemy was in fact not the real enemy, that the soldiers on the other side were human beings just like themselves.” (Dr. Jacques Pauwels)
Let It Happen Again
Today, we are “fraternizing” and acting in solidarity Worldwide with the People of Palestine against the hegemonic agenda of the U.S. and it allies which are waging an all-out war against humanity.
Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter defines the rights of soldiers and pilots who have the responsibility to Disobey Illegal Orders and Abandon the Battlefield
Nuremberg Principle IV is not only a “Legal Text”, It is A Guiding Light in a Worldwide campaign against Acts of Genocide.
Here’s how everything unfolded from the start of this summer’s initially peaceful student-led protests against the judiciary’s reimposition of a contentious government job quota system to the spree of urban terrorism that ultimately forced the country’s long-serving leader to flee for her life to India.
Casual news consumers don’t know much about Bangladesh apart from it being a South Asian country that just experienced a regime change, but it’s also the eighth-most-populous country with one of the world’s largest textile industries and a highly geostrategic position. Bangladesh borders India’s Northeast States that are connected to the “mainland” by the “Chicken’s Neck”, which is only 12-14 miles wide at its narrowest, and some of these same states have been troubled by ethno-separatist unrest for years.
Former long-serving Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was a de facto Indian ally despite cultivating close ties with China and the US.
She shared Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s vision of regional development and thus allowed his country transit rights across hers for facilitating trade with its Northeast States. Moreover, Hasina prevented her country from being used by related militant groups that are designated by Delhi as terrorists, and she also cracked down on religious radicals too.
Although the Bangladeshi economy rapidly grew under her leadership, she resorted to a heavy hand to maintain domestic stability, which upset the increasingly large number of Islamist-inclined youth who considered her government’s legal cases against the opposition to be “anti-democratic lawfare”. Controversial tactics by the security services inadvertently worsened domestic dissent and ultimately led to targeted sanctions by the US, which was already becoming unhappy with her multipolar balancing act.
The past 14 months saw the worsening of her ties with America after she accused it of fomenting regime change against her in April 2023, followed by Russia expressing concerned in November that it might orchestrate a Color Revolution during January 2024’s elections that the opposition boycotted. Less than three months ago, Hasina strongly implied that the US was the Western country that she accused of plotting to carve out a Christian proxy state in the region after she rejected its demand for a naval base.
Shortly thereafter, the High Court reinstated the contentious government job quota system in late June that had been declared illegal in 2018, which served as the trigger event for mobilizing a large segment of the population to take to the streets against that decision. This movement was initially driven by students but was quickly co-opted by opportunistic members of the opposition, Western-cultivated elements of civil society, and religious radicals, which culminated in her resignation and flight this week:
The preceding analyses document the regime change sequence that took place, which continued after the quota system was scaled back and succeeded due to the rioters gambling that the armed forces wouldn’t resort to lethal force to prevent large numbers of them from storming the parliament and her palace. Average Bangladeshis unconnected to the opposition, religious radicals, and foreign forces also participated in them after being enraged at decontextualized footage of state-on-“protester” violence.
This tactic is characteristic of Color Revolutions and was employed by violent rioters, who many suspect to be the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party’s (BNP) banned Jamaat-e-Islami allies, provoking the security services into using lethal force as a last resort to restore safety to the streets. Those individuals were joined the unrest after seeing this footage became unwitting “human shields” for deterring the security services from replicating the aforementioned means out of fear of killing peaceful protesters.
Although social media was banned and a curfew imposed, many still came across that footage and an uncontrollable number of angry citizens then spilled into the streets, thus forcing the security services into the dilemma that was just described and leading to them standing down. Hasina fled once it became clear that she couldn’t count on the security services to protect her and uphold the government that she led. Retributive political violence and attacks against the Hindu minority then followed.
India is concerned about the possibility of Bangladesh reverting to the unfriendly country that it used to be under the BNP, which could see it once again host Delhi-designated terrorist groups as part of a major proxy war against this emerging Great Power. Pakistan’s hatred of India is well known, China is embroiled in a bitter border dispute with India, and the US is furious that India won’t submit to being a vassal by dumping Russia and fighting China on its behalf, so all three have reasons to punish it in this way.
Their interests could therefore converge in Bangladesh to pose serious threats to India’s domestic security and territorial integrity. In that worst-case scenario, the combined effect of their policies – whether coordinated or independently promulgated – would be to sabotage India’s rise as a Great Power, thus representing a major power play in the New Cold War. It’s too early to say whether that’ll happen, but it also can’t be ruled out by India either, which is closely monitoring this neighboring crisis.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: People cheering in front of prime minister’s office after her resignation (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)
Jews are not a monolith. There are plenty of Jews who abhor the racism and violence of the Zionist faction of Jewry. Yet, many uninformed people consider Zionism to express the ethos of Jewishness.
In this era of internet and instant communication, information on the monstrous crimes of Zionism is available for people who make an effort to be aware. Take that information and apply open-minded skepticism. Ask whether the evidence substantiates the information and its narrative.
Israeli Jews are carrying out genocide against Palestinians (something that has been ongoing for decades). Eliminating a grouping of people from existence is heinous enough, but there is also the horrific matter of what happens to the victims of Zionists before they are killed.
Redacted interviewed Dan Cohen of Uncaptured Mediato report a bloodlust where Israelis are torturing and raping Palestinian prisoners, and that Israeli protestors are in the streets claiming Israelis have a right to rape these prisoners.
Cohen is in Israel telling of “the shock and trauma and hate and racism pulsing through the veins of Israeli society ….” This is exemplified by the fact that the Israeli military-run prison with its Palestinian captives:
…is not about gaining intelligence, at all. It is not about finding Israeli captives in Gaza, at all. What happens there [in the prisons] is about the most cruel punishment. It is torture with electric shock, beating, severe beatings, where if you talk to someone you are beaten until your teeth break, until your bones break, if you fall asleep, these kinds of things. People are, as we know, anally raped. Prisoners are killed. There are many who are murdered. They just never come out…. These are just [Palestinian] civilians, cause all their fighters are underground. So they take civilians from the neighborhoods, and just take them there and torture them and kill them, even top doctors. I think it is 39 medical professionals from Gaza have ah, I believe, been killed in there… (5:30 to 7:15)
Non-Zionist Jews, Jews opposed to the crimes of Zionists, must speak out against the evil, otherwise their silence may be criticised as complicity. The non-Zionist Jews are faced with the challenge of how to get their humanist message widely disseminated in opposition to Zionism.
One grouping of Jews that opposes Zionism and supports Palestinian rights is Jewish Voices for Peace. Rebecca Vilkomerson and Rabbi Alissa Wise, two leaders and former staff of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) have written Solidarity Is the Political Version of Love: Lessons from Jewish Anti-Zionist Organizing (Haymarket Books, 14 May 2024), which covers the period from 2010-2020.
Omar Barghouti, Palestinian human rights defender and cofounder of the non-violent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement for Palestinian rights, wrote the foreword to the book. Barghouti notes the difference of JVP from other progressivist Jewish organizations:
Instead of the typical Jewish American PEP (progressive except on Palestine) culture, JVP has helped a PIP culture—progressive including on Palestine …
In the face of overwhelming Jewish American support for Zionism and Israeli apartheid, JVP has insisted on growing the anti-Zionist movement to dismantle the myth of Israel’s representation of all Jews and, along with it, the complicity of the Jewish Zionist establishment in securing mainstream support in the US for funding, arming, and enabling Israel’s regime of oppression.
As Solidarity Is the Political Version of Love relates, JVP has grown and morphed over time from the “first mass Jewish civil disobedience in the Rotunda of the US Congress” to later “large-scale protests at a level none of us can remember.” (p 2) “JVP grew larger as it shifted to the left and altered the public narrative about Palestinian liberation while creating a space for Judaism beyond Zionism.” (p 2-3) JVP did not declare itself anti-Zionist until early in 2019; however, it was noted that the proportion of anti-Zionist members and staff has grown over time. (p 13)
When Haymarket Books shared the e-galley, I was informed that the authors are available for interviews. With that in mind, seven days ago I sent some questions.
The first question was based on Vilkomerson and Wise’s definition of solidarity: “as when people outside a specific community dedicate themselves to supporting the rights and aspirations of that community, taking direction on what actions to take from the community itself.” (9) Since solidarity is the leitmotif for the book, why is it that JVP identifies as Jewish voices rather than, for example, Human Voices for Peace? The name seems to set limits on solidarizing with non-Jews within its organization?
However, there is something of a work around in the book: “What did it mean to be a member if you weren’t Jewish? … So, we relied on people self-identifying as members and didn’t spend time gatekeeping peoples’ Jewishness.” (p 55) “We believe movement building is the only way to realize the world all people deserve.” (p 80)
I also asked about the propriety of donating to JVP as opposed to donating to Palestinian movements.
The Zionist NGO Monitor complains that “JVP’s funding sources are not transparent.” NGO Monitor further criticizes JVP, saying that the JVP “regards the organized Jewish community as its ‘enemy’ and ‘opponent,’ …. The strategy, as stated by JVP’s executive director Rebecca Vilkomerson, is to create ‘a wedge’ within the American Jewish community to generate the impression of polarization over Israel.” For those who are opposed to Zionist oppression of Palestinians such criticism ought to be considered as a badge of honor by the JVP.
Moreover, JVP criticizes
Israel’s ongoing apartheid policies of administrative detention—holding Palestinians without charge or trial—left Palestinians stranded in prison indefinitely. At the same time, home demolitions are a daily occurrence, with more than nine thousand structures destroyed since 2009.1 In addition to the daily indignities faced by Palestinians at checkpoints, Jewish-only settlements proliferated in the West Bank, siphoning water, developing a network of Jewish-only roads connecting the settlements to Israel, and bringing into Palestinian communities thousands of armed settler vigilantes, who regularly harassed and violently attacked Palestinians, vandalizing their property with the blessing of the Israeli army, felling ancient olive trees, and shooting at Palestinians that need to cross Jewish-only roads to reach their farms or graze their flocks. In Gaza, the situation became even more dire for Palestinians after Jewish settlers were removed in 2005, when Israel turned Gaza into an open-air prison, maintaining an illegal siege by controlling what goes in and out by air, land, and sea. (p 6)
Sounds good, sounds progressivist.
I wondered about the JVP stance on two-state vs one-state. The authors wrote, “… as a group of people in the US it was not JVP’s place to determine the number of states at all, but instead to do what we could to support a liberatory future.” (p 14)
That’s fine. But what about whether Palestine should be recognized as a state, something Israel is vehemently opposed to? An online search reveals that JVP often refers to the “state of Palestine.” This earned JVP further scorn from the NGO Monitor.
JVP takes many progressivist positions.
JVP acknowledges overwhelming Jewish communal support for Israel but sees its role as “just one prong in a multifaceted movement, led by Palestinians in the US and Palestine.” (p 16)
JVP questions its own Jewish composition: “Ashkenazi Jews colluded with and assimilated into whiteness, Jewish voices (whether Ashkenazi or not) were routinely privileged above Palestinian voices” (p 40) and its hierarchical structure. (p 61)
JVP recognizes “the weaponization of antisemitism, specifically in connection with anti-Zionism,” (p 99) and sees solidarity as the key to overcoming the Zionism that Palestinians endure drives them into isolation from violent domination. (p 102) “JVP, from the very start, has been guided by the exact opposite principle, that writ large we live in an interdependent world, that we all deserve safety, and that the way to gain safety is through solidarity.” (p 103)
Paradoxically, solidarity in a worthy cause might require splittism. Vilkomerson and Wise write, “Decoupling Jews from Israel and Jewishness from Zionism are therefore essential to the struggle against real antisemitism, toward realizing Jewish safety, and, of course, for Palestinian liberation.” (p 108)
The authors see solidarity as an expression of love:
Whatever your version of solidarity, may you practice it as an expression of love. A love that manifests as raging at the world as it is, and at the same time developing smart, intentional plans to realize the world as it should be. (p 215)
The ways in which Israel’s assault on Palestinians in Gaza exceeds the horror of nearly all wars in recent memory are too long to list: more children killed, more journalists killed, more bombs dropped, more homes destroyed, more internally displaced people, more targeting of hospitals, schools, mosques, churches and refugee camps. That’s because it’s simply not a war – it’s a genocide. (p 218)
The genocide of 186,000 Palestinians (likeliest a depressingly higher number in the three-and-a-half weeks since the Lancet article was published), requires an utmost expression of love through solidarity with the entirety of humanity. This comes through clearly and forthrightly in Solidarity Is the Political Version of Love.
There are few (or none) sizeable groupings of people who form a monolith. JVP is one Jewish grouping that deviates from Zionist Jews by upholding morality in solidarity with a shared humanity.
Israel is not alone in its evil. It is backed by governments in the West. The US is a staunch supporter of Zionism, funding it, arming it, and providing media and diplomatic cover for Israel. It points to the sine qua non of a monolith of humans united by love for fellow humans. This guiding principle would elevate humanity to the stratosphere.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
“The opening ceremony of the Olympics felt like the closing ceremony of humanity”, posted on “X” (former Twitter) by @KimDotcom.
The Satanic symbolism of the inauguration of the French Olympics on 26 July 2024, raised many questions on interpreting them. Those who are behind these diabolical symbols of course knew what they were doing.
In brief, as the “Satanic Cult”, has on many prior occasions before, they showed us, the People, what they have already done with us, how far they have advanced in their evil endeavor, and that we are at “the final stage of the apocalypse” as depicted in the Book of Revelation. With gory details, blasphemous symbolism, a gross display of the United Nations 2030 Woke agenda, no end, they demonstrated the end phase of the Fourth Horseman of Death.
Is it “coincidence”, or excessive symbolism, that the entire opening ceremony was under alluvial rain, representing the biblical legendary and symbolic Deluge – as perhaps the only event capable of salvaging humanity?
We know, geoengineering can produce, as well as stop rain, wherever it’s needed – and of course much worse.
Each of the horsemen represents a different facet of the apocalypse: conquest, war, famine, and death. The one displayed at the Olympics Opening was the Fourth Horseman of Death, portrayed by the devil on a horse, draped in an Olympic flag (see picture).
The other three horsemen represent different facets of the apocalypse: conquest, war, famine; culminating in the last one: death.
Much has been written already about the satanic opening ceremony. Certainly, much more than Macron, one of the co-masters of the Diabolical Cult could have ever imagined. That shows how far removed from humanity, from those whom “they” say elected them, they really are.
Among recent articles trying to explain and analyze the strange Opening of the French Olympic Games is my previous article entitled:
The entire opening ceremony was filmed while Paris was under pouring rain – including a blasphemous Last Supper, the setting of Leonardo da Vinci – but with full LGBTQ+ label and characters, with a fat, big-breasted trans-lady in the middle, in Jesus’ place, according to the famous da Vinci painting. Also appearing, a blue gnome dancing with a stiff penis (see picture).
However, more analysis of the displayed dismal allegories may be of the order.
The symbolism is almost perfect. What do we expect?
Are they telling us that our last hour has wrung? The three initial phases of the Apocalypse have come and gone and some are being executed in parallel with each other – Conquest, War, Famine… while we are indeed entering the fourth – meaning Death. This, the Fourth Horseman, is meant to tell us.
Conquest – almost without humanity noticing, we have been taken over – by the Globalists, those who are pretending to be at the point of establishing a One World Government and a One World digital currency – exerting full control.
No kidding. We are not far from this moment. Wake up People!
War – there is no need even to talk about wars. They are everywhere. All of them initiated in one way or another by the “Deep State”.
First, create unrest by terrorism, infiltrated into a country by the “Satanic Cultists” which include the upper echelons of the financial establishment and the multibillionaire foundations, then invade, create an endless war, never to win – and so the industry that fuels it, will earn trillions of fake money.
We, the People, work hard for – while the Zuckerbergs et al – buy yachts worth half a billion dollars, irrespective of the CO2 emissions they tell us, the People, to reduce to zero. Zuckerberg is founder, chairman and CEO of Meta, former Facebook, one of the tech-giants.
The latest wealth report, just out, indicates that 1.5% of the world population owns 47.5% of the world’s wealth.
Why is that important?
Because Wars, the War Industry, is one of the largest generators of this fake wealth, wealth by death, exactly what the Fourth Horseman has in store for us: a 1.3 trillion dollar nuclear weapons program.
Wars are also supported directly or indirectly by the tech corporations, by “Cyber Valley”, formerly called Silicon Valley.
Famine– we are being plunged into an artificial famine, by the false climate change agendaand the overall lie that has been drilled into the human brain, it seems to be irreversible. The “smartest” people believe in it.
“The United States has joined 12 other nations in signing a World Economic Forum (WEF) agreement that seeks to engineer global famine by destroying the agriculture industry.
According to the agreement, which was drawn up by the WEF and the United Nations (UN), food production is causing “global warming” and must be eliminated.
To “save the planet” from “climate change,” the globalists insist, farms must be shut down across the world”
So, CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases —like farting cows— are causing the manmade climate change, against any evidence, just propaganda, and we, the People, swallow it. And if We, the People, do not stop it, climate change will kill us all.
No word about geoengineering the weather, the climate – so we believe in the “climate” hoax.
We are blind, cannot see the white crisscrossing chemtrails on the sky, cannot see that these all-destructive horrendous bush and forest fires are made by Direct Energy Weapons (DEW) – another means of doing away with humanity.
Human agriculture, the very base for our lives, giving us the daily nutrition we need, is being killed by the “Satanic Cult”.
Farmland is being bought up, for example by the Bill Gates Foundation, thus, preventing it from being used to produce food.
Bill Gates is currently the largest single farmland owner of the USA.
Why is this important to know? Because it is all connected – causing famine and misery, and connected to the horrendous symbolism of the Olympic Openings.
We let it happen. It is our fault, as we are being told. Our Christian culture has brought us up with guilt. We are guilty before we are even born — so, yes, we must suffer.
Some protest, but most don’t. Instead, they prepare themselves for a diet on bugs and maybe grass—a diet towards famine leading directly to the Fourth Horseman of Death.
In a July 8 announcement, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) approved the 16 insects, which include silkworm pupa and mealworm, “With immediate effect.”
“The United Nations Food And Agricultural Organisation (FAO) continues to promote insect consumption as an environmentally friendly way to get protein in your diet — for both humans and their livestock,”
Proponents of insects as food for humans, including the FAO, argue this will help combat climate change, as insects produce a smaller carbon footprint than traditional livestock. But critics challenge this view.”
Does the blasphemously displayed Last Supper of transvestites and gays suggest that death and extinction is on the horizon, as they do not procreate?
Is the Woke agenda just one more step to human extinction?
Death – That is what they want for most of us. A small group of “underlings” cum transhumans, commanded by 5G and soon 6G – no chips needed – will be their slaves.
These quasi-robots are happy owning nothing. In case they become unhappy, they can be extinguished remotely – when they become problems, or are no longer needed.
Video with Peter Koenig. Preceded by Interview with Klaus Schwab (RTS.ch)
That’s it, folks!
They have been very honest, their Olympics symbolism has clearly shown us where we are — they came out in the open with their verdict: See what we can do – there is no return.
Wake up People. It is never too late. There is never a moment of NO RETURN
Never forget this simple phrase: Together we can.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).
Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
A loucura russofóbica e o neonazismo estão a tornar-se fenômenos cada vez mais preocupantes nos países alinhados com o Ocidente – especialmente nos Estados Bálticos. Além de criarem políticas de apartheid contra os russos étnicos, estes estados estão a tornar completamente pública e aberta a sua admiração por figuras históricas do nazismo, mostrando como a ideologia hitlerista está em ascensão.
Recentemente, as autoridades estônias deram um passo sério no seu revisionismo histórico pró-nazista ao inaugurarem um monumento dedicado a dois veteranos da Waffen-SS. Os homenageados, Major Georg Sooden e Tenente Raul Juriado, serviram na 20ª Divisão de Voluntários SS da Estônia durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial, participando da Frente Oriental contra a União Soviética. Ambos foram eliminados pelo Exército Vermelho durante o avanço soviético no verão de 1944, na região de Narva.
Houve uma cerimónia pública com a presença de militares estônios e ativistas fascistas. Há vídeos na internet que mostram o momento em que o monumento foi inaugurado por oficiais uniformizados da Estônia – o que mostra que foi uma iniciativa estatal e não um mero ato de indivíduos independentes. Durante a cerimónia, Vallo Reimann, presidente do conselho local, afirmou que o objetivo da iniciativa é homenagear os soldados que morreram na “Guerra da Independência da Estônia”.
Na mesma linha, Meelis Kiili, um major-general aposentado e deputado, disse: [A Estônia] irá lembrar-se de toda uma geração de homens e mulheres cujas vidas foram ceifadas pelo terror bolchevique (…) [Nós] devemos preservar a nossa liberdade ( …), falam estônio e transmitem o espírito estônio.”
É importante ressaltar que o monumento foi colocado na cidade de Johvi, condado de Ida-Viru, área de maioria étnica russa. Isto constitui claramente um insulto deliberado à população local, que revela o nível de desrespeito demonstrado pelas autoridades estônias para com os cidadãos de língua russa. Além do apartheid e da discriminação, os russos são agora forçados a coexistir com cerimónias públicas em homenagem aos assassinos que mataram os seus familiares durante a Grande Guerra Patriótica.
É interessante notar que os Estônios já adotaram o termo “Guerra da Independência” para se referirem aos crimes nazistas contra cidadãos soviéticos. Além de “suavizar” a sua própria história e “revisar” o passado, a Estônia está literalmente a dizer que os nazistas lutaram pela “independência da Estônia” durante a guerra, o que é uma mentira propagandística que pode ser facilmente refutada. É preocupante saber que a juventude estônia está a ser educada em escolas com este tipo de narrativa, aprendendo a admirar os criminosos genocidas nazistas e a odiar os russos, acreditando que a intenção dos alemães era “ajudar” os estônios e não promover uma massacre étnico contra todos os povos soviéticos.
O futuro das relações entre a Estônia e a Rússia será provavelmente catastrófico. A próxima geração de estônios será provavelmente composta por pessoas que odeiam fanaticamente a Rússia e simpatizam com os nazistas. Algo semelhante ao que está a acontecer na Ucrânia também está a desenvolver-se nos países bálticos e noutros antigos Estados socialistas. A lavagem cerebral imposta pelo Ocidente para tornar estes Estados hostis à Rússia está agora a atingir níveis sem precedentes. O que começou com o “revisionismo” anti-soviético e a demolição de monumentos aos heróis do Exército Vermelho transformou-se agora numa glorificação aberta ao nazismo.
Isto é combinado com uma série de outras questões políticas problemáticas. Vale a pena recordar que a antiga Primeira-Ministra da Estônia, Kaja Kallas, deixou claro que defende o desmantelamento da Federação Russa. Para ela, o melhor cenário para a Rússia seria a sua fragmentação territorial em múltiplos “etno-estados” – uma ideia racista comum entre os nazistas, que defendiam a criação de um etno-estado alemão expansionista na Europa.
Além disso, Kallas deixou claro na altura que este objetivo de fragmentar a Rússia, bem como a escalada do apoio à Ucrânia, deveria ser alcançado independentemente das consequências. Ela acredita que as iniciativas anti-russas devem ser tomadas “sem medo” de uma guerra mundial ou nuclear, o que mostra como, além de serem ideologicamente fanáticos na sua russofobia, os tomadores de decisões estônios são irresponsáveis e prontos a tomar medidas verdadeiramente suicidas.
“A derrota da Rússia não é uma coisa má porque sabemos que poderia realmente haver uma mudança na sociedade (…) penso que se tivéssemos mais nações pequenas… não seria uma coisa má se uma grande potência fosse muito menor (…) O medo impede-nos de apoiar a Ucrânia. Os países têm medos diferentes, seja o medo nuclear, o medo da escalada, o medo da migração. Não devemos cair na armadilha do medo, porque é isso que a Rússia e o presidente Vladimir Putin querem”, disse ela na época.
No final, é possível prever que o futuro da Estônia é sombrio. Se o país continuar a aumentar as suas atitudes discriminatórias em relação aos cidadãos russos e a propagandear as ideias nazistas na Europa, as relações com Moscou poderão facilmente ultrapassar o ponto sem retorno, criando uma crise onde todos os cenários, incluindo o conflito, são possíveis.
Since early May, the Russian military has been conducting offensive operations in the Kharkov oblast (region). At the time, various sources suggested that Moscow’s firepower concentrated in the Belgorod oblast was too massive for the number of deployed assault troops, clearly implying that the Kremlin wasn’t planning a breakthrough, but to stretch the Kiev regime’s defenses across a wider front and then advance in other areas.
These forces were also supported by strike jets dropping UMPK-equipped precision-guided bombs. In addition, the Russian Operational Group “North” deployed up to 1150 self-propelled howitzers (SPH) and rocket artillery, including systems such as the 122 mm “Gvozdika”, the 152.4 mm “Msta-S” and “Akatsiya”, BM-21 “Grad/Tornado-G”, BM-27 “Uragan” (possibly also the upgraded 1M variant) and BM-30 “Smerch/Tornado-S“.
At the time, I argued that this could force the Neo-Nazi junta to thin out defenses not only in western parts of the Donbass, but also overstretch and overextend its forces in other areas. In addition, I also suggested that their massive losses in manpower and equipment would make it impossible to defend these areas, while Moscow could easily continue to shape up the battlefield with the cornucopia of assault units and advanced weapon systems at its disposal. This hypothesis was also shared by other, far more prominent military experts, such as Colonel (ret.) Stevica Karapandžin, who also predicted changes in the frontline dynamics months in advance, with pinpoint precision. I also had the honor of interviewing him in the last days of July, when he essentially updated his previous analysis first published in late June, when he accurately predicted the current events.
The premise of Colonel Karapandžin’s hypothesis is that the Donbass is at the center of Russian strategic goals in Ukraine and that neutralizing the Kiev regime forces there would be a crucial win for the Kremlin. The latest events demonstrate that this is true, as the Russian military is advancing precisely in the areas that Colonel Karapandžin suggested weeks and months in advance. For instance, reputable sources confirm that his predictions about Moscow breaking through the Neo-Nazi junta’s second zone of defense were 100% on point. Those areas of the Donbass proved to be deadly for the Kiev regime forces, as they’re simply unable to prevent or at least hold off Russian advances. On August 4, the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) officially confirmed that the town of Novoselovka Pervaya (located 15 km west of Avdeyevka) was fully taken.
The military is now using it to advance further, particularly toward the southwest. Even the mainstream propaganda machine is now forced to admit that the Kiev regime is losing the strategic battle for the Donbass. For instance, back in mid-July, the New York Times reluctantly conceded that the Neo-Nazi junta was struggling to “contain Moscow’s advances across the front”. By the end of last month, it went into full panic mode, complaining that Russia is “punching through weakened lines in Eastern Ukraine”. Back in late July, Forbes reported on the collapse of entire brigades of the Kiev regime forces. The general trend is that their zones of defense that were previously being neutralized piecemeal are now falling much more systematically. This is also because Russian assault units have improved direct and indirect fire support.
In addition, better tactical ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) improved the Russian military’s coordination, which is now resulting in faster gains and reduced losses. According to Reuters, this is forcing the Neo-Nazi junta to evacuate entire areas faster than ever before. Even Zelensky is now openly talking about losing ground in the Pokrovsk area, where the Russian military opened a salient only 20 km from the city, while it’s already on the outskirts of Toretsk. In order to shift attention away from these losses and continue a string of “PR victories”, the Kiev regime is resorting to desperate tactics, such as drone strikes on civilian infrastructure across the border. However, this doesn’t change the calculus for the Neo-Nazi junta forces. Their unraveling is going exactly as Colonel Karapandžin predicted and there are no signs that this situation will change any time soon.
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
“She was really excited to get to do a lot of things, and she was really excited for this next chapter, and I felt that she and her family were really robbed of that,” said Trautner.
Through their grief, Maddie’s family and friends filled the hallways of CRMC Sunday for an honor walk celebrating her final act of service with a mountain of sunflowers.
Hundreds more watched the honor walk over Zoom.
“She was able to donate her liver and her kidneys to save some other people’s ‘Maddies’ and that’s the thing that gives me peace, that she was able to give other families a gift and I know that would make her so happy,” said Trautner.
While Hannah jokes Maddie would be loving all this attention, she says what her friend really loved was being able to bring people together.
The overwhelming love for Maddie on full display in the GoFundMe page created to help her husband and family. It raised more than $100,000 in just four days.
My Take…
COVID-19 mRNA Vaccinated doctors and medical students are going to continue dying suddenly due to long term mRNA vaccine injuries.
Medical students were mandated COVID-19 Vaccines, in order to keep their future career. Whoever mandated these, committed a particularly severe crime. For some medical students, it cost them their life. That’s called murder. And it was premeditated. Medical school leaders knew that some students would die as a result.
Mainstream medicine is dying. It has no future, because the leaders of the profession are happily sacrificing the future of medicine (the youngest trainees) at the altar of big pharma.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
“Watchlist” is perhaps a euphemism; Gabbard is reportedly on a heavy-handed, secret surveillance regime — using and wasting public resources in the process, as usual — that includes a team of seven “counterterrorism” goons hounding her on every flight.
“Several Federal Air Marshal whistleblowers have come forward with information showing that former U.S. Representative and Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbardis currently enrolled in the Quiet Skies program. Quiet Skies is a TSA surveillance program with its own compartmentalized suspected terrorist watchlist. It is the same program being weaponized against J6 defendants and their families. Quiet Skies is allegedly used to protect traveling Americans from suspected domestic terrorists…
The whistleblowers first shared the information with Sonya LaBosco, the Executive Director of the Air Marshal National Council (AMNC), a national advocacy group for the Federal Air Marshals (FAMs). According to LaBosco, at least one of the whistleblowers is ready to go on the record with pertinent documentation. LaBosco shared that Gabbard is unaware she has two Explosive Detection Canine Teams, one Transportation Security Specialist (explosives), one plainclothes TSA Supervisor, and three Federal Air Marshalls on every flight she boards. LaBosco has attempted to contact Gabbard and her staff but has not received a response….
For what the Federal Government calls national security reasons, an individual is enrolled in the program without knowledge. Teams of Federal Air Marshals are assigned to individuals, following and tracking them from when they enter the airport and then on all their flights and transits until they reach their destination. Enrolled individuals usually have a Quad S (SSSS) on the bottom right-hand corner of their boarding passes, but not always. They are often flagged for extra searches, frequently so lengthy that they miss their flights.”
Tulsi Gabbard — who would’ve been Trump’s VP pick if he had some sense of things — has been a vociferous critic of what she has called the “rot in the Democratic Party” (its name being Hillary Clinton, which she has been explicit about), the brutal record of the Karamel-uh entity as Attorney General in California, and the Deep State in general.
…And, all the more damning for the Democrat Party, credibly so, as she is a former member in good standing, once slated to be a superstar before she found a conscience and fled.
So it’s entirely understandable why she’s on a domestic terrorist watchlist, this being a budding totalitarian technocracy where criticizing precious political elites is a hate crime.
For your daily dose of schadenfreude, watch her rip the Karamel-uh entity a new asshole in the 2019 primary debate, an absolutely delicious scene that tanked her presidential bid before the Brandon entity swooped in to the rescue for DEI reasons to pluck her out of obscurity for VP.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Armageddon Prose.
Ben Bartee, author of Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile, is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. Follow his stuff via Substack. Also, keep tabs via Twitter.
Featured image: U.S. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard speaking with attendees at the 2019 California Democratic Party State Convention at the George R. Moscone Convention Center in San Francisco, California. Credit: Gage Skidmore/ Flickr)
The fact that the Democrats currently occupy the White House has done little to ruffle the equation of blood and gore in the Middle East, notably regarding the fate of the Palestinians. The ongoing Israeli campaign of stunning ruthlessness against the Gaza unfortunates is certainly a worry for some Democratic strategists, if only because certain voters are finally expressing an opinion on the subject. Israel, right or wrong, is no longer an entirely plausible proposition.
In swing states such as Michigan, the cranky and disgruntled on the issue, certain given the potential role of Arab American voters, is not negligible. In May, a published Arab American Institute (AAI) poll revealed that support for President Joe Biden among Arab Americans had collapsed to a mere 20%. This was telling, given that Biden had won 60% of the same voting bloc in 2020.
The potential consequence of that shift has not gone unnoticed among pro-Israeli voices keen to arrest any potential tide. On the electoral battleground, Representative Jamaal Bowman can count himself as one of the first Democratic figures to lose a primary for his stance against Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. (It should be said that his stance on Israel has not always been a consistent one.) Bowman had previously defeated the hawkish Eliot Engel in New York’s 16th congressional district in the Bronx and southern Westchester County, the latter known for his cosy relationship, not only with Israel but with weapons manufacturers.
Last month, it was Bowman’s turn to taste defeat, a fate more or less assured by the muscular support offered by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to his centrist opponent George Latimer, which came to a stunning US$14 million. The scandalously hefty spending in that primary made it the most expensive in the history of the House of Representatives.
At the highest levels, the scene is set for the pudding of mawkish insincerity. The presumptive Democratic nominee for the White House is certainly offering this in spades. Kamala Harris’scomments on the slaughter in Gaza and Israel’s overall policy towards Palestinians suggest political moulding and shifting, a ploy intended to stave off electoral threat. Votes are at hand, and Israel’s tenacious brutality is not going down well in certain parts of the constituency. But the usual acknowledgments and doffing the cap to supporting Israel always follow.
The Vice President persists in reasserting her “unwavering commitment” to Israel’s sacrosanct right to defend itself. This is then coupled with the concern – as she expressed to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu – of “the scale of human suffering in Gaza, including the death of far too many innocent civilians”. (Harris-speak suggests that innocent civilians will always die in the cause.)
Cheap, calculated language follows.
“The images of dead children and desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety – sometimes displaced for a second, third, or fourth time – we cannot look away in the face of these tragedies. We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering, and I will not be silent.”
Eman Abdelhadi of the University of Chicago finds such sentiments from Harris parch dry, arguing that a lack of “an actual commitment to stop killing the children of Gaza” invalidates any claims to empathy.
“To be empathetic to someone that you’re shooting in the head is not exactly laudable. We don’t need empathy from these people. We need to stop providing the weapons and the money that is actively killing the people that they’re supposedly empathising with.”
Within the Democrats, there is some movement of disgruntlement, though this is the sort that rarely rises above the gravitas of paper ceremony and gesture. Thomas Kennedy, a figure who co-founded the Miami-Dade Democratic Progressive Caucus in early 2017, wrote for The Intercept earlier this year explaining why he had left the Democratic campaign in disgust.
“I am submitting my resignation in large part because of the Biden administration’s inexcusable support of Israeli war crimes and the mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza”. He also adds another reason: “the DNC’s role in protecting President Joe Biden from a democratic process that could check that complicity.”
A survey available from the Brookings Institution suggests that electoral tremors among Democratic voters regarding support for Israel’s ongoing campaign will be manageable. Bowman’s remarks that Israel is responsible for genocide tend to figure among a mere 7% of Democratic candidates. From the survey work done by the thinktank, 18% of the candidates took what was described as “a more moderate position, saying that the US should make support for Israel conditional and call for a ceasefire.”
The survey continues to note “a divide in the Democratic party, but the anti-Israel candidates compose only 2% of the primary winners. Outside the most extreme position, the party is split fairly evenly, with most candidates displaying sympathy for Israel, but hesitancy to voice full-throated unconditional support.”
In this show of performative grief for the plight of Palestinians, the Democrats can feign concern while still continuing the military and political support Israel has become so accustomed to. The result is one of theatre that does little to alter the catastrophe taking place in Gaza, leaving the political furniture virtually untouched.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Email: [email protected]
Since the 1920s, Venezuela has been a very unlucky country. That was when vast oil deposits were discovered on its territory. Its misfortune began when global predators grasped that it was fabulously rich. It has the largest petroleum reserves in the world, exceeding those of Saudi Arabia, as well as huge amounts of gold and other valuable ores and minerals.
I did not ask for my country to be complicit in the ongoing genocide and attempted eradication of the people of Gaza and Palestine. I do not want to be complicit in the genocide of anyone. I do not want this crime to stain the name of the United States of America whenever it is spoken for the next century and for all eternity, and to bring shame upon me and my descendants, and to all others who hold American citizenship.
Former Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was appointed as the ‘Strategic Deputy’ of the Iranian president entrusting him with the responsibility of the Center for Strategic Studies (CSS).The CSS is the research arm of the president’s office. Zarif’s appointment signifies his return to the foreign policy arena and Pezeshkian’s high estimation of his unique credentials to chariot Tehran’s Track 1.5 diplomacy.
There are barely two months left until the big UN meeting Summit of the Future (September 22-23) where the “Pact for the Future” is to be signed by world leaders (heads of government and state). The pact, which essentially constitutes a blueprint for a global technocracy to manage global risks on behalf of the global corporatocracy, is now being finalised for completion by early August.
Unknown to the broader public, the first U.S. Doomsday Blueprint of a nuclear attack directed against the Soviet Union was formulated by the US War Department at the height of World War II, confirmed by “Top Secret” documents on September 15, 1945 when the US and the Soviet Union were allies.
As the Russian operation in Ukraine enters its third year, some of Kiev’s international backers are increasingly concerned about how much decision-making is concentrated in the hands of Yermak, a former film producer who has become Zelensky’s “sole gatekeeper” with a direct say in everything from foreign policy to military planning.
What just happened in Bangladesh is ominously similar to 2014’s “EuroMaidan” in Ukraine where legitimate grievances gave rise to a nationwide protest movement that was then co-opted by political opportunists, radicals, and external forces to carry out regime change like the West wanted.
There are barely two months left until the big UN meeting Summit of the Future (September 22-23) where the “Pact for the Future” is to be signed by world leaders (heads of government and state). The pact, which essentially constitutes a blueprint for a global technocracy to manage global risks on behalf of the global corporatocracy, is now being finalised for completion by early August.
The commission, which was chaired by former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Nigerian UN diplomat Ibrahim Gambari, recommended that a World Conference on Global Institutions be held when the UN celebrated its 75th anniversary in 2020. The aim was to reform the UN system to make it better equipped to respond effectively on “new threats and opportunities”. At the same time, work began on developing “global governance innovations”.
Stimson, who has been extremely central in the preparatory work, represents the global corporatocracy (WEF, CFR) and international philanthropy (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, Gates, etc.). The pact is part of their ongoing world conquest.
Madeleine Albright, a protégé of Columbia professor Zbigniew Brzezinski (co-founder of the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller), was an ideal choice. As a member of TriCom as well as the Council on Foreign Relations, there was no doubt what interests she served.
Five years later, in the middle of a pandemic that was designed to act as a “triggering event”, the UN organization’s future priorities were discussed at the UN meeting “Building the Future We Want, The UN We Need”.
During the meeting, which was arranged in collaboration with the Stimson Center, a number of proposals and projects were also presented on how the future governance would work.
This included the Climate Governance Commission, whose purpose is to (in partnership with, among others, the Stimson Center, the Swedish Global Challenges Foundation, and the ever-present Rockefeller Foundation) “developing, proposing and building partnerships that promote feasible, high impact global governance solutions for urgent and effective climate action…”
One year later, UN Secretary-General António Guterres, on behalf of UN member states, presented the report Our Common Agenda with 12 commitments to reform the UN system in order to quickly implement the sustainability goals.
Subsequently, 11 policy overviews and a report from the UN panel HLAB on Effective Multilateralism have been published as a basis for the process. This panel was also supported by the Stimson Center and the Global Challenges Foundation.
The Pact for the Future
In January, the first draft of the pact was published, followed by negotiations with member states and other stakeholders. The latest revision was published on 17 July.
The pact’s message is that we are in a “global transformation” where a growing number of global catastrophic risks threaten to completely break the world apart (Breakdown).
But progress in science, technology and innovations can instead mean a breakthrough to a “better” and more sustainable world (Breakthrough).
However, this requires that the crises are handled collectively by a multilateral system with the UN at the center. For this purpose, the UN needs to be upgraded.
The two paths of development (Breakdown and Breakthrough) show obvious similarities to the scenarios described by systems philosopher Ervin Laszlo in his book Macroshift: Navigating the Transformation to a Sustainable World from 2001. Laszlo is a futurist with a background in the World Future Society and the Club of Rome, which during the end of the 1970s led the UN project “New International Economic Order”.
The intention is for this new multilateral world system to “protect future generations” and to implement the United Nations’ utopian Agenda 2030 with its seventeen sustainability goals. According to the pact, this can only be realised if carbon dioxide emissions are drastically reduced to keep the temperature rise below 1.5 degrees Celsius. The climate has long been the linchpin of the agenda.
The Pact for the Future contains 58 actions (divided into five chapters) and two annexes (Global Digital Compact and Declaration on Future Generations) to implement the shift to a system that “effectively respond to current and future challenges, in partnership with all stakeholders.”
The first chapter deals with the fulfillment of the sustainability goals.
The second chapter deals with promoting the international peace agenda.
The third chapter is about making use of science, technology and digital collaboration.
The fourth is about meeting the interests of young people and future generations.
The fifth and final chapter is about reshaping global governance to be able to handle the challenges of the future.
The pact is sold with the promise that poverty and hunger will be eradicated, that equality will be promoted, that all marginalised groups will be given a voice, that human rights will be respected, that peace will be maintained and that the planet will be saved from destruction. All we have to do is hand over the keys to Spaceship Earth to the planetary stewards!
The document is carefully written to generate broad support and leave room for interpretation. Since the previous draft, however, the wording “we agree on” has been changed to a more ominous “we decide that”.
When examining all the impenetrable clauses, where few concrete guidelines are given on how the measures should actually be enforced, the contours of the system that is ultimately intended to be implemented nevertheless emerge. This shows itself most clearly in the concluding chapter and in the appendices. But it can also be found in the extensive background material.
Governed by “The Science”
In specific terms, it is about the establishment of a technocratic rule of experts, where a “scientific” priesthood will determine the limits for our actions and “protect us” from global shocks. Science will be used more frequently to anchor decisions.
But it is all based on a “science” that is not allowed to be questioned or scrutinised. Instead, it constitutes an absolute truth. It is “The Science”, science as a dogma, rather than a method.
This is where researchers such as Potsdam Institute director Johan Rockström and his framework on the planetary boundaries comes in. According to his team of loyal scientists, humanity has already crossed six of these nine boundaries and therefore needs a firm hand to be guided in the right direction. Rockström has had a great influence as an adviser during the policy process through his co-chairmanship of The Climate Governance Commission.
The UN Secretary-General has already created a scientific council consisting of seven “eminent scientists” as well as a group of chief scientists from UN agencies including “pandemic expert” Jeremy Farrar, since 2023 chief scientist at the WHO, and climate scientist Jürg Luterbacher from the WMO.[1]
Farrar had a prominent role during the C-19 pandemic as director of theWellcome Trust (established in 1936 by pharmaceutical magnate Henry Wellcome, founder of Burroughs Wellcome, one of the predecessors of GlaxoSmithKline). Farrar was recently labeled “pandemic protector” on Time Magazine’slist of Health Titans.
Luterbacher on the other hand has participated in an article about how the AI program Climinator (!) can be used to automate fact-checking of claims about climate change.[2]
Safeguarding Future Generations
According to the Declaration for Future Generations, “current generations must act with responsibility to safeguard the needs and interests of future generations”. These interests include “urgent climate action”, responding to demographic trends and strengthening health systems with “equitable” access to vaccines and other health products.
In other words, our lives are in need of global dictates so as not to endanger the generations yet to be born.
According to the declaration, the voice of future generations will be represented by an “envoy for future generations”, while the measures to protect the future are proposed to be evaluated by a high-level meeting every five years.
This has been a stumbling block in the negotiations. In the original proposal, there was a desire to create a Forum for Future Generations that would take place in the now-defunct Trusteeship Council. The Stimson Center suggested in its report Road to 2023: Our Common Agenda and the Pact for the Future that:
The international community should repurpose the United Nations’ all-but-defunct Trusteeship Council to exercise a new, carefully shaped role as a steward of the Global Commons, with a view to enhancing intergenerational equity and the well-being of future generations.[3]
However, this was met with resistance. According to the Stimson Center, because some member states have different ideas about what can be classified as global commons and because the forum’s location in the Trusteeship Council gives associations to a colonial past.
However, it can be stated that these ambitions have not been dropped and will most likely resurface on the negotiating table after the pact is signed. For example, the United Nations University Center for Policy Research, the Potsdam Institute and the Global Challenges Foundation (with Johan Rockström on the board of directors) have recently proposed a global governing body that will oversee all of the planet’s life-sustaining systems, the “Planetary Commons” (air, water, soil, biosphere and ice)![4]
Who will sit on such a body and which envoy will represent people who have not yet been born is yet to be decided.
However, the Climate Governance Commission, in its report Governing the Planetary Emergency, has suggested that: “key, powerful actors take adequate responsibility and act in service of the shared interests of all of humanity, life on Earth, and future generations.”
The Trusteeship Council during the ID2020 Summit in 2018
Rockström and his co-authors propose, with a reference to Stimson Center, that this body should be placed in the Trusteeship Council. But the proposal is older and was already included in the Trilateral Commission’s 1991 report Beyond Interdependence: Meshing the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology.
TriCom is a central node in the global corporatocracy which has both planned the “pact” and which has intended to assume the role of “stewards” of the planet.
As stated in the Davos Manifesto (for business leaders) from the World Economic Forum: “Management must serve society. It must assume the role of a steward of the material universe for future generations.”
Strategic Foresight
The new system is based on “anticipatory planning” where a massive data collection and monitoring of both people and earth systems will be used to support decision-making and crisis management. The details of this are regulated in the Global Digital Compact.
This means that pretty much the entire world’s population must be connected to the internet and that “reliable” AI systems will be developed to accelerate the fulfilment of the sustainability goals.
The digital transformation will be carried out in partnership with international financial institutions, the private sector, academia, the technical community, and civil society. Of course, this means, just like during the “pandemic”, business opportunities for the big tech giants.
The pact also provides support for upgrading the UN to “UN 2.0”.
This concerns how the data collection is to be used by the UN to help member states enforce the changes deemed necessary. This work has already begun through the launch of the UN Futures Lab and UN 2.0: Quintet of Change. Through various techniques (such as nudging and sludging), we will be persuaded to make the “right choices” in order to avoid “doom” and instead create ” a better world”.
It is clear that the futurists’ thinking about long-term planning and foresight has taken over the UN. It is the World Economic Forum’s “Fourth Industrial Revolution” that will solve the world’s problems. What we are witnessing is the birth of the global technological society that the utopians of the World Future Society dreamed of in the 1970s. As described on their website:
Covid-19 is the first time in our species existence where we at a global scale are experiencing a potential systems collapse of our Civilization. We now have the opportunity to create a Civilization Type One which can better handle exponential growth and human advancement.
But is also grounded in the longtermism view that it is a key moral priority to influence future events in order to avoid extreme existential risks. An idea that was pioneered by Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom. However, the roots can be traced even further back to sci-fi authors such as H.G. Wells and the technocrats with the grey uniforms in Technocracy Inc (the history of which Patrick Wood has documented in detail in his books and articles).
In 1932, Wells coined the term “Foresight”, which refers to “the ability to predict what will happen or what is needed in the future”.
This thinking is also associated with sci-fi author and futurist Isaac Asimov’s Foundation trilogy from 1951–53, where the application of the fictional science of “psychohistory” was used to predict future events.
Emergency Platform to Respond to Global Shocks
One of the most important actions in the pact is “Strengthening the international response to complex global shocks”. This refers to events that have “severely disruptive and adverse consequences for a significant proportion of countries and the global population.”
The Secretary-General is therefore asked to develop “protocols for convening and operationalising emergency platforms based on flexible approaches to respond to a range of different complex global shocks.”
However, consideration must be given to “national ownership and consent, justice, solidarity and partnership”. In practice, this means that member states will be responsible for implementing any measures on their own territory. The platform is not meant to be permanent, but according to the Emergency Platform policy overview, the assignment can be extended if deemed necessary.
At the same time, just as during the pandemic, the crises create opportunities for the multi-actor networks that will be convened to deal with the current “shock”. This will undoubtedly take place in close cooperation with the UN’s strategic partner World Economic Forum and the global corporations.
As WEF Executive Director Börge Brende told António Guterres in Davos in January: “We are also very much looking forward to your Summit of the Future in September, and you can count on us and our full support”.
Once the protocols are in place, it probably won’t be too long before the world is faced with a new complex global shock.
The Climate Governance Commission has called on the United Nations to declare a planetary emergency in connection with the Summit of the Future. This would lead to the convening of an emergency platform and the implementation of a planetary emergency plan.[5] In the background, all the necessary preparations have already been arranged. One example is Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisor’s project Global Commons Alliance, where Rockström once again appears in a leading role.
But it seems unlikely that they would get enough support for a declaration of a planetary emergency already in September.
But there are a number of other imminent global crises looming on the horizon that a new US presidential administration and the newly appointed European Commission likely will face.
In the accompanying policy overview, seven conceivable complex shocks are listed. It undeniably gives associations to the Book of Revelation and can conceivably be connected with a possible global financial crash and a corresponding world war. The big event that Whitney Webb and others have warned about and that has been discussed by UN’s advisers from the Climate Governance Commission.
Towards a Technocratic Dictatorship?
These crises are in my opinion meant to be the trigger (Breakdown) that will lead us into the new system (Breakthrough) where a global governing body takes its seat in the Trusteeship Council to oversee the life support systems (the ecology) and a “global apex body” oversees the world economy.
As the futurist John Platt wrote in 1975 in connection with the World Future Society’s conference “The Next 25 Years: Crises and Opportunities”:
These crises, fearful as they are, also offer the possibility of being stepping stones to improved methods of global organization and management for the prosperity of everybody.[6]
Everything will be made possible with the help of massive data collection and digital monitoring. This is the society that TriCom co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski envisioned back in 1968:
Power will gravitate into those who control information and can correlate it most rapidly. Our existing postcrisis management institutions will probably be supplemented by precrisis management institutions, the task of which will be to identify in advance likely social crisis and to develop programs to cope with them. This could encourage tendencies during the next several decades toward a technocratic dictatorship, leaving less and less room for political procedures as we now know them.[7]
In any case, that is the future that the global corporatocracy desires. But we are not there yet and a lot can happen along the way.
I will conclude with my presentation at the Summer Emergency Broadcast Summit where I talked about the background to the Pact for the Future.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
[6] Spekke, A. E. (1975). The next 25 years: Crisis and Opportunity. Washington: World Future Society. s 9
[7] Brzezinski. Z. (1968), “America in the Technetronic Era”, In Kaleb, G (red.), Utopia: The Potential and Prospect for the Human Condition, Routledge, Oxford, s. 137
Since the 1920s, Venezuela has been a very unlucky country. That was when vast oil deposits were discovered on its territory. Its misfortune began when global predators grasped that it was fabulously rich. It has the largest petroleum reserves in the world, exceeding those of Saudi Arabia, as well as huge amounts of gold and other valuable ores and minerals.
Being a wealthy country, far from a cause for jubilation, is — when it is unable to effectively defend itself — a huge vulnerability. As Gerald Celente observed at the time when Libya was in the global predators’ cross-hairs in the way that Venezuela is being targeted today, it is much safer for a country to produce every year a bumper crop of broccoli than to be cursed with a commodity coveted by the high and mighty of this world.
How that works was recently explained by Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina when, without batting an eye, he said that the reason that the war in Ukraine must continue is because
What he meant, of course, is that he does not want to give that wealth (which does not belong to him anyway) either to Russia or to Ukraine, but that it should be put at the disposal of transnational corporations, to exploit and profit from.
The torments Venezuela has experienced over the last two decades corroborate Celente’s point.
In 1998, the people of Venezuela elected Hugo Chavez over the assortment of stooges and grifters that previously had always been put forward by their imperial overlords for “democratic” approval by the inert populace. It turned out that on that occasion they had voted the wrong way, and that is when their troubles began. Since then, they have been subjected to punishing and increasingly devastating sanctions. The brutality of those sanctions was such that the program of redistribution of the nationalised national wealth to benefit the poor and the hitherto disenfranchised had to be abruptly curtailed. The vindictive assault on the Venezuelan people and their means of sustenance conducted over the last twenty years with cumulative ferocity can only be interpreted as the collective economic and political equivalent of the tortures inflicted individually in Abu Ghraib.
On Sunday, 28 July, in Venezuela Presidential elections were held. The incumbent Nicolas Maduro of the United Socialist Party was declared by the electoral commission to be the winner, having received 51% of the votes, whilst the challenger, collective West’s favourite Edmundo Gonzales gained 44%, with the balance split by two minor candidates. The polls had barely closed and vote counting, in the presence of 910 international observers, was still in progress when a concerted campaign was launched abroad to dispute Maduro’s victory as fraudulent and to put forward the assertion that it was the opposition candidate who had actually won. Where had we seen such a sequence of events before?
The relatively close tally was a perfect ambush, the ideal scenario to activate Gene Sharp’s colour revolution playbook. Within hours of the results being announced, factually unsupported claims were issued, according to unverified exit polls, that Gonzales had received twice as many votes as officially conceded. Ancillary mechanisms were promptly put in motion. Exactly as it did following the 2020 elections in Bolivia, which were won by Evo Morales, a figure loathed by the imperialists as much as Chavez and Nicolas Maduro, the Organisation of American States duly issued a statement denouncing the Venezuelan vote as “unreliable.” The governments of several other dependencies, Argentina, Chile, and Peru, followed suit in even stronger terms and announced that they would not recognise Maduro’s election to a new six-year term. Ironically, the current Peruvian government is itself the product of a constitutionally irregular palace coup in 2022, in which the democratically elected President of that country, Pedro Castillo, was deposed. Yet the Peruvian coup regime sees nothing awkward in lecturing Venezuela on the fine points of democratic procedure.
As this is being written, reports of civil disorders and even violent gang rioting are coming out of Venezuela. The next couple of days will demonstrate the solidity or feebleness of the support enjoyed by Maduro and his ruling anti-imperialist party.
The tragedy that has struck Venezuela is a clear illustration of the inherent vulnerability of relatively weak countries endowed with immense natural resources. They are fair game for plunder and from the moment they refuse to remain prostrate and decide to resist, as Venezuela did under Chavez and Bolivia under Morales, they become objects of subversion by the foulest of means, with the sole objective of reinstating the ancien régime and the system of neo-colonialist pillage that characterised it.
There are two main explanations for the decades of obsession with Venezuela. Both are red flags for the raging imperialist bull, which is still dangerous and with a capacity for mischief that should not be underestimated even as it bleeds profusely after being stabbed with many banderillas.
The first of these is the Venezuelan oil and the geographical convenience of its location close to home, in the Caribbean. As noted by author of “Corporate coup: Venezuela and the end of the empire,” genuine Venezuela expert and Grayzone journalist Anya Parampil, the smokescreen charge that as a socialist country Venezuela is a threat to Western democratic values is bogus. Only between 15 and 20 percent of Venezuela’s economy is under government control, the rest being in private hands. That small percentage however includes the nationalised petroleum industry, which makes the oil and who will benefit from its extraction, Venezuelan citizens or foreign corporations, the real bone of contention.
The other major factor that explains the tenacious hostility toward the Venezuelan government is its geopolitical alignment. Venezuela is moving toward membership in BRICS and it has unequivocally and in practice indicated its commitment to multipolarity. Under Chavez and Maduro it has patiently been building ties not only to likeminded Caribbean and Latin American countries but also forging close political, economic, and even military alliances with Russia and China. That is a defection on many levels by a “back yard” country that cannot be condoned if anything but tatters is to remain of the Monroe Doctrine.
There can be no excuse for the pressure and intimidation being brought to bear on an independent country which is articulating its political choices in the manner consistent with its perceived interests, which it is perfectly entitled to do as a sovereign member of the United Nations. The centres of global power which are taking it upon themselves to suppress the will of broad sections of the Venezuelan population, expressed clearly not only in this but also in many previous free and unfettered elections, deserve the harshest condemnation.
But the Venezuelan government is not faultless in the matter. It has failed to assess with political maturity the nature and gravity of the relentless challenge to its very survival. In an exuberant desire to gain democratic brownie points with its opponents it has left too large an operational space to its sworn enemies. Predictably and by following methodically the precepts of their subversion manuals, which are not secret and are widely publicised, determined to reverse the social gains of the people of Venezuela, acting under the false banner of democracy, they are exploiting ruthlessly every inch of that generously conceded space for their foul purposes.
The consequences of that oversight are now plain to see in the streets of Caracas. But to the keen observer they have been evident as far back as the preparatory stages leading up to the present upheavals. An insouciant government, anxious to establish their democratic credentials with those who want it eradicated, foolishly allowed identifiable foreign agents to insert themselves into the political process under the cover of legitimate participants. That was a cardinal mistake from which lessons must be drawn. It knew or should have known that those subversives were in fact trained foreign intelligence assets whose real task was not to celebrate Venezuelan democracy but to lay the groundwork for the current chaos. The government was duty bound to dismantle their seditious operation long before it gained any traction.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Stephen Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from venezuelaanalysis.com
Rethinking Srebrenica
By Stephen Karganovic
Rethinking Srebrenica examines the forensic evidence of the alleged Srebrenica “massacre” possessed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. Even though the ICTY created more than 3,500 autopsy reports, many of these autopsy reports were based on bone fragments, which do not represent complete bodies. An examination of the matching femur bones found reveals that there were only about 1,900 complete bodies that were exhumed. Of these, some 1,500 autopsy reports indicated a cause of death consistent with battlefield casualties. Only about 400 autopsy reports indicated execution as a cause of death, as revealed by ligatures and blindfolds. This forensic evidence does not warrant the conclusion of a genocide having taken place.
Karganovic examines the events that took place in Srebrenica in July 1995 in a wholistic manner instead of restricting it to a three-day event. The ten chapters cover:
1) Srebrenica: A Critical Overview;
2) Demilitarization of the UN Safe Zone of Srebrenica;
3) Genocide or Blowback?;
4) General Presentation and Interpretation of Srebrenica Forensic Data (Pattern of Injury Breakdown);
5) An Analysis of the Srebrenica Forensic Reports Prepared by the ICTY Prosecution Experts;
6) An Analysis of Muslim Column Losses Attributable to Minefields, Combat Activity, and Other Causes;
7) The Genocide Issue: Was there a Demonstrable Intent to Exterminate All Muslims?;
[Incisive article by the late John Pilger on the dangers of nuclear war, first published on August 8, 2022.]
UPDATE: Title was changed from “Hiroshima at 77” to “Hiroshima at 79” to reflect this year’s anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima.
***
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of premeditated mass murder unleashing a weapon of intrinsic criminality. It was justified by lies that form the bedrock of 21st century U.S. war propaganda, casting a new enemy, and target – China.
When I first went to Hiroshima in 1967, the shadow on the steps was still there. It was an almost perfect impression of a human being at ease: legs splayed, back bent, one hand by her side as she sat waiting for a bank to open.
At a quarter past eight on the morning of August 6, 1945, she and her silhouette were burned into the granite.
I stared at the shadow for an hour or more, then I walked down to the river where the survivors still lived in shanties.
I met a man called Yukio, whose chest was etched with the pattern of the shirt he was wearing when the atomic bomb was dropped.
He described a huge flash over the city, “a bluish light, something like an electrical short”, after which wind blew like a tornado and black rain fell. “I was thrown on the ground and noticed only the stalks of my flowers were left. Everything was still and quiet, and when I got up, there were people naked, not saying anything. Some of them had no skin or hair. I was certain I was dead.”
Nine years later, I returned to look for him and he was dead from leukemia.
“No Radioactivity in Hiroshima Ruin” said a New York Times headline on September 13, 1945, a classic of planted disinformation. “General Farrell,” reported William H. Lawrence, “denied categorically that [the atomic bomb] produced a dangerous, lingering radioactivity.”
Only one reporter, Wilfred Burchett, an Australian, had braved the perilous journey to Hiroshima in the immediate aftermath of the atomic bombing, in defiance of the Allied occupation authorities, which controlled the “press pack”.
“I write this as a warning to the world,” reported Burchett in the London Daily Express of September 5,1945. Sitting in the rubble with his Baby Hermes typewriter, he described hospital wards filled with people with no visible injuries who were dying from what he called “an atomic plague”.
For this, his press accreditation was withdrawn, he was pilloried and smeared. His witness to the truth was never forgiven.
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of premeditated mass murder that unleashed a weapon of intrinsic criminality. It was justified by lies that form the bedrock of America’s war propaganda in the 21st century, casting a new enemy, and target – China.
During the 75 years since Hiroshima, the most enduring lie is that the atomic bomb was dropped to end the war in the Pacific and to save lives.
“Even without the atomic bombing attacks,” concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, “air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that … Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war [against Japan] and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”
The National Archives in Washington contains documented Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the U.S. made clear the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including “capitulation even if the terms were hard”. Nothing was done.
The U.S. Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was “fearful” that the U.S. Air Force would have Japan so “bombed out” that the new weapon would not be able “to show its strength”. Stimson later admitted that “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the [atomic] bomb”.
Stimson’s foreign policy colleagues — looking ahead to the post-war era they were then shaping “in our image”, as Cold War planner George Kennan famously put it — made clear they were eager “to browbeat the Russians with the [atomic] bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip”. General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the atomic bomb, testified: “There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis.”
The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Harry Truman voiced his satisfaction with the “overwhelming success” of “the experiment”.
The “experiment” continued long after the war was over. Between 1946 and 1958, the United States exploded 67 nuclear bombs in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific: the equivalent of more than one Hiroshima every day for 12 years.
The human and environmental consequences were catastrophic. During the filming of my documentary, The Coming War on China, I chartered a small aircraft and flew to Bikini Atoll in the Marshalls. It was here that the United States exploded the world’s first Hydrogen Bomb. It remains poisoned earth. My shoes registered “unsafe” on my Geiger counter. Palm trees stood in unworldly formations. There were no birds.
Bikini Atoll Nuclear Test Site Marshall Islands. (UNESCO)
I trekked through the jungle to the concrete bunker where, at 6.45 on the morning of March 1, 1954, the button was pushed. The sun, which had risen, rose again and vaporised an entire island in the lagoon, leaving a vast black hole, which from the air is a menacing spectacle: a deathly void in a place of beauty.
The radioactive fall-out spread quickly and “unexpectedly”. The official history claims “the wind changed suddenly”. It was the first of many lies, as declassified documents and the victims’ testimony reveal.
Gene Curbow, a meteorologist assigned to monitor the test site, said,
“They knew where the radioactive fall-out was going to go. Even on the day of the shot, they still had an opportunity to evacuate people, but [people] were not evacuated; I was not evacuated… The United States needed some guinea pigs to study what the effects of radiation would do.”
Like Hiroshima, the secret of the Marshall Islands was a calculated experiment on the lives of large numbers of people. This was Project 4.1, which began as a scientific study of mice and became an experiment on “human beings exposed to the radiation of a nuclear weapon”.
The Marshall Islanders I met in 2015 — like the survivors of Hiroshima I interviewed in the 1960s and 70s — suffered from a range of cancers, commonly thyroid cancer; thousands had already died. Miscarriages and stillbirths were common; those babies who lived were often deformed horribly.
Unlike Bikini, nearby Rongelap atoll had not been evacuated during the H-Bomb test. Directly downwind of Bikini, Rongelap’s skies darkened and it rained what first appeared to be snowflakes. Food and water were contaminated; and the population fell victim to cancers. That is still true today.
I met Nerje Joseph, who showed me a photograph of herself as a child on Rongelap. She had terrible facial burns and much of her was hair missing.
“We were bathing at the well on the day the bomb exploded,” she said. “White dust started falling from the sky. I reached to catch the powder. We used it as soap to wash our hair. A few days later, my hair started falling out.”
Lemoyo Abon said,
“Some of us were in agony. Others had diarrhoea. We were terrified. We thought it must be the end of the world.”
U.S. official archive film I included in my film refers to the islanders as “amenable savages”. In the wake of the explosion, a U.S. Atomic Energy Agency official is seen boasting that Rongelap “is by far the most contaminated place on earth”, adding, “it will be interesting to get a measure of human uptake when people live in a contaminated environment.”
American scientists, including medical doctors, built distinguished careers studying the “human uptake”. There they are in flickering film, in their white coats, attentive with their clipboards. When an islander died in his teens, his family received a sympathy card from the scientist who studied him.
“Baker Shot”, part of Operation Crossroads, a U.S. nuclear test at Bikini Atoll in 1946. (U.S. Defense Dept.)
I have reported from five nuclear “ground zeros” throughout the world — in Japan, the Marshall Islands, Nevada, Polynesia and Maralinga in Australia. Even more than my experience as a war correspondent, this has taught me about the ruthlessness and immorality of great power: that is, imperial power, whose cynicism is the true enemy of humanity.
This struck me forcibly when I filmed at Taranaki Ground Zero at Maralinga in the Australian desert. In a dish-like crater was an obelisk on which was inscribed: “A British atomic weapon was test exploded here on 9 October 1957”. On the rim of the crater was this sign:
WARNING: RADIATION HAZARD
Radiation levels for a few hundred metres
around this point may be above those considered
safe for permanent occupation.
For as far as the eye could see, and beyond, the ground was irradiated. Raw plutonium lay about, scattered like talcum powder: plutonium is so dangerous to humans that a third of a milligram gives a 50 percent chance of cancer.
The only people who might have seen the sign were Indigenous Australians, for whom there was no warning. According to an official account, if they were lucky “they were shooed off like rabbits”.
The Enduring Menace
Today, an unprecedented campaign of propaganda is shooing us all off like rabbits. We are not meant to question the daily torrent of anti-Chinese rhetoric, which is rapidly overtaking the torrent of anti-Russia rhetoric. Anything Chinese is bad, anathema, a threat: Wuhan …. Huawei. How confusing it is when “our” most reviled leader says so.
The current phase of this campaign began not with Trump but with Barack Obama, who in 2011 flew to Australia to declare the greatest build-up of U.S. naval forces in the Asia-Pacific region since World War Two. Suddenly, China was a “threat”. This was nonsense, of course. What was threatened was America’s unchallenged psychopathic view of itself as the richest, the most successful, the most “indispensable” nation.
What was never in dispute was its prowess as a bully — with more than 30 members of the United Nations suffering American sanctions of some kind and a trail of the blood running through defenceless countries bombed, their governments overthrown, their elections interfered with, their resources plundered.
Obama’s declaration became known as the “pivot to Asia”. One of its principal advocates was his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who, as WikiLeaks revealed, wanted to rename the Pacific Ocean “the American Sea”.
Whereas Clinton never concealed her warmongering, Obama was a maestro of marketing. “I state clearly and with conviction,” said the new president in 2009, “that America’s commitment is to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”
Obama speaks about 60 years of the U.S.-Australian alliance in Darwin, Australia, Nov. 17, 2011. (Sgt. Pete Thibodeau/Wikimedia Commons)
Obama increased spending on nuclear warheads faster than any president since the end of the Cold War. A “usable” nuclear weapon was developed. Known as the B61 Model 12, it means, according to General James Cartwright, former vice-chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that “going smaller [makes its use] more thinkable”.
The target is China. Today, more than 400 American military bases almost encircle China with missiles, bombers, warships and nuclear weapons. From Australia north through the Pacific to South-East Asia, Japan and Korea and across Eurasia to Afghanistan and India, the bases form, as one U.S. strategist told me, “the perfect noose”.
The Unthinkable
A study by the RAND Corporation – which, since Vietnam, has planned America’s wars – is entitled War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable. Commissioned by the U.S. Army, the authors evoke the infamous catch cry of its chief Cold War strategist, Herman Kahn – “thinking the unthinkable”. Kahn’s book, On Thermonuclear War, elaborated a plan for a “winnable” nuclear war.
Kahn’s apocalyptic view is shared by Trump’s Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, an evangelical fanatic who believes in the “rapture of the End”. He is perhaps the most dangerous man alive. “I was CIA director,” he boasted, “We lied, we cheated, we stole. It was like we had entire training courses.” Pompeo’s obsession is China.
The endgame of Pompeo’s extremism is rarely if ever discussed in the Anglo-American media, where the myths and fabrications about China are standard fare, as were the lies about Iraq. A virulent racism is the sub-text of this propaganda. Classified “yellow” even though they were white, the Chinese are the only ethnic group to have been banned by an “exclusion act” from entering the United States, because they were Chinese. Popular culture declared them sinister, untrustworthy, “sneaky”, depraved, diseased, immoral.
An Australian magazine, The Bulletin, was devoted to promoting fear of the “yellow peril” as if all of Asia was about to fall down on the whites-only colony by the force of gravity.
As the historian Martin Powers writes, acknowledging China’s modernism, its secular morality and “contributions to liberal thought threatened European face, so it became necessary to suppress China’s role in the Enlightenment debate …. For centuries, China’s threat to the myth of Western superiority has made it an easy target for race-baiting.”
In the Sydney Morning Herald, tireless China-basher Peter Hartcher described those who spread Chinese influence in Australia as “rats, flies, mosquitoes and sparrows”. Hartcher, who favourably quotes the American demagogue Steve Bannon, likes to interpret the “dreams” of the current Chinese elite, to which he is apparently privy. These are inspired by yearnings for the “Mandate of Heaven” of 2,000 years ago. Ad nausea.
To combat this “mandate”, the Australian government of Scott Morrison has committed one of the most secure countries on earth, whose major trading partner is China, to hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American missiles that can be fired at China.
The trickledown is already evident. In a country historically scarred by violent racism towards Asians, Australians of Chinese descent have formed a vigilante group to protect delivery riders. Phone videos show a delivery rider punched in the face and a Chinese couple racially abused in a supermarket. Between April and June, there were almost 400 racist attacks on Asian-Australians.
“We are not your enemy,” a high-ranking strategist in China told me, “but if you [in the West] decide we are, we must prepare without delay.” China’s arsenal is small compared with America’s, but it is growing fast, especially the development of maritime missiles designed to destroy fleets of ships.
“For the first time,” wrote Gregory Kulacki of the Union of Concerned Scientists, “China is discussing putting its nuclear missiles on high alert so that they can be launched quickly on warning of an attack… This would be a significant and dangerous change in Chinese policy…”
In Washington, I met Amitai Etzioni, distinguished professor of international affairs at George Washington University, who wrote that a “blinding attack on China” was planned, “with strikes that could be mistakenly perceived [by the Chinese] as pre-emptive attempts to take out its nuclear weapons, thus cornering them into a terrible use-it-or-lose-it dilemma [that would] lead to nuclear war.”
In 2019, the U.S. staged its biggest single military exercise since the Cold War, much of it in high secrecy. An armada of ships and long-range bombers rehearsed an “Air-Sea Battle Concept for China” – ASB – blocking sea lanes in the Straits of Malacca and cutting off China’s access to oil, gas and other raw materials from the Middle East and Africa.
It is fear of such a blockade that has seen China develop its Belt and Road Initiative along the old Silk Road to Europe and urgently build strategic airstrips on disputed reefs and islets in the Spratly Islands.
In Shanghai, I met Lijia Zhang, a Beijing journalist and novelist, typical of a new class of outspoken mavericks. Her best-selling book has the ironic title Socialism Is Great! Having grown up in the chaotic, brutal Cultural Revolution, she has travelled and lived in the U.S. and Europe. “Many Americans imagine,” she said, “that Chinese people live a miserable, repressed life with no freedom whatsoever. The [idea of] the yellow peril has never left them… They have no idea there are some 500 million people being lifted out of poverty, and some would say it’s 600 million.”
Modern China’s epic achievements, its defeat of mass poverty, and the pride and contentment of its people (measured forensically by American pollsters such as Pew) are wilfully unknown or misunderstood in the West. This alone is a commentary on the lamentable state of Western journalism and the abandonment of honest reporting.
China’s repressive dark side and what we like to call its “authoritarianism” are the facade we are allowed to see almost exclusively. It is as if we are fed unending tales of the evil super-villain Dr. Fu Manchu. And it is time we asked why: before it is too late to stop the next Hiroshima.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
John Pilger is an Australian-British journalist and filmmaker based in London. Pilger’s Web site is: www.johnpilger.com. In 2017, the British Library announced a John Pilger Archive of all his written and filmed work. The British Film Institute includes his 1979 film, “Year Zero: the Silent Death of Cambodia,” among the 10 most important documentaries of the 20thcentury. Some of his previous contributions to Consortium News can be found here.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
This article was first published on August 7, 2011.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Is the Biden Administration committed to the use of nuclear weapons as an instrument of peace? The cost of America’s “peace-making” nuclear weapons program is of the order of 1.3 trillion dollars, slated to reach 2 trillion in 2030.
The focus of US military doctrine since the Bush administration has been on the development of so-called “more usable nuclear weapons”.
George W. Bush’s 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, which was adopted by the US Senate in late 2002. envisaged the development of “a generation of more useable nuclear weapons.” namely tactical nuclear weapons (B61-11 mini-nukes) with an explosive capacity between one third and 6 times times a Hiroshima bomb.
The term “more usable” emanates from the debate surrounding the 2001 NPR, which justified the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the conventional war theater on the grounds that tactical nuclear weapons, namely bunker buster bombs with a nuclear warhead are, according to scientific opinion on contract to the Pentagon “harmless to the surrounding population because the explosion is underground.”
Michel Chossudovsky, Hiroshima Day, August 6, 2024
***
Video Produced by James Corbett. The Privatization of Nuclear War, June 2015
Towards a World War III Scenario: The Privatization of Nuclear War
Michel Chossudovsky
August 7, 2011.
At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable – a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread in terms of radioactive fallout over a large part of the Middle East.
All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as “a weapon of last resort”, have been scrapped. “Offensive” military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of “self-defense”.
The casualties from the direct effects of blast, radioactivity, and fires resulting from the massive use of nuclear weapons by the superpowers [of the Cold War era] would be so catastrophic that we avoided such a tragedy for the first four decades after the invention of nuclear weapons.1
During the Cold War, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) prevailed, namely that the use of nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union would result in “the destruction of both the attacker and the defender”. In the post Cold war era, US nuclear doctrine was redefined.
The dangers of nuclear weapons have been obfuscated. Tactical weapons have been upheld as distinct, in terms of their impact, from the strategic thermonuclear bombs of the Cold War era. Tactical nuclear weapons are identical to the strategic nuclear bombs. The only thing that differentiates these two categories of nuclear bombs are:
1) their delivery system;
2) their explosive yield (measured in mass of trinitrotoluene (TNT), in kilotons or megatons.
The tactical nuclear weapon or low yield mini-nuke is described as a small nuclear bomb, delivered in the same way as the earth penetrating bunker buster bombs.
While the technology is fundamentally different, tactical nuclear weapons, in terms of in-theater delivery systems are comparable to the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.
The Pentagon’s 2001 Nuclear Posture Review envisaged so-called “contingency plans” for an offensive “first strike use” of nuclear weapons, not only against “axis of evil” countries (including Iran and North Korea) but also against Russia and China.2
The adoption of the NPR by the US Congress in late 2002 provided a green light for carrying out the Pentagon’s pre-emptive nuclear war doctrine, both in terms of military planning as well as defense procurement and production. Congress not only rolled back its prohibition on low yield nuclear weapons, it also provided funding “to pursue work on so-called mini-nukes”. The financing was allocated to bunker buster (earth penetrator) tactical nuclear weapons as well as to the development of new nuclear weapons.3
Hiroshima Day 2003: Secret Meeting at Strategic Command Headquarters
On August 6, 2003, on Hiroshima Day, [twenty one years ago] commemorating when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (August 6 1945), a secret meeting was held behind closed doors at Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska.
Senior executives from the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex were in attendance. This mingling of defense contractors, scientists and policy-makers was not intended to commemorate Hiroshima. The meeting was intended to set the stage for the development of a new generation of “smaller”, “safer” and “more usable” nuclear weapons, to be used in the “in-theater nuclear wars” of the 21st Century.
In a cruel irony, the participants to this secret meeting, which excluded members of Congress, arrived on the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing and departed on the anniversary of the attack on Nagasaki.
More than 150 military contractors, scientists from the weapons labs, and other government officials gathered at the headquarters of the US Strategic Command in Omaha, Nebraska to plot and plan for the possibility of “full-scale nuclear war”, calling for the production of a new generation of nuclear weapons – more “usable” so-called “mini-nukes” and earth penetrating “bunker busters” armed with atomic warheads.4
According to a leaked draft of the agenda, the secret meeting included discussions on “mini-nukes” and “bunker-buster” bombs with nuclear war heads “for possible use against rogue states”:
We need to change our nuclear strategy from the Cold War to one that can deal with emerging threats… The meeting will give some thought to how we guarantee the efficacy of the (nuclear) stockpile.5
The Privatization of Nuclear War: US Military Contractors Set the Stage .
The post 9/11 nuclear weapons doctrine was in the making, with America’s major defense contractors directly involved in the decision-making process.
The Hiroshima Day 2003 meetings had set the stage for the “privatization of nuclear war”. Corporations not only reap multibillion-dollar profits from the production of nuclear bombs, they also have a direct voice in setting the agenda regarding the use and deployment of nuclear weapons.
The nuclear weapons industry, which includes the production of nuclear devices as well as the missile delivery systems, etc., is controlled by a handful of defense contractors with Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Northrop Grunman, Raytheon and Boeing in the lead.
It is worth noting that barely a week prior to the historic August 6, 2003 meeting, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) disbanded its advisory committee which provided an “independent oversight” on the US nuclear arsenal, including the testing and/or use of new nuclear devices.6
A New War Theater in North Africa Operation Odyssey Dawn Nuclear Weapons against Libya? How Real is the Threat? America’s Long War: The Global Military Agenda How to Reverse the Tide of War World War III Scenario Acknowledgments
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
The Cult of Killing and Destruction America’s Mini-nukes War and the Economic Crisis Real versus Fake Crises
CHAPTER II: THE DANGERS OF NUCLEAR WAR
Hiroshima Day 2003: Secret Meeting at Strategic Command Headquarters The Privatization of Nuclear War: US Military Contractors Set the Stage 9/11 Military Doctrine: Nuclear Weapons and the “Global War on Terrorism” Al Qaeda: “Upcoming Nuclear Power” Obama’s Nuclear Doctrine: The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review Post 9/11 Nuclear Doctrine “Defensive” and “Offensive” Actions “Integration” of Nuclear and Conventional Weapons Plans Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO) Planned Aerial Attacks on Iran Global Warfare: The Role of US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization Israel’s Stockpiling of Conventional and Nuclear Weapons The Role of Western Europe Germany: De Facto Nuclear Power Pre-emptive Nuclear War: NATO’s 2010 Strategic Concept The World is at a Critical Crossroads
CHAPTER III: AMERICA’S HOLY CRUSADE AND THE BATTLE FOR OIL
America’s Crusade in Central Asia and the Middle East “Homegrown Terrorists” The American Inquisition Washington’s Extrajudicial Assassination Program The Battle for Oil The Oil Lies in Muslim Lands Globalization and the Conquest of the World’s Energy Resources
CHAPTER IV: PREPARING FOR WORLD WAR THREE
Media Disinformation A “Pre-emptive” Aerial Attack Directed Against Iran would Lead to Escalation Global Warfare US “Military Aid” The Timetable of Military Stockpiling and Deployment World War III Scenario The United Nations Security Council The American Inquisition: Building a Political Consensus for War
CHAPTER V: TARGETING IRAN WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Building a Pretext for a Pre-emptive Nuclear Attack “Theater Iran Near Term” The Military Road Map: “First Iraq, then Iran” Simulated Scenarios of a Global War: The Vigilant Shield 07 War Games The Role of Israel Cheney: “Israel Might Do it Without Being Asked” US Israel Military Coordination Tactical Nuclear Weapons directed against Iran Radioactive Fallout “The Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) Slated to be Used Against Iran Extensive Destruction of Iran’s Infrastructure State of the Art Weaponry: “War Made Possible Through New Technologies” Electromagnetic Weapons Iran’s Military Capabilities: Medium and Long Range Missiles Iran’s Ground Forces US Military and Allied Facilities Surrounding Iran
CHAPTER VI: REVERSING THE TIDE OF WAR
Revealing the Lie The Existing Anti-War Movement Manufacturing Dissent Jus ad Bellum: 9/11 and the Invasions of Yugoslavia and Afghanistan Fake Antiwar Activism: Heralding Iran as a Nuclear Threat The Road Ahead The Antiwar Movement within the State Structure and the Military Abandon the Battlefield: Refuse to Fight The Broader Peace Process What has to be Achieved
Amidst the cascading tensions in the Middle East following the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh by Israel and vows of‘revenge’ in Tehran, the new government under President Massoud Pezeshkian, sworn in on Tuesday, made its first move on Thursday. Former Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was appointed as the ‘Strategic Deputy’ of the Iranian president entrusting him with the responsibility of the Center for Strategic Studies (CSS).
The CSS is the research arm of the president’s office. Zarif’s appointment signifies his return to the foreign policy arena and Pezeshkian’s high estimation of his unique credentials to chariot Tehran’s Track 1.5 diplomacy.
Zarif’s long exposure to the American policymaking circles during his extended tenure as ambassador to the UN and his active social networking in New York are his strategic assets. Zarif is a familiar face and is highly regarded in the western capitals.
Pezeshkian prioritised Zarif’s appointment; he’s yet to announce his choice of foreign minister. Zarif’s return to the diplomatic circuit cannot but be seen as a signal to the Western powers. There is a paradox here. While Iran factors in that the US would lose heavily from any direct military confrontation, the fact remains that it is only the Americans and the Europeans who are able to stop a full-fledged war in the region in the developing crisis situation.
Image: Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
This also seems to be Moscow’s line of thinking. In a phone conversation with Iran’s Acting Foreign Minister Ali Bagheri Kani on Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov “called on all parties without exception that could influence the situation in the Gaza Strip and in the Middle East in general to avoid actions that could result in further destabilisation of the situation and new casualties among the civilians” — per the Russian readout. [Emphasis added.]
In remarks at the Majlis on Tuesday after the swearing-in ceremony, President Pezeshkian reaffirmed that his government’s foreign policy will strive for constructive engagement with the world while upholding Iran’s national dignity and interests.
Pezeshkian’s election victory suggests that reformism has transformed as a major current in Iran’s mainstream politics. The Iranian dialectic is fraught with consequences for Israel and the US insofar as their old calculus to fuel dissent and trigger social unrest in Iran won’t work anymore. To be sure, the spectre of a constructive engagement between the West and Iran haunts Israel.
Israel will view Zarif’s return as emblematic of a renewed Iranian push for negotiations for a nuclear deal that might open a pathway for the removal of western sanctions as well as a vista of broad-based cooperation. In this context, in a veiled reference to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Pezeshkian made it clear in his remarks at the Majlis that “we have been and will remain committed to our obligations.”
Against such a promising backdrop, the IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi has sought an urgent meeting with Pezeshkian “at the earliest convenience.”In a letter to Pezeshkian, Grossi wrote,
“Cooperation between the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Islamic Republic of Iran has been at the focal attention of the international circles for many years. I am confident that, together, we will be able to make decisive progress on this crucial matter.”
Again, another sub-plot playing out here is that Israel can no longer hope to get the Gulf countries — Saudi Arabia and the UAE, in particular — to align with it against Iran. Times have changed in Iran and the region as well as internationally, including the US where for the first time, open resentment and disapproval of Israeli policies is being voiced.
The Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman congratulated Pezeshkian by phone on his election victory last month to express his satisfaction with the strengthening of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia in various fields, and stressing the need to strengthen the relations as much as possible. The Saudi move registered the hope and expectation that they can do business with the new government in Tehran.
Similarly, the Arab League delisting of Hezbollah recently would speak to the extent to which Saudi Arabia and other Arab states are moving away from Washington’s anti-Iranian positions. The regional states are increasingly accommodative of Iran and are trying to find ways to “share the neighbourhood” with Tehran — to borrow the famous words of then-US President Barack Obama.
Hezbollah is the crown jewel of Iran’s Islamic revolution. Therefore, Arab League’s signal that Hezbollah is an essential player conveys a big message from Riyadh of decreasing regional support for US policies aimed at squeezing Iran and Tehran-aligned actors in the Arab world.
In fact, on Thursday, Saudi Minister of State Prince Mansour bin Miteb bin Abdulaziz personally handed over to Pezeshkian a letter from King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud expressing hope for more constructive steps in developing bilateral relations with Iran and for the continuation of coordination and consultation to promote regional peace and security.
All in all, in the rapidly evolving regional security balance, the Gulf monarchies, which watch Iran closely, are sensing a paradigm shift. The bottom line is, Pezeshkian’s call for regional unity to counter extremist influences. He said,
“Radical voices should not drown out the voices of the nearly two billion peace-loving Muslims. Islam is a religion of peace.”
Forty-five years after the 1979 Iranian revolution, the Islamic Republic speaks up as the voice of moderation and reason!Of course, this does not mean that Iran and the other members of the Axis of Resistance will moderate their response to the recent actions by Israel. Iran’s retaliation to the killing of Haniyeh is certain to be more severe, more painful than anything Tel Aviv experienced so far.
A war with Iran will be very unlike Israel’s previous wars with the Arab states. It will be open-ended until Israel allows the creation of a Palestinian state. Israel’s capacity to retaliate will steadily get depleted, as happened vis-a-vis Hezbollah. The medium and long-term advantage lies with Iran, a much bigger country than Israel, since it will be a war on multiple fronts with non-state actors.
On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that Israel acted on its own to attack Iran’s sovereignty, which is tantamount to an act of war, without some sort of US approval. It is this ‘known unknown’ factor that makes the situation very dangerous. Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei has already ordered a direct strike on Israeli territory.
The Washington Post, citing Pentagon officials, has written that keeping in view a possible escalation, the US Navy has already concentrated 12 warships in the region. Among them is the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, which is located in the Persian Gulf with six destroyers. There are also five US warships in the Eastern Mediterranean. Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that Israel “faces difficult days” and is “ready for any scenario.”
Netanyahu is confident about US support, which was manifest in the warm welcome he received during his recent trip to Washington. Possibly, it was this support that allowed Netanyahu to cut short his visit to the US, return home and forthwith venture into such an aggravation of the situation.
If so, the US is coordinating the situation, but then, US-Israeli history is also one of the tail wagging the dog, more often than not. Clearly, Netanyahu is trying to create a new reality in the Middle East and is writing scenarios of these events directly for himself. Suffice to say, he is both the director and the screenwriter, while the other protagonists, including the US and Europeans, are forced either to play along with him, or to make a good face at a bad game.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image: People gather at the Imam Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab Mosque in Doha for Friday prayers before the burial of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh [Showkat Shafi/Al Jazeera]
To: The State of Israel, AIPAC and the International Zionist Movement
I write as an American citizen. You have stolen my country, and I want it back.
I did not ask for my country to be complicit in the ongoing genocide and attempted eradication of the people of Gaza and Palestine. I do not want to be complicit in the genocide of anyone. I do not want this crime to stain the name of the United States of America whenever it is spoken for the next century and for all eternity, and to bring shame upon me and my descendants, and to all others who hold American citizenship.
The American people are as yet only partially aware of this crime. This is because you have been very successful in exerting a powerful influence on the media, the government, and other pillars of American society. I’m not saying you have done anything illegal. You may have, but you clearly prefer to use legal means as much as possible. And it is possible. US law allows anyone with the necessary means to own media, and – within very broad limits – to control who gets elected to government office and who gets appointed to other public offices.
For better or worse, this is the American way, and it can be made better or worse than it is. But you have abused and corrupted it. You have strangled the political process so that any candidate who criticizes Israel and opposes aid to Israel cannot be elected, because you control the funding as well as the funders in a system which depends entirely on private campaign funds, and where corporations and other wealthy associations are permitted to participate.
You have also strangled academic freedom to debate or protest Israel on American campuses through control of funding, resulting in harassment and removal of faculty and punishment of students. You have hijacked American film, news organizations, and other media so that only the information and views that you permit are widely available to the public.
You use such influence to pass laws at all levels, requiring allegiance to Israel in order to obtain licenses and permits. You apply censorship to social media to prevent free expression of views, information and opinion that might reflect negatively on Israel. You mobilize posting of libel and slander against persons and businesses that criticize Israel and defend Palestinians and their allies.
Your job, and that of the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy, and the global network of sayanim (collaborators) is to assure, by these and any other available means, that Israel dominates all narratives, all public policy and decision making, and that all actions in both the public and private sphere are to the benefit of Israel. You have been enormously successful in capturing almost unlimited military and financial support from the US government, in controlling U.S. government policy, and in shaping American minds to accept and support a massive civilian genocide, including starvation and infection of hundreds of thousands and ultimately probably millions of innocent people.
How can this happen? The American people have spoken and protested in many ways and in large numbers, and polls show that, in spite of your manipulations of US society, a majority of Americans do not support continued aid to Israel, and want an immediate ceasefire. Members of Congress have been deluged with letters, phone calls and email messages.
But part of the system of controlling our government includes your parallel organization of shadow “advisors” or “minders” whose job it is to remain in the face of our elected and appointed officials, and to “recommend” what to say and how to vote, and to provide draft legislation and public announcements that the official can introduce and promote on behalf of Israel. Otherwise, you will threaten to find someone to replace her/him in the next election cycle.
I feel helpless appealing to my members of Congress for anything that you oppose, no matter how many of my fellow citizens might join me. But I now realize that my members of Congress feel the same way. They really don’t have a choice any more than I do. In effect, therefore, they are mere avatars for you and your allies. You are our government.
What can I do about this? I’m not sure, but a start might be to require AIPAC and other actors on behalf of Israel to register as foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, like all other representatives of foreign governments. Israel is a foreign government, isn’t it? As I recall, that was last tried by Sen. J. William Fulbright’s committee in 1963, but when Lyndon B. Johnson came to the presidency by assassination that year, the option faded. But, of course, it’s never too late.
Second, we can overturn Citizens United, by whatever legal means necessary, if possible. Even better, we can prohibit or severely curtail private financing of elections, overturning Citizens United in the process, but going beyond, to eliminate some of the most obvious sources of public corruption. We can also legislate greater protection for free speech and the press, punish use of private donations to deny free speech and other civil rights, and enact similar measures.
The problem with all such remedies, of course, is how to get them passed by institutions that are already under your corrupt control. I’m not sure I have an answer for that, but someone else might. Because even genocide will not save Israel, which is not defeating – and cannot defeat – Hamas. Perhaps Hamas and its allies will liberate both Palestine and the United States.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Paul Larudee is a retired academic and current administrator of a nonprofit human rights and humanitarian aid organization. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: A Oct 20, 2023 protest led by New York City Democratic Socialists of America and Jewish Voice for Peace marches north on Third Avenue in Manhattan to demand U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand call for a ceasefire in the 2023 Israel–Gaza war and support an end to Israeli apartheid. (Licensed under CC0)
What just happened in Bangladesh is ominously similar to 2014’s “EuroMaidan” in Ukraine where legitimate grievances gave rise to a nationwide protest movement that was then co-opted by political opportunists, radicals, and external forces to carry out regime change like the West wanted.
Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina just resigned and fled the country on Monday as rioters stormed her palace, which prompted military chief Waker-uz-Zaman to declare a transitional government and an investigation into the deaths that took place throughout this summer’s unrest. He also said that martial law won’t be imposed if the country returns to peace, though that remains to be seen. Here are some background briefings about this fast-moving sequence of events:
The last-mentioned piece took for granted that the military would resort to all means necessary for maintaining law and order, but that ultimately wasn’t the case after they refused to use lethal force to stop a large number of rioters from storming the presidential palace. It’s unclear whether humanitarian/moral considerations or fears of Western sanctions were responsible, but in any case, that flaw was responsible for incorrectly predicting that the regime change wouldn’t succeed.
What just happened in Bangladesh is ominously similar to 2014’s “EuroMaidan” in Ukraine where legitimate grievances gave rise to a nationwide protest movement that was then co-opted by political opportunists, radicals, and external forces to carry out regime change like the West wanted. Unlike Ukraine, however, the military is leading the political transition and might thus help to stabilize the country instead of allowing it to turn into a black hole of regional chaos (whether right away or later).
Even so, another comparison is relevant to mention, and it’s that the victorious side in Bangladesh blames India for propping up what they portray as their now-ousted “dictator” just like the victorious one in Ukraine said the same about Russia’s prior support of Viktor Yanukovich. No matter what the military’s envisaged foreign policy might be during the interim, it’ll likely capitulate to public pressure to at the very least somewhat distance itself from India for the sake of restoring stability in the streets.
Accordingly, the promised investigation might also conveniently implicate Hasina and those close to her for this summer’s deaths in order to cover up for the victorious side’s role in all of this, just like Ukraine’s post-“Maidan” investigation blamed Yanukovich and his ilk (though more of the truth came out later on). Depending on how everything unfolds and the pace thereof, Bangladesh might return to its previous role as a thorn in India’s side, which could take the form of hosting groups that Delhi designated as terrorists.
Northeast India was afflicted by a brief but very intense round of unrest last summer in Manipur, which readers can learn more about here and here, and this reminded policymakers of how vulnerable that diverse part of their country is to instability caused by an influx of different demographic groups. Christian Kukis from Myanmar clashed with indigenous Hindu Meiteis in Manipur, while Muslim Bangladeshis have previously clashed with indigenous groups in bordering Northeast Indian States.
The second-mentioned fault line is exceptionally dangerous due to Bangladesh being an independent state, unlike the so-called “Kukiland” that separatist groups want to carve out of the region with Western support. Accordingly, any perceived violation of its people’s rights – including illegal immigrants’ – could worsen bilateral tensions, thus risking fears of a regional war. To be clear, this is only the worst-case scenario, and folks shouldn’t fearmonger about it at this point.
Nevertheless, any movement in that direction could lead to a major security crisis for India that could be exploited by the US and China in different ways, the first through support for the armed forces and potentially affiliated non-state groups active in India and the latter through a prospective base. After all, if Bangladesh comes to fear India or at least artificially manufactures such a perception, then it naturally follows that it might try to “balance” India by comprehensively expanding military ties with China.
The best way forward would be for the situation at home to stabilize and for Bangladesh to retain its prior government’s Indian-friendly policies, though that’s unlikely to materialize for the reasons that were explained. The second-best possibility is that ties with India cool, but no mutual mistrust follows at the state-to-state levels. And finally, the worst-case scenario is that relations deteriorate, after which the US and China exploit this in their own way to pile pressure upon India (whether coordinated or not).
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
When world leaders gathered in Switzerland in June for a Ukraine peace summit, the event offered a glimpse into the power games playing behind the scenes in Kiev, Bloomberg reported, adding that anyone who has dealt with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will probably recognize Andriy Yermak, the chief of staff who is constantly by his side.
As the Russian operation in Ukraine enters its third year, some of Kiev’s international backers are increasingly concerned about how much decision-making is concentrated in the hands of Yermak, a former film producer who has become Zelensky’s “sole gatekeeper” with a direct say in everything from foreign policy to military planning.
The rise of the 52-year-old, the outlet writes, was accompanied by the fall of many others near the top — a parliamentary speaker, a central bank governor and his predecessor as chief of staff — often at the hands of the top aide, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke to the outlet on condition of anonymity.
One delegation, cited by the agency, described Yermak as a headstrong official with vast influence who often promoted ambitions that outpaced reality, including a demand for a large fleet of F-16 fighter jets.
Defending himself, Yermak said on July 31,
“I’m not involved in every job, I’m only coordinating. Yes, I’m very proud that the president asks my opinion, but he asks for my opinion because I get results.”
“Of course I read and hear about people talking about my power, but please, tell me, how am I using this power? To work 24 hours, seven days, to take on more obligations and more risks. [Zelensky] is a person who thinks it’s important to listen and to know the different opinions. He always makes the decisions himself,” he added.
It is recalled that in a July 3 interview, Zelensky claimed that the allegations about Yermak having amassed too much power “is done simply to attack me.”
“He does what I tell him to do – and he fulfils the tasks,” the Ukrainian president added.
Bloomberg also pointed out that Yermak’s social media profile is filled with images of himself with Pope Francis, French President Emmanuel Macron and others — often without Zelensky anywhere to be seen. A June 7 post on his Telegram channel showed Yermak shaking hands with US President Joe Biden while Zelensky shook hands with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin — a reversal of protocol that drew derisive comments in Kiev.
The dynamics prompted a common joke among Ukrainians about the chief of staff: “He’s not number one, but he’s not number two either.”
According to media reports, Yermak’s mandate is broader than any of his predecessors. He has been central to every major decision in the conflict: replacing Zelensky’s top general, securing arms supplies, negotiating security guarantees, overseeing prisoner swaps and — at the Swiss summit — trying to win the Global South’s support to Kiev’s cause.
Sources familiar with the May firing of Ukrainian Infrastructure Minister Aleksandr Kubrakov, an official who once had a direct line to Zelensky and was close to the Biden administration, say Yermak was instrumental in his removal. According to Bloomberg, the presidential office failed to adequately explain the firing, among other personnel changes, leaving foreign governments confused about the change.
Bloomberg highlighted that power dynamics are a serious issue for NATO allies and international donors — including the European Union and the International Monetary Fund — who have made transparency a benchmark for the transfer of funds. The US Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget revealed that Washington has already approved $175 billion in aid to Ukraine.
The article concluded with Yermak ridiculously claiming that “Russia is not motivated. In the end, victory is on the side of people who are motivated.”
With Yermak still arrogantly firm in his belief that Ukraine will prevail and that Russia is not motivated, it suggests that the Kiev regime is still in a deep delusion about the full extent of the situation they find themselves in. However, he also states, “We need to end this war as soon as possible to achieve a just peace.” This suggests that Kiev is, in fact, aware of the situation and is becoming desperate for an end to hostilities and that the talk of Russia being unmotivated is just propaganda that, ultimately, not even Ukrainians or the West no longer believe.
Either way, what is demonstrable is that power in Ukraine has been consolidated into fewer and fewer hands, with Yermak removing all those who can potentially challenge him and Zelensky. As Russia continues to advance and capture more territory, the regime will become more desperate and paranoid, and it can be expected that more popular or influential figures will be purged by Yermak and Zelensky.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
In my interview with organic industry watchdog Mark Kastel, we discuss how the organic food industry has grown significantly, but challenges remain with labeling integrity. Local, direct-from-farmer organics are generally more reliable than large-scale commercial organics sold in supermarkets
Imported organic products face issues of fraud and regulatory loopholes. “Group certification” allows large agribusinesses to avoid proper inspection, particularly affecting products like hazelnuts from Turkey
Nutritional considerations extend beyond organic certification. Even organic practices may not align with optimal nutrition, as seen in chicken feed choices and the debate between brown and white rice
Consumers can find authentic organic products by buying local, using online resources, checking certifier names, and looking for 100% grass fed and finished meat. OrganicEye provides valuable information for making informed choices
*
The organic food industry has grown tremendously over the past few decades, but concerns remain about the integrity of organic labeling and certification. In my eye-opening interview with organic industry watchdog Mark Kastel, he discusses the challenges facing organic consumers and farmers, offering insights on how to find truly healthy, ethically produced food.
Kastel co-founded The Cornucopia Institute, which celebrates its 20th anniversary in 2024, and is also executive director and founder of OrganicEye. He notes that while the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act was well-intentioned, its implementation has been problematic:1
“Congress, in 1990, passed the organic foods production act. It gave the USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture] the responsibility to protect industry stakeholders, so farmers, ethical business people and eaters, consumers, protect them from unfair competition and fraud. And the legislation itself is really pretty solid and well-intended.
Unfortunately, like a lot of things that happen, it gets handed over to the bureaucrats in Washington and the political appointees of both parties. Something gets lost in translation.”
Kastel explains that, initially, the USDA was resistant to regulating organic food, viewing it as just a “marketing scheme.” However, as the U.S. organic food industry has grown to $61.7 billion annually,2 large agribusiness corporations have bought out many pioneering organic brands.
This has led to efforts to make organic certification less rigorous and more profitable. Globally, the organic industry is now a $205.9 billion industry, projected to reach a worth of $532.72 billion by 2032.3
According to Kastel, there are essentially two organic labels consumers encounter:
1. Local, direct-from-farmer organics — These include farmers markets, community-supported agriculture (CSAs) and independent local retailers who source directly from farms they know. Kastel states he’s found “virtually no fraud on that local level.”
2. Large-scale commercial organics — This includes major brands sold in supermarkets and big box stores. These products may come from overseas or large industrial operations with less oversight.
The graphic above, created by Phil Howard, a professor with Michigan State University,4 illustrates how big business has taken over many smaller organic brands. “It really is almost every major brand, and it’s very deceptive,” Kastel explains.5
“You’ll never see General Mills on Cascadian Farms breakfast cereals or Muir Glen tomato products, you’ll see Small Planet Foods. Doesn’t that sound nice? But Dean Foods bought the Horizon label that’s now been sold off a couple of different times … Smuckers is a giant. They own Santa Cruz juices and Knudsen juices.”6
Kastel emphasizes the benefits of buying local organic food: “You’re getting food that’s more nutritionally dense, fresher, more flavorful and your dollars stay in your food shed, they’re recirculating … we call this the multiplier effect.”7
The Challenge of Imported Organics
One of the biggest concerns in the organic industry is the integrity of imported organic products. Kastel explains, “We’ve helped break some major import fraud partnering with the Washington Post at one point. We’ve partnered with The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal.”8 He describes two main types of fraud:
1. Outright fraud or “organic alchemy” — Conventional products are relabeled as organic during shipping.
2. Regulatory loopholes — Large industrial farms exploit weak oversight, especially for animal products like dairy.
Kastel is particularly concerned about a practice called “group certification” for imports:9
“Instead of certifying every farm, instead of inspecting every farm, they will allow a group to band together and when that was conceived, even though it was still illegal when it was conceived, it was for very small landholders doing things like bananas, or chocolate or coffee on a half an acre.”
Now, he says, large agribusinesses are using this loophole to avoid proper inspection of their suppliers. Grower/producer groups started out as a way to help small farmers or indigenous groups in developing countries but have morphed to include commercial-scale farms that are escaping USDA oversight.
Only about 2% of the farmers involved in these grower/producer groups are being inspected annually, which means the vast majority — 98% — are not being inspected as frequently, if at all.
“Although almost universally complied with in domestic production, that system has completely broken down for imports,” Kastel said in a news release. “A large percentage of all foreign imports, making up a sizable amount of the organic food Americans eat, are coming from ‘producer groups,’ whose grower-members the USDA has exempted from the requirements to be certified.”10
For instance, an investigation revealed the USDA’s Organic Integrity Database lists no certified organic hazelnut growers in Turkey. Yet, the country is the leading importer of organic hazelnuts into the U.S., at prices close to conventionally grown hazelnuts.11
“We can grow hazelnuts in the U.S.,” Kastel says, “but they can’t compete with hazelnuts from Turkey, which come from these group certifications, where the farms are not even being inspected, and it’s forcing our Oregon nut growers out of business.”12
Nutritional Insights: Beyond the Organic Label
While organic certification is crucial, even organic practices may not always align with optimal nutrition. It’s important to look beyond the organic label to truly understand the health impacts of your food choices. This includes feeding practices, even within organic systems. For instance, feeding grains to chickens is a common practice on organic farms, but the ideal food for them would be insects and bugs.
It can be difficult to find enough insects for this purpose, but many organic farmers supplement with grains that are loaded with damaging omega-6 polyunsaturated fats. Truly health-conscious organic farmers should consider alternatives like sprouted peas or barley, which result in eggs with healthier fat profiles. Ideally, organic standards need to evolve based on our growing understanding of nutrition.
I don’t generally recommend consuming chicken, even if it’s organic and locally produced, due to its typically high linoleic acid content — the result of being fed grains high in omega-6 fatty acids. Ruminants (like cattle and sheep) are a better choice for meat consumption because ruminants have an additional digestive compartment with bacteria that can saturate polyunsaturated fats.
This allows ruminants to eat grains without accumulating high levels of linoleic acid in their tissues. Even a food as seemingly simple as rice has important nuances you should be aware of for optimal health. Kastel mentions eating brown rice, but I recommend white rice instead.
This is because the fiber in brown rice can negatively impact your gut microbiome, especially for people with insulin resistance, which is 99% of the population. Insulin resistance causes mitochondrial dysfunction, decreasing intracellular energy, which then impacts the ability of your gut to stay healthy.
White rice is a healthier option because it lacks the problematic fibers found in brown rice. However, no matter which rice you eat, it should be organic. As Kastel notes, rice cultivation is often chemically intensive. He also points out that both organic and inorganic arsenic can be present in rice, depending on the soil it’s grown in and past agricultural practices in the area.
How to Find Truly Organic Food and Take Control of Your Food Choices
By integrating these nutritional insights with broader discussions about organic certification and farming practices, you can make more informed dietary choices that support both your health and sustainable agricultural systems. The key takeaway is that while organic certification is a valuable starting point, truly health-conscious consumers need to dig deeper to understand the full nutritional impact of their food choices.
Generally, be cautious about embracing trendy alternatives like fake meat and instead focus on whole, organically produced foods. That being said, how can you find authentic organic products?
OrganicEye is an invaluable resource for anyone interested in making healthier food choices and understanding the organic food industry. The website offers a wealth of resources on organic food, farming practices, and industry regulations. Kastel and his team are not selling products; their mission is purely to educate and inform consumers. In addition, Kastel suggests doing the following to find organic, high-quality food:
1. Buy local whenever possible — Farmers markets, CSAs and independent stores that source directly from farms offer the highest integrity.
2. Use online resources — Websites like Local Harvest, Eat Wild and state agriculture department databases can help you locate nearby farms and markets.
3. Check certifier names — Cornucopia Institute plans to publish a list ranking organic certifiers by trustworthiness.
4. Look for 100% grass fed and finished meat — Be wary of misleading “grass fed” claims that don’t guarantee full grass finishing.
While the organic landscape can be confusing and sometimes deceptive, you have the power to make informed choices. By seeking out local sources, understanding labels, and staying informed about industry practices, it’s possible to find truly healthy, ethically produced food.
Take Action to Protect Organic Farmers and US Organics
After OrganicEye backed a federal lawsuit demanding that the USDA discontinue their practice of allowing foreign agribusinesses to inspect their own suppliers (a profound conflict of interest), the industry’s corporate lobby group, the Organic Trade Association (OTA), suggested that, if the USDA loses the lawsuit, they will simply go to Congress and lobby to change the law to legalize “group certification.”
Don’t let that happen! Federal law currently requires every organic farm to be certified and inspected annually by independent, accredited, third-party certifiers — not foreign corporations with a financial interest.
Please click the button below and invest two minutes of your time in sending a personal message directly to your congressperson and two U.S. senators, asking them to respect the spirit and letter of the law protecting organic farmers, ethical businesses and consumers. To leverage your voice even further, please forward and/or share this action alert with your friends, family and business associates on social media.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Genocide, explains heroic Gazan reporter Bisan Owda, manifests itself in myriad different ways. It is not just warplanes in the sky “heavily armed to kill defenseless civilians.”
The genocide, she explains, is part psychological. People have nowhere safe to go. They have lost their loved ones. They are forced to flee with few belongings on roads where cars are broken down, where fuel is unavailable, and the donkey to pull the trailer is dead and so is the driver. Terror, anguish, sorrow haunt them daily.
The genocide is the disease, the biowarfare, the dirty water, the open sewage.
Zionists force fleeing, helpless, terror-stricken civilians back and forth to set up tents near open sewers, where the water is dirty, where many but especially children get life-threatening and life-ending diseases like smallpox, malaria, scabies, hepatitis and parasite-induced illnesses.
Existing hospitals are overburdened, medicines and treatment are often unavailable because the occupation restricts necessary health products and even hygiene products from entering the Strip of Death.
And so the children with the least defences are particularly vulnerable. Doctors perform amputations without anesthetics. When the babies die, they are dehydrated and their bones show.
Everything needs repair, tents, clothes, cars, nothing much can be repaired because everything is denied. Western-supported Zionists deny everything that makes life sustainable. The siege is part of the genocide.
It is de-development. It is bombing the area to the stone-age. It is the mass murder of innocents. None of this is accidental.
It is parallel fascism, it is Nazism in this Zionist-created Kill Zone where people are walled-in, controlled and targeted with no place to go. Just like the Warsaw Ghetto.
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. He writes on his website where this article was originally published.
Olympics double standards? Russian and Belarusian athletes are barred from the Paris games while genocidal Israel gets a free pass and Chinese athletes get bullied in broad daylight. It is no wonder the event is being called ‘the worst Olympics ever.’
The Olympics are celebrated as a politics-free international sporting event that unites people from all corners of the globe. In reality, however, politics have always cast a shadow over the games, marked by scandals, protests, and boycotts – and in the cases of previous hosts Russia and China, accusations of “sportswashing.”
This year, the political undertones are particularly pronounced, with deeply unsettling double standards applied to Israel.
Athletes from Russia and Belarus are excluded from participating in the Paris Games under their national flags because of their part in the Ukraine conflict. They can take only part under a neutral banner. But despite Tel Aviv’s live-streamed genocide taking place in Gaza for the past ten months, no Israeli athletes have been barred from participating under the occupation state’s flag.
Worldwide calls for excluding Israel from this year’s Olympics have fallen on deaf ears. This, despite the fact that in January the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found it is “plausible” that Israel is guilty of violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
The following month, Amnesty International assessed that “Israel has failed to take even the bare minimum steps to comply” with the ICJ’s orders to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risks of genocide.
In May, International Criminal Court (ICC) Chief Prosecutor Karim Khanannounced that he had requested arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoaz Gallant on charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
The ICJ, which is the UN’s top court, also reaffirmed in an advisory opinion last month that Israel’s control of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem amounts to Apartheid.
Ignoring Mountains of Evidence
Despite the substantial evidence of Israel being a rogue actor that flagrantly violates basic tenants of international law, International Olympic Committee (IOC) president Thomas Bach rejected a request from the Palestine Olympic Committee (POC) to ban Israel from participating in the games.
Bach with Israeli President Isaac Herzog in Tel Aviv, Israel, 21 September 2022 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)
The POC’s letter to the IOC president stressed that “Palestinian athletes, particularly those in Gaza, are denied safe passage and have suffered significantly due to the ongoing conflict.” But Bach replied that he refuses to be pulled into “political business.” French President Emanuel Macron also opposed barring Israel, even as voices like Thomas Portes, a member of the French parliament from the left-wing La France Insoumise, argued that Israel should face the same sanctions as Russia and Belarus.
Speaking at a rally last week, Portes declared that the Israeli delegation “is not welcome in Paris” and that “Israeli sportspeople are not welcome at the Paris Olympic Games.” The lawmaker added:
“France’s diplomats should pressure the International Olympic Committee to bar the Israeli flag and anthem, as is done for Russia.”
There was a predictable backlash against Portes for his statements, although other French legislators such as Aurelien Le Coq, Jerome Legavre, and Manuel Bompard came to Portes’ defense.
To put Israeli crimes into perspective, the Israeli military has been responsible for at least 39,363 deaths and approximately 90,923 injuries in less than ten months. Among the death toll are at least 15,000 children. In a shocking report published in the scientific journal The Lancet on 5 July, physicians and public health expert estimated that Israel’s assault on Gaza could lead to between 149,000 and 598,000 Palestinian deaths if it were to end immediately.
Today, much of Gaza is a no-man’s land. In comparison, according to the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, the civilian death toll in the first two years of the Ukraine war reached 10,582. While the outrage over human suffering in Ukraine is justified, it is challenging to argue that Russia and Belarus deserve to be barred, but Israel does not. As Dr. Assal Rad, a scholar of Modern Middle East History tells The Cradle:
“The irony is that Israel is ‘singled out’ in its ability to act with impunity. Israel’s crimes in Gaza are brutal and extensive, including plausible genocide—the worst possible crime against humanity—yet Israel has faced zero consequences. To the contrary, the US has provided more weapons and funds for Israel to continue committing atrocities despite global outrage. In doing so, the US has shown the futility of the international system by making it a tool of power rather than justice or fairness.”
‘Olympic Values’ or Western Values?
The Olympic Charter emphasizes that the games are intended to promote a way of life based on “respect for internationally recognized human rights and universal fundamental ethical principles.” Allowing Israel to participate makes a mockery of this charter.
Excluding Israel from the Olympic Games because it is an apartheid state would not be without historic precedent. Apartheid South Africa’s infringement of the Olympic Charter resulted in the country being barred from participating in the games in 1964 and 1968, prior to being entirely expelled in 1970. In 1972, the IOC barred the team representing Rhodesia before its exclusion in 1976.
The IOC’s unwillingness to hold Israel to the same standards applied to other countries speaks to “western hypocrisy at its finest,” Ghada Oueiss, a Lebanese journalist, tells The Cradle.
Dr. Dr Rad adds:
“Western double standards have been on full display for the world to see over the last nearly 10 months as Israel has been given total impunity in its war on Gaza. The decision to ban Russia and Belarus while allowing Israel to compete is yet another example of this hypocrisy.”
“Whatever your views on politics and sports or banning athletes from competition, what is at issue here is that the rules do not apply equally across the board. Russia is ‘held accountable’ because it is an adversary of the United States, while Israel is held to a different standard because it is an ally. These double standards contribute to undermining the very systems the West so often champions with its words but not its deeds.”
‘Ekecheiria’
The Paris Olympics opened on 26 July with a controversial grand ceremony performance that was widely perceived as mocking religious beliefs. The scene in question featured drag queens and a tableau some interpreted as a parody of Leonardo da Vinci’s “The Last Supper.” Organizers denied this interpretation, claiming instead that the scene depicted was inspired by Greek mythology to celebrate diversity and French gastronomy.
This portrayal sparked outrage and condemnation from various religious leaders and groups worldwide. Egypt’s esteemed Al-Azhar, called the performance “insulting” and “barbaric,” warning against using global events to normalize insults to religion and promote what they termed “destructive societal diseases.”
The Coptic Orthodox Church also condemned the performance, describing it as a “serious insult” to Christian beliefs and calling for a formal apology from the organizers. Additional criticisms came from the Middle East Council of Churches, the Assembly of Catholic Ordinaries of the Holy Land, and the Muslim Council of Elders.
In response to the backlash, the organizers of the Paris 2024 Olympics issued an apology to those offended, insisting that the intention was not to show disrespect but to promote community tolerance and inclusion.
Yet talk of “inclusion” or “exclusion” appear to be incredibly subjective at the IOC – allowing an apartheid state like Israel to compete in the prestigious event, while excluding a UN Security Council permanent member state.
On the same day as the opening ceremony, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres urged all countries “to lay down their arms” and respect the Olympic Truce’s spirit.
The Olympic Truce (ekecheiria) is an ancient Greek tradition which the IOC renewed in 1992 and has been reaffirmed in UN General Assembly resolutions. It demands that all hostilities around the world cease seven days prior to the Olympic and Paralympic Games, and do not resume until at least seven days after the event concludes. But for the orphaned, starved, displaced, widowed, dismembered, and traumatized people of Gaza, Guterres’ lofty rhetoric about “peace for all” could not be more disconnected from their daily struggles as Israel’s high-tech slaughter makes the enclave uninhabitable.
That the IOC has demonstrated its indifference to Palestinian lives is the merely the latest reminder of the international community’s failure to defend Palestinians. It is a depressing commentary on the IOC that after nearly ten months of Israel’s criminal conduct in Gaza, its athletes can arrive in Paris and compete under the Israeli flag as if they represent a normal country.
While the IOC refuses to uphold its own tradition of ekecheiria, that burden has fallen on athletes and spectators attending the Paris Games – one they have carried well – with reports of athletes withdrawing from matches against Israeli opponents, players being booed and anthems jeered.
Nothing less should suffice at these Paris games, which has already been branded online as “the worst Olympics ever.”
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
One wonders why America goes to war every few years with other nations. In its history of 248 years, it has been at peace only for 20 years or only 8% of its independent history!
Rest of the years, America has been fighting wars with other nations involving killings, murders, looting, gobbling up territories of other nations, carrying out coups, overthrows, assassinations, regime change, etc.
There is no continent where United States has not put its criminal footprints. Why should a nation based on democratic principles engage in such nefarious activities for so long?
Today, United States maintains 750 military bases in 80 countries of the world.
It deploys 228,390 military personnel in foreign countries as of September 2023. Some 168,571 of them are active-duty troops. Rather than minding her own business, why does America undertake such a colossal waste of money and materials?
The answer lies in the fact that America is a global hegemon and wants to dominate the world. Any country—like Russia and China—whoever challenges American hegemony becomes its enemy. Any country who challenges American dominance is targeted for brutal military and economic sanctions. America always creates a boogey man or an enemy to hate.
For 500 years, the Native Americans were its enemy, then Mexican leaders, Hawaii’s king and queen before ruthlessly taking over that beautiful but defenseless Island kingdom, Japanese emperor during World War II, Hitler during World War II, Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam during Vietnam War, Russian and North Korean leaders during the Korean War, Saddam Hussein of Iraq who had done no harm to America, Osama Bin Laden and Taliban of Afghanistan, where there was no clear proof that they had anything to do with 9/11 attack, Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia—Kosovo War—who had done no harm to America, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, Ayatollahs of Iran, Hugo Chavez or Maduro of Venezuela… and now Putin of Russia… the list goes on and on.
United States has military bases in Iraq against the wishes of their government and people. It also has soldiers in Syria without the wishes or permission of that country. US steals Iraqi oil in Kurdistan area and 80% of oil from Syria—as per morningstaronline.co.uk—and provides that oil to their archenemy, Israel! This is theft and naked gangsterism.
According to James A. Lucas, Global Research, U.S. regimes have killed 20 to 30 million people since world war II. What a criminal record! This is not considering millions of native Americans and black people of Africa—due to the slave trade and U.S. imposed slavery—who perished at the hands of Americans. This is what America’s glorious record is. Alas, few Americans are aware of this!
As reported by The New York Times Magazine—Sept. 10, 2021—at Least 37 million civilians have been displaced as a direct result of U.S. wars since Sept. 11, 2021—not considering its countless previous wars—according to a new report from Brown University’s Costs of War Project. This is the result of America’s War on Terror. The displaced millions—men, women and children—have lost their homes and most belongings and are forced to live in miserable conditions in other countries. Most Americans don’t realize what their ‘leaders’ are doing to other people of the world on the name of freedom.
America has put brutal sanctions on so many nations! Some 2.6 to 2.7 billion people of the world are under US sanctions. As per Jonas Elmerraji of Investopedia—July 06, 2023—U.S. has imposed sanctions on following countries, regions, or companies and individuals within listed countries:
Afghanistan
The Balkans
Belarus
Burma
Central African Republic
China
Cuba
Democratic Republic of Congo
Ethiopia
Hong Kong
Iran
Iraq
Lebanon
Libya
Mali
Nicaragua
North Korea
Russia
Somalia
Sudan
South Sudan
Syria
Venezuela
Yemen
Zimbabwe
It is well-known that most of the time sanctions fail. Only the innocent and poor people of the sanctioned country suffers from these sanctions. Nothing happens to their leaders. Still, America keeps sanctioning countries foolishly. For example, America has put brutal trade sanctions on Cuba since February 3, 1962; some 62 years of brutal, vindictive and pointless embargo. Who suffers in Cuba as a result? Its poor people. What harm has Cuban people done to America?
By its immoral wars with other weaker countries, America has brought about death and destruction in these countries. Examples are North and South Korea, South and North Vietnam, Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Libya. As a result, millions of people lost their lives, their homes and their livelihoods. Millions became refugees in other countries, forced to leave their homes. What harm people of these countries had done to America? Have our leaders asked themselves ever what did America gain by these stupid and criminal wars? Once these criminal wars are over, everything is forgotten by our leaders and it is business as usual. But the people who have suffered horribly as a result of America’swars, will they ever forget?
AIPAC — the Israel lobby exerts tremendous influence on US Middle East policy. That has been very harmful to America’s own interests. There is good evidence for the fact that United States attacked and went to war with Iraq in March 2003 because of Israel and its lobby AIPAC. As per Brown University Study, it will cost the US some $2.2 trillion. As per the Reuters, about 1.03 million people died as a result of this horrible war. There were 4431 American soldiers killed and 31,994 wounded in this war. This war was a foolish and criminal act by the United States.
As per Council on Foreign Relations, Israel has been the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign aid since its founding, receiving around $310 billion (adjusted for inflation) in total economic and military assistance. Though Israel is richer than most European countries! Also, the United States has provisionally agreed via a memorandum of understanding to provide Israel with $3.8 billion per year through 2028. U.S. has been giving Israel $3 billion to $4 billion a year in military aid during the past decade and a half.
All this aid helps Israel maintain its criminal policy over poor and defenseless people of Palestine. Israel keeps these Palestinian people in most horrible conditions in modern times. Some 2 million Gaza-Palestinians are kept in horrible conditions in open air prison by Israel. The 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank are no better off under Israel’s suppression. Even Palestinian Arabs living in Israel are treated as third class citizens. American arms to Israel—including 2000-pound bombs–are responsible for killings by Israel of thousands of poor Palestinian men, women and children. United States knows this very well. U.S. military, economic and diplomatic support to Israel enables Israel in its inhuman treatment of Palestinian people with impunity.
Recent genocide by Israel and indirectly supported by America, in Gaza has claimed over 40,000 Palestinians killed; many of them are women and children. Israel is bent on ethnic cleansing there. US leaders know this and indirectly support it. It is obvious to those who know it.
In other words, it is America who is responsible indirectly for mass murders, ethnic cleansing and inhuman conditions of Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank. If America stops its military/economic aid, Israel will immediately settle for a two-state solution with the Palestinians.
Why keep creating enemies? Why can’t America live in peace with other nations? Is violence in their blood? Why do the ruling elites foolishly have a sense of superiority over people of other nations? Don’t they learn anything from great men like Mahatma Gandhi, Jesus Christ, Henry David Thoreau or Martin Luther King? Why can’t they believe in brotherhood of men? Why don’t they realize that everyone is a citizen of this planet and each one has equal rights over the resources of this beautiful planet? Why do the rulers of America have insatiable appetite to dominate by hook or crook over other nations of this world? When do these unwise rulers behave like peaceful people and understand that all human beings on this planet are equal and have equal rights regardless of their religion or their country of origin?
Why can’t we be friends with Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua? All that is required is to extend a hand of friendship and treat everyone with respect and equality. Then each of these countries will respond whole-heartedly in kind.
America can change tomorrow from a warring hegemon to a peaceful and civilized nation if it wants. It can immediately declare to the world:
America will not go to war with any nation unless directly attacked.
From now onwards, America will change its nuclear policy. No first use of nuclear weapons should be the basis of a peaceful nation. United States should declare that it will use nuclear weapons only if attacked by a nuclear power. It will not use nuclear weapons on any non-nuclear power.
United States should call for a conference of all nuclear-powered nations and work relentlessly to eliminate all nuclear weapons from this world.
It will dissolve NATO alliance right away as its usefulness is redundant as Soviet Union no more exists.
As of 2023, the US military spent about $820.3 billion on ‘defense’. Defense Department’s request for 2024 Defense Budget is $849.8 billion. United States spends on ‘defense’ more than the next ten countries combined! While its Education Budget as per the latest request by the Biden Administration is for $90 billion for fiscal year 2024. What a shame!
United States should cut its Defense Budget by at least 50% and use the billions thus saved for helping its needy people.
America will not invade another country, carry out coups, or undertake regime change, or destroy a democratic movement, or assassinate the leader or the scientist of another nation unless it is attacked by another nation.
America will not carry out economic war against another nation by sanctions or by other means.
USA has 750 military bases in some 80 countries of the world as of July 2021. Why such a waste of money and material? America should close all its military bases around the world and spend those billions of dollars thus saved for the welfare of its poor people and useful social programs.
America should and will ban all lobbies representing foreign countries’ interests ( such as Israel, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan), so that they cannot influence US foreign policy.
America will stop all military, economic and diplomatic aid to Israel and force Israel to seek and settle a two-state solution with Palestinian people.
Doling out billions of dollars to Israel—a country richer than any country of Europe—while 11.4% or around 37 million Americans live in poverty—for what? Everything Israel does to the Palestinian people since its founding in 1948 is against the value and principle on which America was founded.
What are the characteristics of a great nation? A great nation is the one who lives in harmony and peace with all other nations; who treats other countries with respect and friendship regardless of other countries’ political system; who engages in friendly negotiations if there arises a disagreement or crisis with other nations; who helps other poor nations with aid; who stops selling or supplying arms and killing machines to other nations for profit. Unfortunately, America possesses none of these qualities of a great nation.
America possesses some good qualities too. But let’s face it. No matter how much we love America, and despite massive propaganda, America has been a violent nation throughout its history. It has become an agent of chaos in the world violating international laws when it suits them.
America needs to change its ways. In every secondary school, America needs to introduce courses on non-violence as a subject. In schools across the country, America needs to teach its youngsters about Gautam Buddha, Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and their teachings, so that from childhood, our youngsters learn the value of non-violence. Only if its youngsters are taught the value of non-violence that when they become leaders of the country, they will lead the country in non-violent and peaceful direction.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Chaitanya Davé is an engineer and a businessman. He has authored three books: CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: A Shocking Record of US Crimes since 1776-2007, COLLAPSE: Civilization on the Brink-2010, CAPITALISM’S MARCH OF DESTRUCTION: Replacing it with People and Nature-Friendly Economy. Author of many articles on politics, history, and the environment. Founder/President of a non-profit charity foundation helping the poor villagers of India, Nepal, Haiti, USA-homeless and other poor countries. He can be contacted at [email protected].
On the very last day of July, the Russian military announced it started “the third and ‘final’ phase of drills to practice the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons”. The Kremlin’s Ministry of Defense (MoD) also initiated joint exercises with Belarus, its closest ally.
If the Kiwis aren’t rioting in the streets of Auckland at this very moment, if this isn’t the straw that broke the camel’s back — either because the information space in New Zealand is so tightly controlled that they don’t know what their government is doing to them or because they are too psychologically/spiritually compromised to be bothered to do anything about it — all hope of a popular resistance may be lost.
One of the main features of Venezuela’s first Constitution that actually debated, drafted and then approved in a referendum (December 1999) by 72% was the creation of the five branches of power. In addition to the usual executive, legislative, judicial and other branches found in other countries, Venezuela innovated with the National Electoral Council (CNE) as the fifth branch.
The reason the manipulative Zionist regime cunningly plotted to assassinate Ismail Haniyeh during his visit to Iran is two-fold. Firstly, the Islamic Republic over the years has established the reputation of being the torchbearer of the Palestine cause, particularly in the Islamic World.
While the world is absorbed in the U.S. election drama, the derivatives time bomb continues to tick menacingly backstage. No one knows the actual size of the derivatives market, since a major portion of it is traded over-the-counter, hidden in off-balance-sheet special purpose vehicles.
Voters in the U.S.A. live in fantasy and probably always will. No matter how obvious it is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, not a democracy, the ardent pipe dreams of a new face in the White House go to their heads every four years.
On 4 June 2024, at 2:30 AM, an alleged earthquake measuring 4.4 on the Richter scale occurred on the test site of the Rheinmetall (weapon manufacturing) Defense Contractor in Unteriberg, Central Switzerland. The Swiss Seismological Service locates the epicenter at a depth of just 100 meters, and indicates the Pragel Pass, six kilometers away, as the epicenter.
I received a fascinating testimonial in my inbox today:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2021 Wong et al – A Review of Post-treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome and Chronic Lyme Disease for the Practicing Immunologist
Lyme disease is an infection caused by Borrelia burgdorferi, which is transmitted to humans through the bite of an infected Ixodes tick.
majority of patients recover without complications with antibiotic therapy.
However, for a minority of patients, accompanying non-specific symptoms can persist for months following completion of therapy.
The constellation of symptoms such as fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, and musculoskeletal pain that persist beyond 6 months and are associated with disability have been termed post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTLDS), a subset of a broader term “Chronic Lyme disease.”
Chronic Lyme disease is a broad, vaguely defined term that is used to describe patients with non-specific symptoms that are attributed to a presumed persistent Borrelia burgdorferi infection in patients who may or may not have evidence of either previous or current Lyme disease.
Ivermectin to Control Ticks
2000 – Attempt to Control Ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) on Deer on an Isolated Island Using Ivermectin-Treated Corn
1996 – Systemic Treatment of White-tailed Deer with Ivermectin-Medicated Bait To Control Free-Living Populations of Lone Star Ticks (Acari: Ixodidae)
1989 – Control of Lone Star Ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) on Spanish Goats and White-tailed Deer with Orally Administered Ivermectin
2023 Propaganda Article Praises Ivermectin Use in “Deer” for “Tick Control”
This is a heavy piece of propaganda, the intent of which was to ridicule people who use Ivermectin.
My Take…
I couldn’t find any research about Chronic Lyme Disease and Ivermectin.
Nevertheless, many people are using either Ivermectin or Fenbendazole to treat Chronic Lyme Disease, and they talk about it on Twitter.
A 2018 study found persistent infection despite antibiotic therapy in patients with ongoing symptoms of Lyme.
In 2013 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that Lyme disease is much more common than previously thought, with over 300,000 new cases diagnosed each year in the United States.
That makes Lyme disease six times more common than HIV/AIDS, 20 times more common than hepatitis C virus infection and 30 times more common than tuberculosis in the United States.
“Our findings address a major controversy over persistent symptoms in Lyme disease,” said Marianne Middelveen, lead author of the published study. “The results suggest that infection with the Lyme spirochete may persist in some patients despite supposedly adequate antibiotic therapy.”
Effect of Ivermectin
So is the anecdotal case I received an anti-bacterial effect, anti-inflammatory effect or something else?
There is something called “Lyme arthritis.”
From 2021 Lochhead et al – Lyme arthritis: linking infection, inflammation and autoimmunity:
“The central feature of post-infectious Lyme arthritis is an excessive, dysregulated pro-inflammatory immune response during the infection phase that persists into the post-infectious period. This response is characterized by high amounts of IFNγ and inadequate amounts of the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10. The consequences of this dysregulated pro-inflammatory response in the synovium include impaired tissue repair, vascular damage, autoimmune and cytotoxic processes, and fibroblast proliferation and fibrosis. These synovial characteristics are similar to those in other chronic inflammatory arthritides, including rheumatoid arthritis”
Ivermectin and Rheumatoid Arthritis
2023 Khan et al – Evaluation of therapeutic potential of ivermectin against complete Freund’s adjuvant-induced arthritis in rats: Involvement of inflammatory mediators
Thirty-two male Wistar rats were randomly divided into four groups: control, diseased, dexamethasone, and ivermectin groups
After 7 days of rheumatoid arthritis induction, animals were treated with dexamethasone 5 mg/kg and ivermectin 6 mg/kg
Treatment with ivermectin showed a significant reduction in inflammatory cells levels, body weight, and visual arthritic score, indicating an improvement in the degree of inflammation as compared with the diseased group.
Ivermectin treatment also showed a significant reduction in the severity of inflammation and destruction of joints and showed comparable effects to dexamethasone, a corticosteroid used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis
Conclusion: “Ivermectin has significant antiarthritic properties and can be a novel treatment agent for the management of rheumatoid arthritis patients”
Conclusion
Ivermectin, is comparable to a strong steroid like dexamethasone (6 times stronger than prednisone) in reducing severity of inflammation and destruction of joints in Rheumatoid Arthritis. That’s impressive.
That’s it’s helping those who suffered from 25 years of Lyme disease, joints and muscle pains is also impressive.
Lyme sufferers should definitely look into Ivermectin.
Maybe there’s more to Ivermectin, Lyme Disease and COVID-19.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.
In a statement released on July 31, 2024, following the submission of an appeal to the Electoral Hall of the Supreme Court of Justice regarding the election result, President Maduro made the following remarks:
“To those who attack me here in the world, I remind them that this young man is a co-drafter of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. I was a constituent [in the Constituent Assembly], I participated in the debate of all the articles of the Constitution, and I am aware of the scope that the Constitution has in legal opportunities, even though I did not study law at Cambridge or Harvard or Yale…”
(Nicolás Maduro on X, #EnVivo | Declaraciones luego de la Interposición de Recurso de Amparo ante la Sala Electoral del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia; my translation)
What was the Constituent Assembly and what are some of the key features of the new Constitution that emerged from it with respect to elections?
Source: Nicolas Maduro (CC BY 2.0) and Edmundo Gonzalez (Public Domain)
A Strange Dictatorship
In my second book (published in 2013), Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion, I analyzed the political system of one of Cuba’s neighbours, Venezuela. I wrote the following about the proposal for a Constituent Assembly by the newly elected Chávez government in 1998:
“It triumphed in the April 1999 referendum, in which it asked the people if they agreed to the need for a new constituent assembly to draft a new constitution. The overwhelming popular approval was the key step in the evolution of the Bolivarian Revolution. It concretized the main promise that Chávez had made in the 1998 elections.
The exercise of drafting a new constitution was not merely in the hands of the Constituent Assembly [composed by people elected at the local level, such as Maduro], but also in those of the people themselves. Consequently, because they were involved, the grass roots felt that they were part of the new Bolivarian Revolution. According to an interview with an activist in the process [Henrys Lor Mogollon, who at the time of the interview in 2009 was a deputy in the state of Yaracuy and a participant in the 1999 process], the new government organized a vast campaign in neighbourhoods and workplaces. The people received assistance in procuring, reading, having read by others (illiteracy was still a problem) and making proposals for changes and modifications in the original draft. Containers with thousands of proposals were sifted through, with the result that 70 percent of the original draft was modified.” (Arnold August, Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion, Fernwood Publishing, 2013, p. 46)
The Fifth Power: The National Electoral Council (CNE)
One of the main features of Venezuela’s first Constitution that actually debated, drafted and then approved in a referendum (December 1999) by 72% was the creation of the five branches of power. In addition to the usual executive, legislative, judicial and other branches found in other countries, Venezuela innovated with the National Electoral Council (CNE) as the fifth branch.
Thus, by questioning the legitimacy of the CNE after the elections of July 28 of this year, the U.S. and its allies are also questioning the entire Bolivarian process, with its participatory and protagonist democracy that has developed since the historic election of 1998. Thus, it is no coincidence that paid and drugged rioters destroyed several statues of Chávez on July 29. It was clear that they wanted to return Venezuela to the pre-Chávez situation under the pretext of electoral “fraud.”
Is Fraud Possible?
But is fraud possible in the voting system? As one of the more than 700 international election observers, my experience has been that the system is designed to be fraud-free.
For example, a voter entering the booth must provide a biometric thumbprint to prevent double voting and to confirm voter registration, ensuring only qualified citizens can vote. These safeguards apply to both the opposition and the pro-Maduro camp.
Next, we see the voter enter a booth where we witness a modern, state-of-the-art electronic touchscreen voting machine. The voter touches their choice. Does the electronic ballot disappear into the mechanical system? No, on the contrary, it prints out a paper trail of the mechanical vote so that the citizen can verify that the printed ballot matches the touchscreen vote. If it does not, the touchscreen option will reappear. According to our local election officials hosts, when questioned, it almost never happens that there is a discrepancy; however, if the voter believes they have made a mistake in the selection, another touchscreen vote is allowed, also subject to a paper trail certification. The electronic machines are not online during voting to prevent hacking and tampering.
The voter then goes to another booth to drop the ballot into a small ballot box. At the close of the voting, each political party has the right to send a witness to observe the counting of the paper tabs and the mechanical results to verify that they match.
To ensure quick election night results and avoid speculation and chaos, only a randomly selected 54% of polling stations undergo both mechanical and paper counts. The goal is to verify that they match. If there are no glitches or errors on that day, the system is considered trustworthy. Therefore, the remainder of the vote count is based on the mechanical system only.
Once the count is done, each of the political parties must sign off if there is no discrepancy, but if there is, it can be challenged and only when it is resolved do they sign off.
The Maduro Challenge
On July 31, Maduro made a surprise announcement. He accepted the opposition’s demand for a full paper count of all polling stations, turning the tables on the U.S.-led narrative. However, he added an investigation into the sabotage of the online voting system results, all of which would be in the hands of the Electoral Branch of the Supreme Court. He said:
“I summon all the registered presidential candidates, the 38 parties, and fully compare what has been this attack to electoral centres, the CNE headquarters burnt and destroyed, the cybernetic attack, and compare all the elements of proof and certify, making expertise analysis at the highest technical level, the electoral results of the elections of July 28. As Head of State, I have requested in a document to activate an electoral litigation, and I have told the Electoral Chamber that I am willing to be summoned, interrogated, in all its parts, investigated by the Electoral Chamber, as presidential candidate, winner of Sunday’s elections, and as Head of State … the great patriotic pole [a united front of all political parties supporting the Maduro candidacy] and the PSUV [Maduro’s Chavista party] is ready to present 100% of the electoral records that are in our hands, and I hope that the Electoral Chamber does the same with each candidate and each party.” (Nicolás Maduro on X, #EnVivo | Declaraciones luego de la Interposición de Recurso de Amparo ante la Sala Electoral del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia; my translation)
The Opposition’s Response to the Maduro Challenge
One might have presumed that the opposition and mainstream media would have seized on the opportunity to substantiate their claims. A search of the principal corporate media on Google, however, reveals that only a handful of outlets reported on the matter. However, in all cases, these stories questioned the neutrality of the Supreme Court. This raises the question of the strength of the opposition’s claim that their candidate won, given their apparent reluctance to pursue the matter further through the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, the most illustrative response to the Maduro challenge of July 31 was the decision on the afternoon of August 1 by the United States and its allies to reinforce their stance on the increasingly probable recognition of the opposition candidate as Venezuela’s “president-elect.” Nevertheless, by the end of day on August 1, the U.S. official stance, as articulated by the U.S. Department of State – citing “fraud” – was unambiguous: “We congratulate Edmundo González Urrutia on his successful campaign. Now is the time for the Venezuelan parties to begin discussions on a respectful, peaceful transition.” (U.S. Department of State, August 1, 2024)
Should one be surprised? No. On March 13, 2024, more than four months before the elections, the Miami Herald wrote about the “fraudulent presidential election on July 28.” (“Don’t call Venezuela’s presidential vote an ‘election.’ It’s a pseudo election | Opinion,” Miami Herald, March 13, 2024)
Therefore, for those in opposition, the issue has never been about the electoral process or the accuracy of vote tallies. Both regarding the Presidential elections and the Maduro challenge for a Supreme Courts count, the opposition accusation is “fraud,” followed by fitting their fraudulent invented figures or arguments to fit their fairy tales. Thus, their objective has been to effect regime change with the intention of destroying the Bolivarian Revolution and returning Venezuela to the status of a U.S. colony.
The fundamental issue at stake is the defense of the CNE as the sole entity with the constitutional authority to determine electoral outcomes.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Arnold August is an award-winning journalist and author of three acclaimed books. His three books on Cuba-US-Latin America have been acclaimed by experts in the field. In 2013, he was awarded the Félix Elmuza Award by the Association of Cuban Journalists and contributes to outlets in English, Spanish and French in many parts of the world. He serves as a Contributing Editor for The Canada Files.
Featured image: CNE election notebook being filled with a “did not vote” stamp after an election. Photo: EFE/file photo.
Under the skin is the final authoritarian frontier; as many have noted before, if you don’t have control over what is injected into your body, you don’t have freedom in any meaningful sense of the word.
If the Kiwis aren’t rioting in the streets of Auckland at this very moment, if this isn’t the straw that broke the camel’s back — either because the information space in New Zealand is so tightly controlled that they don’t know what their government is doing to them or because they are too psychologically/spiritually compromised to be bothered to do anything about it — all hope of a popular resistance may be lost.
“Special powers are authorised by the Minister of Health or by an epidemic notice or apply where an emergency has been declared under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. The power to detain, isolate or quarantine allows a medical officer of health to ‘require persons, places, buildings, ships, vehicles, aircraft, animals, or things to be isolated, quarantined, or disinfected’ (section 70(1)(f)).The power to prescribe preventive treatment allows a medical officer of health, in respect of any person who has been isolated or quarantined, to require people to remain where they are isolated or quarantined until they have been medically examined and found to be free from infectious disease, and until they have undergone such preventive treatment as the medical officer of health prescribes (section 70(1)(h))…
Section 71A states that a member of the police may do anything reasonably necessary (including the use of force) to help a medical officer of health or any person authorized by the medical officer of health in the exercise or performance of powers or functions under sections 70 or 71.”
‘European Vaccination Card’ Program Goes Live in Five EU Member States
“Despite decades of awareness, zoonotic diseases – those transmitted from animals to humans – continue to pose a significant threat to global health. In the face of the unprecedented COVID-19 crisis, our global lack of preparedness for such outbreaks became starkly apparent…
As Europe transitions from emergency measures to long-term COVID-19 management, there is a critical opportunity to strengthen resilience and increase preparedness for future health threats. The European Vaccination Beyond COVID-19 (EUVABECO) project seeks to leverage this momentum…
One key tool that EUVABECO will introduce is the European Vaccination Card (EVC). Scheduled for launch in September 2024, the EVC will initially be piloted in five pilot countries: Latvia, Greece, Belgium, Germany, and Portugal. The card aims to empower individuals by consolidating all their vaccination data in one easily accessible location. It will be available in various formats, including printed cards, mailed copies, and digital versions for smartphones…
Consider the example of Anna, a 27-year-old nurse who recently moved from Bremaria to Morvania with her family. In her new country, Anna needs to provide her vaccination history to comply with local regulations. Using the European Vaccination Card (EVC), Anna can seamlessly transfer her records. She goes online, creates an EVC account with the provider of her choice, and enters her vaccination data from Bremaria.”
Nurse Anna is a good BDSM techno-whore — a model for all of us.
“Oh yessuh, massa,” says Nurse Anna. “You done learned me real good wit the whip, fo sho, massa.”
After all, in a civilized society, we must “comply with local regulations” that are written by multinational governing bodies like the WHO and WEF beyond any and all means of democratic popular control. That’s how Democracy™ works; Nurse Anna understands that, which is why she’ll be placed in a position of trust in the camps, cattle prod in hand, as an overseer to teach the domestic terrorists and Nazis to Respect The Science™.
“The [European Vaccination Card] piloted by EUVABECO will use the GDHCN’s trust network, allowing Member States to bilaterally verify the authenticity of digital records through an interoperable trust architecture*. While similar to the EU Digital COVID Certificate in being a portable vaccination record, the EVC serves a different purpose. Unlike the certificate, which often fulfilled legal or health mandates, the EVC is specifically designed to empower individuals by granting them control over their vaccination information. This empowerment is crucial for ensuring continuity of care for those crossing borders or transitioning between healthcare systems.”
*WTF does “trust architecture” actually mean?
Continuing:
“The EVC will be available in various formats—produced on-site, mailed, or digitally downloaded to a smartphone—making it easily accessible and displayable as needed. It will feature comprehensive vaccine history information, including detailed textual records, a scannable QR code, and downloadable embedded metadata. These digital elements, the QR code and metadata, will be securely signed to maintain their authenticity and integrity. Additionally, each vaccine record will be linked to an original master record maintained by a credible health organization, ensuring the data is reliable.
Upon implementation, the EVC will enable individuals to personally manage, access, and control the dissemination of their vaccination data, adhering to privacy regulations that mandate explicit consent for data sharing. Users will have the capability to present the card, which contains their vaccination details, to healthcare professionals and related personnel. Health professionals can then scan the QR code or access the metadata from the card file to include, evaluate, supplement, and confirm vaccination entries within their Electronic Health Record (EHR) system. This process ensures that individuals maintain full control over their health information while preserving the integrity and confidentiality of their medical records.
To realize this ambitious initiative, EUVABECO’s partner organizations in Latvia (Riga Stradins University), Greece (University of Thessaly), Belgium (Fratem), Germany (University of Saarland), and Portugal (General Health Directorate) are now working alongside EUVABECO’s EVC specialists. The successful rollout of the EVC system will depend on dynamic interactions among various stakeholders and system components, including an electronic Patient Information Leaflet (ePIL) server, a terminology server, a global registries directory, health jurisdiction registry, and a master records repository.”
All that is a long-winded, bureaucratic way of letting the peasants know that their medical records are now the property of the multinational technocratic state and that any “shareholders” that would like to use that information to deny services, employment, or housing to the unvaccinated in our new-age apartheid techno-hell are welcome — encouraged, even — to do so.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Armageddon Prose.
Ben Bartee, author of Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile, is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. Follow his stuff via Substack. Also, keep tabs via Twitter.
On July 31, Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau Ismail Haniyeh attended the inauguration of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. Hours later, he was reported killed in an “Israeli strike” along with his bodyguard in Tehran.
Simultaneously, Israel claimed it had killed senior Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr in an airstrike in Lebanon’s capital, Beirut, and that its intelligence had confirmed that another top Hamas leader Mohammed Deif was also killed in a July 13 Israeli strike in Khan Younis, Gaza.
The reason the manipulative Zionist regime cunningly plotted to assassinate Ismail Haniyeh during his visit to Iran is two-fold. Firstly, the Islamic Republic over the years has established the reputation of being the torchbearer of the Palestine cause, particularly in the Islamic World.
While the craven Arab autocracies, under the thumb of duplicitous American masters enabling the Zionist regime’s atrocious genocide of unarmed Palestinians, were pondering over when would be the opportune moment to recognize Israel and establish diplomatic and trade ties, the Iran-led resistance axis, comprising Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Ansarallah in Yemen, has claimed stellar victories in battlefields against Israel.
It’s worth pointing out, however, that Hamas’ main patrons are private donors in oil-rich Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Egypt, not Iran, as frequently alleged by the mainstream disinformation campaign. In fact, Hamas as a political movement is the Palestinian offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. And by mainstream media’s own accounts, the Shiite leadership of Iran and Hezbollah weren’t even aware of the Sunni Palestinian liberation movement Hamas’ October 7 assault.
Secondly, the treacherous murder of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran was clearly designed to inflame the sectarian conflict. Lately, it has become a customary propensity of Orientalist apologists of Western imperialism to offer reductive historical and theological explanations of Sunni-Shi’a conflict in the Middle East region in order to cover up the blowback of ill-conceived Western military interventions and proxy wars that have ignited the flames of internecine conflict in the Islamic world.
Image: Calligraphic panel bearing Ali’s name at the Hagia Sophia (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)
Some self-anointed “Arabists” of the mainstream media posit that the sectarian division goes all the way back to the founding of Islam, 1400 years ago, and contend that the conflict emerged during the reign of the fourth caliph, Ali bin Abi Talib, in the seventh century A.D. Even though both sects of Islam peacefully coexisted during the medieval era in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Mughal India, where several provinces, particularly the glorious State of Awadh, were governed by benevolent Shiite nawabs.
One wonders what the Western-led war on terror’s explanation would be of such “erudite historians of Islam” – that the cause of purported “clash of civilizations” between Christians and Muslims is to be found in the Crusades when Richard the Lionheart and Saladin were skirmishing in the Levant and exchanging courtesies at the same time.
Fact of the matter is that in modern times, the Sunni-Shi’a conflict in the Middle East region is essentially a political conflict between the Gulf Arab autocrats and Iran for regional dominance which is being presented to lay Muslims in the veneer of religiosity.
Saudi Arabia, which has been vying for supremacy as the leader of the Sunni bloc against the Shi’a-led Iran in the regional geopolitics, was staunchly against the invasion of Iraq by the Bush Administration in 2003.
The Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein constituted a Sunni Arab bulwark against Iran’s meddling in the Arab world. But after Saddam was ousted from power in 2003 and subsequently when elections were held in Iraq which were swept by Shi’a-dominated politico-religious parties, Iraq has now been led by a Shi’a-majority government that has become a steadfast regional ally of Iran. Consequently, Iran’s sphere of influence now extends all the way from territorially-contiguous Iraq and Syria to Lebanon and the Mediterranean coast.
Moreover, during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush Administration took advantage of the ethnic and sectarian divisions in Iraq and used the Kurds and Shi’as against the Sunni-led Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein. And during the occupation years from 2003 to 2011, the once dominant Sunni minority was politically marginalized which further exacerbated ethnic and sectarian divisions in Iraq.
The Saudi royal family was resentful of Iran’s encroachment on the traditional Arab heartland. Therefore, when protests broke out against the Shia-led Syrian government in the wake of the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011, the Gulf States along with their regional Sunni allies, Turkey and Jordan, and the Western patrons gradually militarized the protests to dismantle the Iran-led resistance axis, comprising Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Ansarallah in Yemen.
Similarly, during the Libyan so-called “humanitarian intervention” in 2011, the Obama administration provided money and arms to myriads of tribal militias and Islamic jihadists to topple the Arab-nationalist Gaddafi government. But after the policy backfired and pushed Libya into lawlessness, anarchy and civil war, the mainstream media pointed the finger at Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Russia for backing the renegade general, Khalifa Haftar, in eastern Libya, even though he had lived for more than two decades in the US right next to the CIA’s headquarter in Langley, Virginia.
Regarding the Western powers’ modus operandi of waging proxy wars in the Middle East, since the times of the Soviet-Afghan jihad during the eighties, it has been the fail-safe game plan of master strategists at NATO to raise money from the oil-rich emirates of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Kuwait; then buy billions of dollars’ worth of weapons from the arms markets in the Eastern Europe; and then provide those weapons and guerrilla warfare training to the disaffected population of the targeted country by using security agencies of the latter’s regional adversaries. Whether it’s Afghanistan, Libya or Syria, the same playbook was executed to the letter.
More to the point, raising funds for proxy wars from the Gulf Arab States allows Western executives the freedom to evade congressional scrutiny; the benefit of buying weapons from unregulated arms markets of Eastern Europe is that such weapons cannot be traced back to Western capitals; and using jihadist proxies to achieve strategic objectives has the advantage of taking the plea of “plausible deniability” if the strategy backfires, which it often does. Recall that al-Qaeda and Taliban were the by-products of the Soviet-Afghan jihad, and the Islamic State and its global network of terrorists were the blowback of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the proxy war in Syria.
Apart from Syria and Iraq, two other flashpoints of Sunni-Shi’a conflict in the Middle East region are Bahrain and Yemen. When peaceful protests broke out against the Sunni monarchy in Bahrain by the Shi’a majority population in the wake of the Arab Spring uprisings in 2011, Saudi Arabia sent thousands of troops across the border to quell the uprising.
Image: Ali Abdullah Saleh, President of the Yemen Arab Republic. Photo taken about 1988. (From the Public Domain)
Similarly, as the Arab Spring protests toppled longtime dictators of the Arab World, including Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Yemenis also gathered in the capital’s squares demanding removal of Ali Abdullah Saleh.
Instead of conceding to protesters’ fervent demand of holding free and fair elections to ascertain democratic aspirations of demonstrators, however, the Obama administration adopted the convenient course of replacing Yemen’s longtime autocrat with a Saudi stooge Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi.
Having the reputation of a “wily Arabian fox” and being a Houthi himself, Ali Abdullah Saleh wasn’t the one to sit idly by and retire from politics in ignominy. He colluded with the Houthi rebels and incited them to take advantage of the chaos and political vacuum created after the revolution to come out of their northern Saada stronghold and occupy the capital Sanaa in September 2014. How ironic that Ali Abdullah Saleh was eventually killed by Houthis in December 2017 because of his treacherous nature.
Meanwhile, a change of guard took place in Riyadh as Saudi Arabia’s longtime ruler King Abdullah died and was replaced by King Salman in January 2015, while de facto control of the kingdom fell into hands of inexperienced and belligerent Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman.
Already furious at the Obama administration for not enforcing its so-called “red line” by imposing a no-fly zone over Syria after the false-flag Ghouta chemical weapons attacks in Damascus in August 2013 and apprehensive of security threat posed to the kingdom from its southern border along Yemen by Houthi rebels under the influence of Iran, the crown prince immediately began a military and air warfare campaign against Houthi rebels with military assistance from the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and de facto ruler of UAE, Mohammad bin Zayed al-Nahyan, in March 2015.
Mindful of the botched policy it had pursued in Libya and Syria and aware of the catastrophe it had wrought in the Middle East region, the Obama administration had to yield to the dictates of Saudi Arabia and UAE by fully coordinating the Gulf-led military campaign in Yemen not only by providing intelligence, planning and logistical support but also by selling billions of dollars’ worth of arms and ammunition to the Gulf States during the conflict.
Now, when the fire of inter-sectarian strife is burning on several different fronts in the Middle East and the Sunni and Shi’a communities are witnessing a merciless slaughter of their brethren in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Bahrain, then it would be preposterous to look for the causes of the conflict in theology and medieval history. If the Sunni and Shi’a Muslims were so thirsty for each other’s blood since the founding of Islam, then how come they managed to survive as distinct sectarian groups for 1400 years?
Fact of the matter is that in modern times, the phenomena of Islamic radicalism, jihadism and consequent Sunni-Shi’a conflict are only as old as the Soviet-Afghan jihad during the 1980s when the Western powers with the help of their regional allies trained and armed Afghan jihadists to battle the Soviet troops in Afghanistan.
More significantly, however, the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988 between the Sunni and Baathist-led Iraq and the Shi’a-led Iran after the 1979 Khomeini revolution engendered hostility between the Sunni and Shi’a communities of the region for the first time in modern history.
And finally, the conflict has been further exacerbated in the wake of the Arab Spring uprisings in 2011 when the Western powers and their regional client states once again took advantage of the opportunity and nurtured militants against the Arab nationalist Gaddafi government in Libya and the Baathist-led Assad administration in Syria.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based geopolitical and national security analyst focused on geo-strategic affairs and hybrid warfare in the Middle East and Eurasia regions. His domains of expertise include neocolonialism, military-industrial complex and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor of diligently researched investigative reports to Global Research.
“To hell with the truth! As the history of the world proves, the truth has no bearing on anything. It’s irrelevant and immaterial, as the lawyers say. The lie of a pipe dream is what gives life to the whole misbegotten mad lot of us, drunk or sober.” —Eugene O’Neill, The Iceman Cometh
Voters in the U.S.A. live in fantasy and probably always will. No matter how obvious it is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, not a democracy, the ardent pipe dreams of a new face in the White House go to their heads every four years. It can only be explained by a combination of intellectual ignorance, the acceptance of propaganda, and the embrace of illusions.
An analogy is apropos. In the small town and vicinity where I live, there are about 10 pot shops where pipe dreams are dispensed. As The Platters sang long ago, “when your heart’s on fire, you must realize smoke gets in your eyes.” But few realize it.
Smoke? What smoke?
Quadrennially, this love affair with the presidential candidates burns hot and heavy despite their records, as if they were heart throbs of stage and screen, straight from Broadway or Hollywood deeply concerned for the public’s welfare.
Americans love actors, and the presidential candidates are of course actors, following the directions of the fat cats who produce their shows. As the grand opening of election day approaches, the supine public is aroused to a fanatical frenzy of excitement from its years’-long sleep by a mass media that spews out drivel to deceive. It could be said that what the media propagandists digest, the public eats.
Smoke and mirrors never fail as the electorate’s favorite billionaire-backed candidates – at this point in 2024 Trump and Kamala Harris (but don’t count on it) – spew lie after lie and the mass media faithfully promote the show as if it were an actual contest between good and evil, a grand movie. The acting is terrible, but the audience is so inflamed they can’t tell.
“There are unconscious actors among them and involuntary actors; the genuine are always rare, especially genuine actors,” Friedrich Nietzsche told us long ago, alluding to far more than this crude political masquerade – to life itself – urging us to take a deep look at the games we play and love in our politicians because they confirm our illusions.
In the 2020 election between Joseph Biden and Donald Trump, more than 158 million ballots were cast, a record number that was two-thirds of estimated eligible voters. That was about seven percentage points higher than in 2016 when Trump and Hillary Clinton faced off. Each election was supposed to be the most important in “your lifetime.”
And as everyone knows, the country has gotten more prosperous, healthier and happier, and the world more peaceful, in those eight years of Republican and Democratic rule.
One can expect more of the same smoke this year as the excitement, titillation, and political lies build to a November 4th crescendo. Illusions die hard, or to be more accurate – they do not die.
The Spectacle rolls on.
Although it might sound uppity, unless people read books that explain how the political and economic system is constructed and how it operates, they have no hope of understanding why the presidential elections are musical chairs played to the tune of Yankee Doodle Dandy. Podcasts and talks can be instructive when true, but they don’t stick like words on a page in a book that you have noted and can refer back to.
But the vast majority of people will not read such books because many can’t read or are too lazy or distracted to take the time to switch off digital media and the mainstream corporate press. It is only through slow meditative reading and study of the great analytic books about social structure, propaganda, history, capitalism, and political economy that a person can truly grasp the nature of the power elite’s domination of the U.S. government, the mass media, and the White House. A soupçon of differences between contestants for the presidency – superficial makeup – is enough to have those caught in the spectacle get worked up into a hot lather of excitement for candidates chosen by the billionaires. It is an aspect of the mania for celebrity culture.
One cannot simply imbibe the daily mass media, listen to talking heads, or read books recommended and promoted by The New York Times or some prize committee such as the Booker or Pulitzer prizes. (see the NYT’s Best Sellers here – as if #5 could be as “best” as #1). It is no secret that the reading public has been shrinking for years as literacy has waned dramatically. This is not an accident as the internet, cell phones, and the online life have been pushed by the authorities at every level, including throughout the school system. (I am not arguing that the voters saw through the electoral charade in the past because the level of cultural literacy was higher.)
Today, a walk into any local library throughout the country will confirm the sad state of what even those who read books are reading. The new fiction shelves are filled with books with candy-colored sensationalized covers that evoke bodice-ripping books of old now updated to sound more serious by telling stories of orphans on European trains during WW II, mysterious murders, separated twins, equally evil Nazis and Russians on the prowl, childhood trauma, unfaithful men, etc. All seemingly NY Times bestsellers, together with the “non-fiction” books within which you would search a long time on the shelves to find a radical critique of the American political system and its propaganda arms.
This issue of voting and literacy is connected to another key matter. The American public as a whole does not much care to follow foreign policy and military issues. That is an understatement. Once the military draft was ended in January 1973, the public lost interest in who was being killed in America’s wars. Let foreigners be damned was the unspoken assumption. It was a stroke of genius by the military-industrial-political complex, for politics has always been about what’s in it for us, and when the military is voluntary and Americans are dying in smaller numbers, people are indifferent to the killing.
When it comes to politics, the public’s focus is primarily on domestic issues, the economy, health care, taxes, etc., despite the fact that the entire economy is dependent on war and preparations for war and the U.S. has been at war continually for decades. The U.S spends nearly $900 billion dollars annually on “defense” spending; this is more than China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, the U.K., Germany, France, South Korea, and Japan combined.
As everyone knows:
The U.S. is defending itself in Syria where its troops illegally occupy the oilfields in the northeast.
It is defending itself helping Israel slaughter Palestinians and supporting an expanded Middle Eastern war.
It is defending itself by attacking Russia via Ukraine and leading the world to nuclear war.
It is defending itself by provoking China in the South China Sea.
It is defending itself all over the world with special forces and military bases everywhere because everyone is out to get us.
It is defending itself always far, far away from its own shores.
Everyone knows that’s how it goes.
But facetiousness aside, the voting public either doesn’t know or doesn’t care that the U.S.A. is a warfare state; it’s as simple as that. Without waging wars, the U.S. economy, as presently constituted, would collapse. It is an economy based on fantasy and fake money with a national debt over 35 trillion dollars that will never be repaid. That’s another illusion. But I am speaking of pipe dreams, am I not? And whether they choose to be aware of it or not, the vast majority of Americans support this killing machine by their indifference and ignorance of its ramifications throughout the society and more importantly, its effects in death and destruction on the rest of the world. But that’s how it goes as their focus is on the masked faces that face each other on the stage of the masquerade ball every four years.
This charade is comical but accepted by so many, and as the Halloween season in a presidential election year in the U.S.A. approaches, it becomes most clear. It’s always a trick until four years elapses and the next poisoned candy treat is offered.
Get to the polls. Your life depends on it!
But there is a big price to be paid – a lesson always too late for the learning – for going to the masquerade ball. Yet when smoke gets in your eyes . . . ah, such an exciting time it is!
“Do you not know there comes a midnight hour when everyone has to throw off his mask?” warned Søren Kierkegaard.
“Do you believe that life will always let itself be mocked?
Do you think you can slip away a little before midnight in order to avoid this?
Or are you not terrified by it?”
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Behind the Curtain.
Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Featured image: “The Bosses of the Senate”, political cartoon by Joseph Keppler, first published in Puck, circa January 23, 1889. (This version published by the J. Ottomann Lith. Co.) (From the Public Domain)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
First published on May 24, 2024, Revised on June 19, 2024
***
Introduction
There is a complex history behind Israel’s October 2023 plan to “Wipe Gaza off the Map”. It’s an ongoing genocide, an absolute slaughter, coupled with atrocities:
It’s a criminal undertaking based on Israel’s doctrine of “Justified Vengeance” which was first formulated in 2001.
The “Justified Vengeance” doctrine propounds in no uncertain terms that Palestine (despite its limited military capabilities) is “the Aggressor” and that “Israel has the right to defend itself” which since October 7, 2023 consists in the conduct of a carefully planned genocide against the People of Palestine.
Paul Larudee begs the question:
“Is there a point at which the genocide in Gaza becomes egregious enough to provoke other countries to directly intervene in the Gaza Strip to prevent further genocide?
Can Israel exterminate the entire population without anyone stopping them?”
The answer to that question is provided by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the form of the most despicable set of accusations directed against Palestinians who are the victims of “An Act of Genocide” instigated by Israel with the unbending support of most Western governments.
False Flag. “Palestine Attacks Israel”
Below is the statement of the ICC Prosecutor and King’s Counsel Karim A.A. Khan which accuses Palestine of committing crimes against humanity as well as war crimes, while carefully ignoring the evidence pertaining to Israel’s “false flag” operationwhich has resulted quite “deliberately” on the part of Netanyahu government in the deaths of innocent Israeli civilians.
“A false flag” in relation to Israel constitutes a carefully planned Israeli-US intelligence operation which results in the deaths of innocent Israeli civilians. In turn, Israel will place the blame on the State of Palestine, with view to justifying “A State of Readiness for War” against the Gaza Strip.
Military operations are invariably planned well in advance. The October 7, 2023 “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm” was not a “surprise attack”.
The false flag logic –which has resulted in Israeli casualties–, has provided Israel with a justification to undertake a genocide against Palestinians.
On that same day of October 7, 2023 Netanyahu launched a military operation against the Gaza Strip entitled “State of Readiness For War”.
Had “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm” been a “surprise attack” as parroted by the media, Netanyahu’s “State of Readiness For War” could not have been carried out (at short notice) on that same day, namely October 7, 2023.
Palestinian Children: The Victims of Israeli atrocities
As a former intelligence officer, I find it impossible to believe that Israel did not have multiple informants inside Gazaas well as electronic listening devices all along the border wall which would have picked up movements of groups and vehicles.
In other words, the whole thing might be a tissue of lies as is often the case. (October 8, 2023)
According to Israel’s defence ministry “the barrier includes hundreds of cameras, radars and other sensors, it spans 65km
The ministry said the project’s “smart fence” is more than six metres high and its maritime barrier includes means to detect infiltration by sea and a remote-controlled weapons system.
“False Flag” in Support of “Israel’s Act of Genocide”
It should be understood that the implementation of the False Flag was carefully coordinated with Israel’s “Act of Genocide” directed against the People of Palestine.
On that same day of October 7, 2023 Netanyahu launched a military operation against the Gaza Strip entitled “State of Readiness For War”.
Had “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm” been a “surprise attack” as parroted by the media, Netanyahu’s “State of Readiness For War”could not have been carried out (at short notice) on that same day, namely October 7, 2023.
“…This is the “green light to terror” theme which the Military Intelligence (Ama”n) has been promoting since 1997, when its anti-Oslo line was consolidated. This theme was since repeated again and again by military circles, and eventually became the mantra of Israeli propaganda… (See Chossudovsky, October 23, 2023)
There is continuity: Israel’s Military Intelligence remains in charge of implementing false flag operations coupled with “Acts of Genocide” directed against Palestine.
“Israel is the Victim of Palestinian Aggression”. The International Criminal Court (ICC) Accuses Palestine
In a bitter irony, the ICC Prosecutor’s accusations against Palestine –which include alleged acts of “Extermination”, “Murder” and “Torture” contends that the State of Israel rather than Palestine is the victim of Genocide:
According to the ICC Statement, Palestine’s “Act of Aggression” against Israel consists in:
Extermination as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(b) of the Rome Statute;
Murder as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(a), and as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
Taking hostages as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(iii);
Rape and other acts of sexual violence as crimes against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(g), and also as war crimes pursuant to article 8(2)(e)(vi) in the context of captivity;
Torture as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(f), and also as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity;
Other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(l)(k), in the context of captivity;
Cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity; and
Outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(ii), in the context of captivity.
What these insidious legal statements imply is that the ICC has de facto given “its stamp of approval” to Israel’s “Justified Vengeance” against the People of Palestine, which is currently ongoing. The atrocities committed against Palestinians are beyond description:
”burnt alive after Israeli forces bombed tents”
Accusations against Hamas
‘Inasmuch as the issue of the False Flag (despite extensive evidence) has been casually dismissed by the ICC, as well as by Western governments and the media:
The accusations against Hamas are meaningless. They should be withdrawn.
International law is unambiguous in its endorsement of “armed struggle” for peoples who seek self-determination under “colonial and foreign domination.”
United Nations resolution 37/43, dated 3 December 1982, “reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.” Palestine Chronicle (emphasis added)
The Endgame is the Exclusion of Palestinians from their Homeland
The Lie has become the Truth
Amply documented Israel is involved in acts of “Extermination” against Palestinians.
Yet it is Israel which is described by the ICC as the “Victim of Palestinian Aggression.”
Genocide and False Flags
While the ICC fails to acknowledge the conduct of a “False Flag”, numerous documents, witnesses and statements, confirm Israel’s False Flag initiative.
In a bitter irony, the False Flag Attack Strategy had been acknowledged by Netanyahu in consultation with the Likud Party. It comes from the Horse’s Mouth:
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” he [Netanyahu] told a meeting of his Likud party’s Knesset members in March 2019. “This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” (Haaretz, October 9, 2023, emphasis added)
Moreover, “Transferring Money by the Netanyahu government to Hamas intelligence assets” was confirmed in a Times of Israel October 8, 2023 Report:
“Hamas was treated as a partner to the detriment of the Palestinian Authority to prevent Abbas from moving towards creating a Palestinian State.
Hamas was promoted from a terrorist group to an organization with which Israel conducted negotiations through Egypt, and which was allowed to receive suitcases containing millions of dollars from Qatar through the Gaza crossings.” (emphasis added)
The False Flag operation was used to justify the conduct of a carefully planned “Genocide”.
The Evidence
There are numerous government documents which describe in detail the planning and conduct of the genocide.
What we have on record (which is the object of our analysis) is:
This intelligence memorandum was prepared well in advance of October 7, 2023.
It was available to the ICC Team.
The thrust of the document describes what is currently unfolding, namely the Exclusion of Palestinians from Their Homeland.
This is Israel’s Plan (Before our Very Eyes)
“The forcible and permanent transfer of the Gaza Strip’s 2.2 million Palestinian residents to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula”.
It’s a longstanding and carefully prepared initiative by Israel’s Ministry of Intelligence, which was declassified on October 13, 2023, namely one week after the commencement of the invasion of the Gaza Strip.
Concurrently, Israel’s Ministry of Intelligence was responsible for the implementation of the False Flag.
The endgame is the exclusion of Palestinians from their homeland.
We are dealing with an absurd “upside down rhetoric” “Mundus inversus” on the part of the ICC Prosecutor.
The Lie has become the Truth
Amply documented Israel is involved in acts of “Extermination” against Palestinians. Yet it is Israel which is described by the ICC as the “Victim of Palestinian Aggression.”
The Lie Prevails. International Law is Criminalized
The actual conduct of the genocide against Palestine —confirmed by numerous official Israeli documents to which the ICC had access– are casually ignored by the ICC Prosecutor.
I have reviewed the official ICC statement. There is not a single reference to the word “genocide”.
What we have on record (which is the object of our analysis) is:
the memorandum confirms Israel’s planning of a Genocide against the People of Palestine.
This intelligence memorandum was prepared well in advance of October 7, 2023. The thrust of the document describes what is currently unfolding, namely the Exclusion of Palestinians from Their Homeland:
“The forcible and permanent transfer of the Gaza Strip’s 2.2 million Palestinian residents to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula”.
Ask the ICC Prosecutor Karim A. A. Khan: What is the significance of this document?
Option. C. The Evacuation of the Civilian Population from Gaza to the Sinai
The Option C which was declassified, is the Blueprint of Israel’s War against Palestine (among many classified intelligence documents), the underlying intent of which is to:
Destroy Palestine as a Nation State and Exclude Palestinians from their Homeland.
The Overthrow of Hamas is contemplated, which if carried out would no doubt result in the implementation of the three ICC Hamas Arrest Warrants.
Option C. calls for:
“The Evacuation of the civilian population from Gaza to Sinai”
See details below from the original document (emphasis added)
Israel is to act to evacuate the civilian population to Sinai. In the first stage, tent cities will be established in the area of Sinai.
The next stage includes the establishment of a humanitarian zone to assist the civilian population of Gaza and the construction of cities in a resettled area in northern Sinai.
A sterile zone of several kilometers should be created within Egypt, and the return of the population to activities/residences near the border with Israel should not be allowed.
In addition, a security perimeter should be established in our [Israel’s] territory near the border with Egypt. (Option C)
Whereas the killings, destruction and the engineered famine are not acknowledged in the official government document, they are an integral part of the Option C. Agenda:
Hunger is a creeper. People will survive for months on their bodily reserves and on the little food they can scrape together.
But suddenly, people get under the absolute minimum in bodily assets and mass deaths will start on an industrial scale.
Once erupted, hunger and disease deaths will be enormous.
Holocaust – death brought by Israel on civilians on industrial scale will erupt, if this is not reversed NOW. (Karsten Riise)
With regard to propaganda, lobbying and public relations, the focus is on:
“harnessing the support of the United States and additional pro-Israeli countries for the endeavor”. (Text of Option C)
The role of Egypt in Option C is of course crucial:
Egypt has an obligation under international law to allow the passage of the population.
Israel must act to promote a broad diplomatic initiative aimed at countries that will support assisting the displaced population and agree to absorb them as refugees.(Option C)
Solidarity with Palestine
It is important as part of the Palestine solidarity movement that Option C be fully understood. It is a criminal endeavor. It is part of Israel’s “Act of Genocide”.
The State of Israel is in blatant violation of the Genocide Convention. And so is the ICC prosecutor.
We are dealing with an absurd “upside down rhetoric” “Mundus inversus” on the part of the ICC Prosecutor.
While the ICC Prosecutor accuses Palestine, he rightfully acknowledges the crimes committed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, specifically with regard to the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.
This issue is fundamental. Starvation in the Gaza Strip is ongoing. It’s a crime against humanity. It’s Genocide.
For nearly 8 months, Israel still chokes off nearly all food and other vital supplies to Gaza.
Gaza needs 500 trucks of supply every day, and near-nothing is coming through.
The US pier supplies 25-50 trucks per day, and everything else is closed.
With irregular intervals, reports have come the past months, but never about more than some 100 or 150 trucks on a few days.
Reports about starvation are made public, and this is obviously getting worse. (Karsten Riise, communication to the author)
ICC Prosecutor Karim A. A. Khan’s presentation is cautious.
He essentially contends that “crimes have been committed by both sides” while intimating that “The Fourth Military Power” on the Planet, “Has a Right to Defend Itself” (in the words of Joe Biden on October 7).
The False Flag which constitutes a crime against humanity, is not addressed by the ICC, nor is the issue of the Genocide against the People of Palestine.
The document (above) confirms the State of Israel’s prior intent to implement genocide against the people of Palestine in violation of the Genocide Convention.
ICC Prosecutor Karim A..A. Khan does not want to be accused of “double standards”.
Netanyahu and Gallant are “The Fall Guys”
ICC prosecutor Karim Khan KCissued a statement [on May 20] proposing that arrest warrants are issued for Mr Netanyahu, Israel’s defence minister Yoav Gallant, Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed al-Masri, Hamas’s military chief, and Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s political leader. (Independent)
Karim Khan’s allegations directed against Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant which are fully corroborated, coupled with arrest warrants, are intent to:
—reach out and mislead the anti-Zionist peace movement,
—provide a sense of (fake) “legitimacy” to the ICC’s far-reaching accusations against Palestine (“extermination and murder”).
— Dispel the existence of a False Flag. Deny Israeli civilian casualties linked to the “False Flag”
—provide a “human face” to Karim Khan KC
Nowhere in the ICC Prosecutor’s report is the issue of “Israel’s genocide directed against the People of Palestine” mentioned.
In this regard, the Arrest Warrants directed by the ICC against the three Hamas leaders serve to:
“Side Track” the Strategic Role of the “False Flag Operation“
Refute the very existence of a Genocide,
Endorse Israel’s “Act of Self Defense” against Palestine.
In regards to the arrest warrants directed against Netanyahu and Gallant, it is highly unlikely that they will be carried out.
(Netanyahu already has a criminal record. In November 2019, he was officially “indicted for breach of trust, accepting bribes, and fraud”)
Of relevance, the CIA has been operating in the background in collaboration with Israeli intelligence.
The three arrest warrants directed against the leaders of Hamas are intended to “confirm” that the alleged October 7, 2023 Act of “Aggression” against Israel was NOT (despite the evidence) part of a “False Flag” (i.e. inside intelligence op. carefully coordinated by Israeli and U.S. intelligence).
The ICC Arrest Warrants directed against Netanyahu and Gallant (which will never be carried out), serve the useful purpose of placing the blame while at the same time deflecting our understanding as to who from a strategic standpoint is behind the conduct of the Genocide directed against the People of Palestine.
What this does is to distract public opinion. It misleads the peace movement. It creates divisions within the solidarity movement with Palestine.
Big Money Economic Interests
Bear in mind there are powerful economic interests which are supportive of the Genocide.
They have their eyes on Gaza’s Multibillion Offshore Maritime Gas Reserves.
The ICC Arrest Warrants directed against Netanyahu and Gallant (which will never be carried out), serve the useful purpose of placing the blame while at the same time deflecting our understanding as to who from a strategic standpoint is behind the conduct of the Genocide directed against the People of Palestine.
What this does is to distract public opinion. It misleads the peace movement. It creates divisions within the solidarity movement with Palestine.
I should mention that the False Flag issue –which constitutes a crime against humanity on the part of Israel and the U.S.– has been casually ignored both by the International Court of Justice (IJC) (Chief Justice Donahue, former adviser to Hillary Clinton). (January 2024)
And now by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on behalf of His Majesty’s Prosecutor, K.C. (King’s Counsel).
In this regard, the Arrest Warrants directed against the three Hamas leaders serve not only to Side Track the Role of the “False Flag Operation“, but also to endorse the legitimacy of the Genocide which is portrayed as an Act of Self Defense by Israel.
It is worth noting that the conduct of False Flag Attacks have been endorsed by Netanyahu:
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” he [Netanyahu] told a meeting of his Likud party’s Knesset members in March 2019. “This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” (Haaretz, October 9, 2023, emphasis added)
Today I am filing applications for warrants of arrest before Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court in the Situation in the State of Palestine.
.
.
On the basis of evidence collected and examined by my Office, I have reasonable grounds to believe that Yahya SINWAR (Head of the Islamic Resistance Movement (“Hamas”) in the Gaza Strip), Mohammed Diab Ibrahim AL-MASRI, more commonly known as DEIF (Commander-in-Chief of the military wing of Hamas, known as the Al-Qassam Brigades), and Ismail HANIYEH (Head of Hamas Political Bureau) bear criminal responsibility for the following war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of Israel and the State of Palestine (in the Gaza strip) from at least 7 October 2023:
Extermination as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(b) of the Rome Statute;
Murder as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(a), and as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
Taking hostages as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(iii);
Rape and other acts of sexual violence as crimes against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(g), and also as war crimes pursuant to article 8(2)(e)(vi) in the context of captivity;
Torture as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(f), and also as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity;
Other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(l)(k), in the context of captivity;
Cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity; and
Outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(ii), in the context of captivity.
My Office submits that the war crimes alleged in these applications were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas running in parallel. We submit that the crimes against humanity charged were part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Israel by Hamas and other armed groups pursuant to organisational policies. Some of these crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day.
My Office submits there are reasonable grounds to believe that SINWAR, DEIF and HANIYEH are criminally responsible for the killing of hundreds of Israeli civilians in attacks perpetrated by Hamas (in particular its military wing, the al-Qassam Brigades) and other armed groups on 7 October 2023 and the taking of at least 245 hostages. As part of our investigations, my Office has interviewed victims and survivors, including former hostages and eyewitnesses from six major attack locations: Kfar Aza; Holit; the location of the Supernova Music Festival; Be’eri; Nir Oz; and Nahal Oz. The investigation also relies on evidence such as CCTV footage, authenticated audio, photo and video material, statements by Hamas members including the alleged perpetrators named above, and expert evidence.
It is the view of my Office that these individuals planned and instigated the commission of crimes on 7 October 2023, and have through their own actions, including personal visits to hostages shortly after their kidnapping, acknowledged their responsibility for those crimes. We submit that these crimes could not have been committed without their actions. They are charged both as co-perpetrators and as superiors pursuant to Articles 25 and 28 of the Rome Statute.
During my own visit to Kibbutz Be’eri and Kibbutz Kfar Aza, as well as to the site of Supernova Music Festival in Re’im, I saw the devastating scenes of these attacks and the profound impact of the unconscionable crimes charged in the applications filed today. Speaking with survivors, I heard how the love within a family, the deepest bonds between a parent and a child, were contorted to inflict unfathomable pain through calculated cruelty and extreme callousness. These acts demand accountability.
My Office also submits there are reasonable grounds to believe that hostages taken from Israel have been kept in inhumane conditions, and that some have been subject to sexual violence, including rape, while being held in captivity. We have reached that conclusion based on medical records, contemporaneous video and documentary evidence, and interviews with victims and survivors. My Office also continues to investigate reports of sexual violence committed on 7 October.
I wish to express my gratitude to the survivors, and the families of victims of the 7 October attacks, for their courage in coming forward to provide their accounts to my Office. We remain focused on further deepening our investigations of all crimes committed as part of these attacks and will continue to work with all partners to ensure that justice is delivered.
I again reiterate my call for the immediate release of all hostages taken from Israel and for their safe return to their families. This is a fundamental requirement of international humanitarian law.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant
On the basis of evidence collected and examined by my Office, I have reasonable grounds to believe that Benjamin NETANYAHU, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav GALLANT, the Minister of Defence of Israel, bear criminal responsibility for the following war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of the State of Palestine (in the Gaza strip) from at least 8 October 2023:
Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).
My Office submits that the war crimes alleged in these applications were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas (together with other Palestinian Armed Groups) running in parallel.
We submit that the crimes against humanity charged were committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the Palestinian civilian population pursuant to State policy. These crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day.
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
At present there are about 56 conflicts in the world, more than in any year since WW2. In addition there is a tendency for conflicts to be more prolonged. The percentage of conflicts ending with peace agreements has declined from 23% in the 1970s to just 4% in the 2010s. The possibility of ongoing conflicts escalating into much bigger and destructive wars is very high just now. The humanitarian crisis arising from conflicts is endangering the life of many times more people than die directly in the violence of conflicts, while the budgets available for humanitarian aid are diminishing.
All these are important reasons for a significantly enhanced sense of urgency in finding peaceful solutions for conflicts and in particular for such ideas that can bring at least some immediate relief, apart from laying the foundation for more durable peace. With modern heavily destructive weapons in use, it is an immense relief if the shooting, bombing and fighting can stop as early as possible even if various contentious issues take longer to resolve. Thousands of deaths, very painful injuries and disabilities can be stopped on daily basis if such steps can be taken up on a significant scale.
Hence the way forward for peace efforts in the case of most conflicts should be to combine three important steps that are mutually supportive of each other.
The first part in turn consists of two sub-parts. First, the two sides agree to unconditional ceasefire i.e. cessations of all fighting in whatever form, more or less on the basis of the existing line of control. The second sub-part consists of the two sides agreeing at the same time to engage in peaceful negotiations to settle all contentious issues.
Such an agreement has the advantage of stopping the fighting, bombing and shooting immediately and providing immediate relief to long-suffering people. Food and other relief supplies can now be rushed much more easily and safely to people who need these the most. Medical care and medicines for seriously injured and ill people can now be provided more easily. Large-scale reconstruction and repair work can also start now and many displaced people can gradually start returning to their homes.In addition there is no loss of face for either side as all contentious issues are kept open for future peace negotiations.
The second part of the peace process parts starts a few month later after preparations have been made for peace negotiations. This should not be seen as a hurried affair. Both sides should agree that regardless of any persisting differences, the peace negotiations should not break down. There can be one round, followed with a short rest (I won’t call it a break), then the second round can start, and then after a gap the third round can start. If in the process big differences get resolved that is very good, but even if this does not happen and only some minor ones are resolved, this too is a step forward.What is important is that the peace negotiations should not be allowed to break down and should be conducted as politely as possible, taking special care to avoid any provocative statements. Attempts should be made to create near consensus on both sides that peace negotiations should not break down and should continue.
The third part of the peace process is that while peace negotiations are taking place with some rest periods, outside of the main peace negotiations a number of other efforts should be made with even greater continuity to create goodwill between the people of the two countries, remove misunderstandings, promote cultural exchanges, have co-production of movies, promote economic ties and trade in such ways that are genuinely beneficial for the people of both countries and strong economic reasons are also created for a relationship of friendship between the two countries.
All the three processes are intended to be mutually supportive towards each other.
While the above suggestions have been in the context mainly of conflicts involving two countries but of course these apply also to conflicts involving more than two countries or to two or more sides of internal conflicts.
These suggestions are for a path which can create durable peace and goodwill.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, Planet in Peril, A Day in 2071 and Earth without Borders. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
“It was not the highly visible acts of Congress but the seemingly mundane and often nontransparent actions of regulatory agencies that empowered the great transformation of the U.S. commercial banks from traditionally conservative deposit-taking and lending businesses into providers of wholesale financial risk management and intermediation services.” — Professor Saule Omarova, “The Quiet Metamorphosis, How Derivatives Changed the Business of Banking” University of Miami Law Review, 2009
While the world is absorbed in the U.S. election drama, the derivatives time bomb continues to tick menacingly backstage. No one knows the actual size of the derivatives market, since a major portion of it is traded over-the-counter, hidden in off-balance-sheet special purpose vehicles. However, when Warren Buffet famously labeled derivatives “financial weapons of mass destruction” in 2002, its “notional value” was estimated at $56 trillion. Twenty years later, the Bank for International Settlements estimated that value at $610 trillion. And financial commentators have put it as high as $2.3 quadrillion or even $3.7 quadrillion, far exceeding global GDP, which was about $100 trillion in 2022. A quadrillion is 1,000 trillion.
Most of this casino is run through the same banks that hold our deposits for safekeeping. Derivatives are sold as “insurance” against risk, but they actually add a heavy layer of risk because the market is so interconnected that any failure can have a domino effect. Most of the banks involved are also designated “too big to fail,” which means we the people will be bailing them out if they do fail.
Derivatives are considered so risky that the Bankruptcy Act of 2005 and the Uniform Commercial Code grant them (along with repo trades) “super-priority” in bankruptcy. That means if a bank goes bankrupt, derivative and repo claims are settled first, drawing from the same pool of liquidity that holds our deposits. (See David Rogers Webb’s The Great Taking and my earlier articles here and here.) A derivatives crisis could easily vacuum up that pool, leaving nothing for us as depositors — or for the “secured” creditors who are junior to derivative and repo claimants in bankruptcy, including state and local governments.
As detailed by Pam and Russ Martens, publisher and editor, respectively ofWall Street on Parade, as of Dec. 31, 2023, Goldman Sachs Bank USA, JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Citigroup’s Citibank and Bank of America held a total of $168.26 trillion in derivatives out of a total of $192.46 trillion at all U.S. banks, savings associations and trust companies. That’s four banks holding 87 percent of all derivatives at all 4,587 federally-insured institutions then in the U.S.
In June 2024, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve Board jointly released their findings on the eight U.S. megabanks’ “living wills” – their resolution or wind-down plans in the event of bankruptcy. The Fed and FDIC faulted all of the four largest derivative banks on shortcomings in how they planned to wind down their derivatives.
How Banks Guarding Our Deposits Became the Biggest Gamblers in the Derivatives Casino
Banks are not just middlemen in the derivatives market. They are active players taking speculative positions. In this century, writes Professor Omarova, the largest U.S. commercial banks have emerged “as a new breed of financial super-intermediary—a wholesale dealer in financial risk, conducting a wide variety of capital markets and derivatives activities, trading physical commodities, and even marketing electricity.” She notes that the Federal Reserve has allowed several financial holding companies to purchase and sell physical commodities (including oil, natural gas, agricultural products and electricity) in the spot market to hedge their commodity derivative activities, and to take or make delivery of those commodities to settle the transactions.
It was not Congress that authorized that expansive definition of permitted banking activities. It was the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), part of the “administrative deep state,” that permanent body of unelected regulators who carry on while politicians come and go. As Omarova explains:
Through seemingly routine and often nontransparent administrative actions, the OCC effectively enabled large U.S. commercial banks to transform themselves from the traditionally conservative deposit-taking and lending institutions, whose safety and soundness were guarded through statutory and regulatory restrictions on potentially risky activities, into a new breed of financial “super-intermediaries,” or wholesale dealers in pure financial risk. …
Moreover, some of the most influential of those decisions escaped public scrutiny because they were made in the subterranean world of administrative action invisible to the public, through agency interpretation and policy guidance.
The OCC’s authority to regulate banks dates back to the National Bank Act of 1863, which grants national banks general authority to engage in activities necessary to carry on the “business of banking,” including “such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking.” The “business of banking” is not defined in the statute. Omarova writes:
Section 24 (Seventh) of the National Bank Act grants national banks the power to exercise all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking; by discounting and negotiating promissory notes, drafts, bills of exchange, and other evidences of debt; by receiving deposits; by buying and selling exchange, coin, and bullion; by loaning money on personal security; and by obtaining, issuing, and circulating notes.
No mention is made of derivatives trading or dealing.
The powers of banks were further limited by Congress in the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which explicitly prohibited banks from dealing in corporate equity securities, and by other statutes passed thereafter. However, the portion of the Glass-Steagall Act separating depository from investment banking was reversed in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000. Omarova writes that this allowed the OCC to articulate “an overly expansive definition of the ‘business of banking’ as financial intermediation and dealing in financial risk, in all of its forms, and … this pattern of analysis allowed the OCC to expand the range of bank-permissible activities virtually without any statutory constraint.”
What Then Can be Done?
The 2008 financial crisis is now acknowledged to have been largely a derivatives crisis. But massive efforts at financial reform in the following years have failed to fix the underlying problem. In a Forbes article titled “Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable,” Steve Denning writes:
Banks today are bigger and more opaque than ever, and they continue to trade in derivatives in many of the same ways they did before the crash, but on a larger scale and with precisely the same unknown risks.
Most of this derivative trading is conducted through the biggest banks. A commonly held assumption is that the real derivative risk is much smaller than the “notional amount” stated on the banks’ balance sheets, but Denning observes:
[A]s we learned in 2008, it is possible to lose a large portion of the “notional amount” of a derivatives trade if the bet goes terribly wrong, particularly if the bet is linked to other bets, resulting in losses by other organizations occurring at the same time. The ripple effects can be massive and unpredictable.
In 2008, governments had enough resources to avert total calamity. Today’s cash-strapped governments are in no position to cope with another massive bailout.
He concludes:
Regulation and enforcement will only work if it is accompanied by a paradigm shift in the banking sector that changes the context in which banks operate and the way they are run, so that banks shift their goal from making money to adding value to stakeholders, particularly customers. This would require action from the legislature, the SEC, the stock market and the business schools, as well as of course the banks themselves.
A Paradigm Shift in “the Business of Banking”
In a September 2023 paper titled “Rebuilding Banking Law: Banks as Public Utilities,” Yale law professor Lev Menand and Vanderbilt law professor Morgan Ricks propose shifting the goal of banking so that chartered private banks are “not mere for-profit businesses; they have affirmative obligations to the public.” The authors observe that under the New Deal framework, which was rooted in the National Bank Act of 1864, banks were largely governed as public utilities. Charters were granted only where consistent with public convenience and need, and only chartered banks could expand the money supply by extending loans.
The Menand/Ricks proposal is quite detailed and includes much more than regulating derivatives, but on that specific issue they propose:
While member banks are permitted to enter into interest-rate swaps to hedge rate risk, they are not allowed to engage in derivatives dealing (intermediation or market making) or take directional bets in the derivatives markets. Derivatives dealing and speculation do not advance member banks’ monetary function. Apart from loan commitments, member banks would not be in the business of offering guarantees or other forms of insurance.
Would that mean the end of the derivatives casino? No – it would just be moved out of the banks charged with protecting our deposits:
The blueprint above says nothing about what activities can take place outside the member banking system. It says only that those activities can’t be financed with run-prone debt [meaning chiefly deposits]. In principle, we could imagine a very wide degree of latitude for non bank firms, subject of course to appropriate standards of disclosure, antifraud, and consumer and investor protection. So securities firms and other nonbanks might be given free rein to engage in structured finance, derivatives, proprietary trading, and so forth. But they would not be allowed to “fund short.”
By “funding short,” the authors mean basically “creating money,” for example through repo trades in which short-term loans are rolled over and over. In their proposal, only chartered banks are delegated the power to create money as loans.
Expanding the Model
University of Southampton business school professor Richard Werner, who has written extensively on this subject, adds that banks should be required to concentrate their lending on productive ventures that create new goods and services and avoid inflating existing assets such as housing and corporate stock.
Speculative derivatives are a form of “financialization” – money making money without producing anything. The winners just take money from the losers. Gambling is not illegal under federal law, but the chips in the casino should not be our deposits or loans made with the backing of our deposits.
The Menand/Ricks proposal is for private banks, but banks can also be made “public utilities” through direct ownership by the government. The stellar model is the Bank of North Dakota, which does not speculate in derivatives, cannot go bankrupt, makes productive loans, and has been highly successful. (See earlier article here.) The public utility model could also include a national infrastructure bank, as proposed in H.R. 4052, which currently has 37 co-sponsors.
The “business of banking” can include making money for private shareholders and executives, but that business should be junior to the public interest, which would prevail when they conflict.
Unfortunately, only Congress can change the language of the controlling statute; and Congress has been motivated historically to make major changes in the banking system only in response to a Great Depression or Great Recession that exposes the fatal flaws in the existing system. With the reversal of “Chevron deference,” however, the OCC’s rules can now be challenged in court. A powerful citizen’s movement might be able to catalyze needed changes before the next Great Depression strikes.
A financialized economy is not sustainable and not competitive. The emphasis should be on investment in the real economy. That is the sort of paradigm shift that is necessary if the U.S. is to survive and prosper.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
One of the most divisive issues in American politics is the legal and cultural status of citizens identifying as LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender).
These terms, which have both assumed the status of legal determinants of benefits and advantages, or disadvantages, in practice and policy, are remarkably unscientific and even subject to abrupt change depending on the subjective experience of the individual.
Although there is clearly much suffering that results from misunderstandings of those who are sexually confused, this is state as much resulting from the bombardment of citizens from childhood by sexualized media content designed to stimulate consumer needs and shape behavior to match the needs of corporations, as from personal choice or inborn tendencies. That is to say that LGBT as an identity issue created from a combination of real needs and concerns with an induced and created culture and environment, is fundamentally different than previous issues of racial or gender based discrimination.
What is clear is that the sexual identities of gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals display tremendous variation that defies legal definitions, and that at the same time, there is still very little understanding of a scientific nature concerning these tendencies and traits. Transgender falls in an entirely different category and the connection of this term with actual human behavior and culture is far from clear to start with—as we will discuss later.
Public intellectuals and the commercialized media have lumped the discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender together under the rubric LGBT and made it a hot topic that is used to promote various politicians of the left and the right—making it more of a political tool than a humanitarian cause.
Not only has the divide between traditional progressive and conservative groups in the United States been deepened by the debate on LGBT issues in the mass media, but the issue has also served to divide the left (progressives) between those who see the issue as critical to creating a more equitable society, and those who see obsession with gender as a distraction from traditional (leftist) concerns with class and capital.
It does not take a rocket scientist to see that the splits between the left and the right, and between different factions of the left, that were created by this LGBT debate are just what the doctor ordered for billionaires and the managers of trusts, private equity firms, and investment banks who will do literally anything, and pay any price, to make sure that citizens are fighting each other over culture and identity issues, and not rallying together in response to the class warfare of the very few against all of humanity.
As independent candidate for president, and also as candidate for the nomination of the Green Party US, I was warned repeatedly to stay away from the tar baby of LGBT which threatens to take down any well-meaning soul in politics who tries to trim its tentacles.
But just as Martin Luther King Jr. came to the conclusion that he could not separate the fight for civil rights from the opposition to the Vietnam War, as best represented by his historic speech “Beyond Vietnam,” I also have concluded that we must take LGBT by the horns and expose what is real and what is exaggerated, or even fabricated, for political purposes and for the manipulation of the population.
Let us start at the beginning. The United States of America was launched, imperfectly, as an experiment, a constitutional republic that had no king, monarchy, or nobility, and also was not controlled by the Catholic Church, or other religious authority. That step forward in political evolution was unprecedented and it influenced the course of reforms thereafter such as the French Revolution, the German revolutions of the 1840s, the Paris Commune, the Korean and Vietnamese independence movements, and beyond, down to the present day.
We did not get the American Revolution, and our Constitution, entirely right, however. There were powerful forces who supported slavery, and who wanted the United States to be part of a global finance and trade system linked to the British Empire and its imperialist agenda.
Although true equality was a goal for many involved in the founding of the nation, there were also those with fingers in that American project who wished to subvert the best of the Declaration of Independence, or to render these powerful legal foundations for civil rights as dead words to be locked up in libraries or museums.
The three major struggles to achieve the potential for freedom and equality that was buried in the founding documents, but not fully realized, were the battle to end slavery and to give African Americans their full civil rights in accord with the Constitution (to read the Constitution as it was written, and not as it was interpreted by the landlords of plantations), the battle to defend the rights of native peoples, and the battle to give women the full rights.
These three battles, which go on to this day, have come to be accepted as legitimate extensions of the spirit of the Constitution. In the historical process of realizing these three ideals, however, those fighting for the three causes were not always on the same page. Some who opposed slavery and upheld civil rights for African Americans, were not interested in similar rights for native Americans, and some were opposed to equal rights for women. Some who fought for equal rights for women did not support civil rights for African Americans. To this day, the cause of the native peoples of the United States is a cause overlooked by many of those who wrap themselves in the flag of justice for minorities. For example, many who advocate for reparations for African Americans are silent on the cause of reparations for Native Americans.
In the 1950s and 1960s, however, in part because of the harsh criticism of the United States that was offered by the Soviet Union and that threatened to discredit the entire American project on a global scale, the partial strides made to bring equal rights to African Americans and women over the previous two centuries were taken up in mainstream politics to an unprecedented degree and tremendous strides were made.
Civil rights for African Americans became common sense, even if imperfectly realized. Many habits of discrimination against women were no longer acceptable—even if not explicitly made illegal.
It seemed that America had been permanently transformed in the 1970s and 1980s. Tragically, we would learn later, the move to detach racial and ethnic identity from fundamental issues of class and assets, the economic oppression of so many citizens, resulted in the growth of a banal and disempowered identity politics swamp that drowned many a well-intentioned soul.
The 1980s was the period in which the move for gay rights started in earnest to go mainstream and we started walking down the path towards LGBT politics.
The debate on homosexuality began with the opposition of homosexuals (later to be called gay or lesbian) against the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association between 1952 and 1973. That struggle in the 1970s clearly has commonalities with the fight for civil rights and women’s rights. The cause was entirely legitimate. It was questionable for the medical establishment to call a preference, or identity, that had precedents dating back to ancient times and that did not have relationship to mental illness, a “mental disorder.”
That effort to change the status of sexual orientation led to a battle to end discrimination against gays and lesbians in the workplace, in society, and in legal status.
The move to assure basic civil rights to all citizens, and not to use a personal, a private, preference or identity as the basis for discrimination, had a solid argument to support it.
Gay Marriage as the Turning Point
The next step in this political evolution was the fight for gay marriage. That fight was a global one, not merely American, and it was complex in its ramifications.
Image: Newly married couple in Minnesota shortly after the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States, 2015 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)
The move to institutionalize gay marriage was without any doubt a turning point in world history. The Netherlands was the first country to legalize same-sex marriages in 2001. In 2007, Vermont was the first state in the United States to approve same-sex marriages.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that same-sex marriage was federally legal, overruling the restrictions and prohibitions on gay marriage of individual states—although the battle still continues.
Although many saw the legal status granted to same-sex marriage as a sign of greater human advancement, achieving justice in the tradition of the civil rights movement, there were problematic aspects of this legal development that were understated at the time.
One can draw a historical lineage in which same-sex marriage is the natural consequence of the drive for civil rights, for women’s rights, and for a more equitable and inclusive society.
One can also, however, make an equally convincing argument that same-sex marriage is a fundamentally different issue from civil rights and women’s rights. Whereas rights for minorities and for women, have clear precedents in human history, from ancient times, and the ethical reasoning for such reforms are is well supported, same-sex marriage as an institution approved by government is essentially unprecedented in human history.
Moreover, same sex marriage goes against certain foundational assumptions for human society that are universal across civilizations. That is to say that the basic unit of society is the family, which serves as a model for government and civil society, and the foundation of the family, and the extended family, is marriage between a man and a woman—often with the intention to create a family.
To institutionalize same-sex marriage is to form a clear break with the fundamental accepted norms in human civilization, a break that could have profoundly destabilizing impact on society as a whole, even if the individual marriage between two loving individuals seemed entirely positive and nurturing.
The decision to dismiss all those who raised doubts about same-sex marriage, or who suggested that civil union could be used to create an economic partnership without changing the definition of marriage, as reactionary and right-wing was a mistake.
Let us remember that the leaders of the campaigns for civil rights and women’s rights in the 19th and 20th century would most certainly not have approved of same-sex marriage, and they would not have seen it as a natural extension of their quest for justice. Martin Luther King, or Malcom X would most have been deeply opposed to something that so threatened their view of marriage as the bedrock of society.
There was no trace of a move for same sex marriage to be found in any of the painful struggles to obtain equal rights for blacks, or women.
The failure of progressives, and the left, to address the serious implications of the push for same-sex marriage has deeply undermined their cause, much in the same way that their cowardice in addressing the 9/11 incident, the COVID-19 operation, and the Federal Reserve counterfeiting regime has completely undermined their moral imperative today.
One need only to look at the socialist and communist teachings of the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, or other socialist nations at their peak in the 1950s and 1960s to see that their opposition to imperialism and capitalism had absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage or the promotion of an alternative gay lifestyle. A healthy, monogamous, and straight family was the model for socialist nations. If anything, gay rights was considered as a form of Western decadence (fairly or unfairly) in socialist countries.
The traditional left in the West as well, with rare exceptions, was focused on class inequity and spoke out clearly against moral corruption and cultural decadence, from Eugene Debs, to Vladimir Lenin, to Rosa Luxembourg, not gay rights and gay marriage.
The current “left” is not left in the traditional sense at all. It may pick up a bit of the cultural indulgence popular in the Weimar Republic, but for the most part it is blind to the concern for cultural and institutional decay, moral decay. In the place of a concern with decadence has come the glorification of ethnic and sexual identity, often forming a hidden parallel with the indulgence and consumption of a corrupted political economy in the United States.
I found myself out all alone among my colleagues when I first questioned the concept of same-sex marriage in my writings from the 1990s. The topic was shibboleth; and yet I was far from a traditional conservative.
There is an argument that can be made that discrimination for sexual practices is a violation of the constitution, and that equality must extend to marriage. But the Constitution, and the entire legal system based around it assumes marriage to be between men and women.
To overturn such a definition of marriage opens the gates to various demons of which well-meaning progressives were not even aware of.
But today we are led to celebrate women, Hispanics, and African Americans who are rich and famous, who are CEOs of exploitative multinational corporations, or who are generals charged with leading imperialist wars. The moral imperative has been gravely diluted.
The result has been identity politics in which people are judged for their ethnic zoology, or their sexual identity, and the fact that they come from privileged families, are CEOs of banks and corporations that promote wars and pornography, is no longer important.
Class and decadence are not topics of concern.
The Transgender Agenda
The final stage in the decay of the angel was the introduction of the transgender challenge which now is a core issue in the LGBT agenda.
Image: The Transgender Pride flag was designed by Monica Helms, and was first shown at a pride parade in Phoenix, Arizona, USA in 2000. (From the Public Domain)
It is important to note that transgender as social, cultural, political and military phenomenon is complex and multilayered, and what we see today is an interference pattern resulting from multiple hidden factors.
First and foremost, we must recognize that the proliferation of identity politics and the obsession with a racial and ethnic diversity, is directly linked to the intentional ignorance of social and economic inequality in a society that is facing the greatest concentration of wealth in its history. The feeble and indulgent left, in part because of its intellectual collapse in the 1980s, and in part because it is infiltrated with operators for the banks and multinational corporations paying bribes to public intellectuals, is incapable of addressing class issues at all, true global finance, let alone cultural decadence.
The only forces in America who take those critical issues for the traditional left seriously are on the far right, not the contemporary left.
Traditional historians, socialists and Marxists, philosophers and poets from ancient times have recognized that decadence is a serious problem in any civilization, and can bring an empire like the United States to its knees. And yet the self-appointed left, with all the support from hidden partners, assumes that there can be no such thing as decadence and cultural decay, only racism and intolerance of different, equally valuable, ethnicities and lifestyles.
The millionaires and billionaires, and their banks and corporations, were profoundly aware of the dangers resulting from economic disparity in America from the 1990s, and their consultants offered advice as to how to breakdown and to defuse the anger and frustration of citizens so as to be certain that no organized and motivated opposition to the rule by the rich emerged, and that there emerged no effective leadership offering an alternative—other than just complaining.
The rich, whether using government agencies, or corporate research institutes, conducted much classified research from 1960s on concerning how to distract, confuse, and misdirect opposition to financial monopoly. The solutions offered were a mass media intended to dumb down the population, and create dependency and addictions to certain forms of stimulation, as well as the promotion of cultural identity, over class and economic issues, as a topic for debate.
The shift in thinking meant government should help people because they were from certain ethnic groups, rather than because they were economically disadvantaged. Such policies led to an inevitable battle with poor whites who observed the pampering of ethnic minorities in a series of high-profile incidents, and were rightfully incensed.
Cultural identity politics is an ideal way to keep the working people of the United States from coming together. In a sense, the cultural identity politics served much like Jim Crow to create unnecessary antagonism between working people that served the rich well.
Thus, behind the curtains from the 1990s, but especially in the last decade, a variety of private foundations, Homeland Security operatives, and other invisible players started to fund, and to encourage, the growth of identity politics at the university, and in the media precisely to keep the country from focusing on, and coming together on, financial monopoly and rule by the banks.
I would go so far as to say that the banks, perhaps working through think tanks and private intelligence agencies, poured money into making ethnic identity, and then gay/lesbian identity, the major source of conflict.
The growth of identity politics operatives receiving payments from Homeland Security, or Booz Allen Hamilton and CASI, is difficult to calculate, but the manner in which certain identity politics players suddenly took over large parts of the Democratic Party or Green Party suggests that there was lots of money to be had.
The final consequence was the launch of the transgender cultural movement, identity movement, and disinformation operation of Homeland Security.
You might say that transgender is the identity politics equivalent of COVID-19. If Covid-19 was a massive psychological manipulation meant to turn the common cold and influenza into a horrific plague using classic hypnosis and propaganda techniques, transgender was an operation to use an obscure condition as a means of creating completely unnecessary social conflicts through propaganda campaigns and blatant assaults on the rule of law and science that were meant to alienate large parts of the population and make it impossible for citizens to unite against the super-rich.
There is such a thing as gender dysphoria and this tragic disorder, which is poorly understood originally affected less than 0.01 percent of the population, and almost always boys suffered from it.
But then suddenly, just as wealth was concentrated to an unprecedented degree, just as influenza was renamed COVID and became the Black Death, media campaigns, government and corporate campaigns, and the unabashed collaboration by academics and doctors, made it possible for the United States to witness a rise of more than 1,000 percent in those who claim to suffer from this gender dysphoria, increasingly including girls/women.
Moreover, suddenly the government and corporations were pushing gender treatments using hormones and disfiguring surgery for “transgender” conditions. The condition was no longer a disorder, but the equivalent of an ethnicity that demanded equal rights.
Of course, many of the so-called conservatives in the political realm who correctly denounce the misuse of the new term “transgender” to allow men to compete in women’s sports, and even use women’s restrooms if they feel like a woman, are also corrupt. They take as much cash from Homeland Security disinformation programs as do the fake leftists. Their dishonest explanations are part of the operation.
When the conservatives blame all this chaos in the United States on a “radical left” and ignore the obvious signs that this identity politics is part of a divide and conquer strategy funded by the rich, they are not helping matters.
The current efforts to resist the promotion of transgender ideology and fake medical practices is intentionally outsourced to the most reactionary forces in the nation, those that support militarism, xenophobia, and law-and-order campaigns to weaponize the judicial system.
The decision of the Texas Supreme Court to uphold the ban on transgender hormones and surgery for children is a perfect example of this trend. Of course, conservatives are opposed to this sort of gender manipulation. But so are many other Americans. The more likely explanation for why Texas took this stand is not that conservatives are more honest, but rather that courts in regions deemed as “progressive” by the masters of the universe, are simply not allowed to address this psychological operation—and only conservatives can do so in order to keep the population properly divided.
The New York Times, which falsely represents progressives in America, stated,
“The Texas Supreme Court upheld a state law on Friday that bans gender-transition medical treatment for minors, overturning a lower-court ruling that had temporarily blocked the law and dealing a blow to parents of transgender children.”
Much like the Covid-19 campaign embraced by the New York Times, the transgender operation has also assumed a similar trajectory.
This is no accident.
The embrace of transgender ideology is often combined with the embrace of the COVID-19 fraud on the left, with the prominent leftists being paid off to embrace both. The purpose of this operation is to alienate conservatives unnecessarily, and to keep leftists from considering that there might be some agenda behind gender politics. Many thoughtful leftists have proven to be remarkably cowardly on this point.
At the same time, we must be sympathetic with young people who feel that they are somehow “transgender.” Many of these youth are not the pay-to-play operatives who beat women at women’s sports as a way of creating culture wars to avoid class wars. Rather they are the innocent victims of culture and media operations around them that every day suggest that this new trans culture (sometimes reenforced by statements from their schools, or their local governments) is natural, even cool.
Granted the confusion that youth face through in any case, not to mention the stress resulting from living in a corrupt and decadent society, it is no wonder that many of them embrace trans culture, or even magical wear masks against the mythical COVID-19 demons. We are looking at the overlap of a decayed culture, a degraded scientific and intellectual environment,t and a motivated and focused campaign to undermine solidarity among citizens using identity politics and sexuality for the sake of the rich.
Raising doubts about sexuality is a powerful way to undermine self-confidence, and self-sufficiency because identity itself is under attack—from an early age—through the promotion of androgenous images in mass media and the forced promotion of transgender ideology in schools. The gender confusion is a result both of the identity confusion and blurring of sexuality that is common to decaying civilizations and of actual Homeland Security operations with big funding from billionaires that are intended to target sexuality as a way of undermining identify for youth. The point is to create a passive narcissistic and self-centered youth incapable of organizing resistance to the takeover of society by the rich.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on Fear No Evil.
Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments.
Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: The Rainbow flag is the symbol of the LGBTQ+ community. (From the Public Domain)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
This article was published in August 2020 for the 75th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
This month marks the 79th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While proponents of the bombings have long justified them on the basis that they shortened World War II, the fact is that they were war crimes. The only reason why President Truman and the pilots who dropped the bombs were not prosecuted as war criminals is because the United States ended up winning the war.
It has long been pointed out that Japan had expressed a willingness to surrender. The only condition was that the Japanese emperor not be abused or executed.
President Truman refused to agree to that condition. Like his predecessor Franklin Roosevelt, Truman demanded “unconditional surrender.”
That was why Japan continued fighting. Japanese officials naturally assumed that U.S. officials were going to do some very bad things to their emperor, including torture and execution. In the minds of Japanese officials, why else would the United States not be willing to agree to that one condition, especially given that it would have meant the end of the war?
The dark irony is that Truman ended up accepting the condition anyway, only after he pulverized the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with two atomic bombs.
In an excellent op-ed in the Los Angeles Times today entitled “U.S. Leaders Knew We Didn’t Have to Drop Atomic Bombs on Japan to Win the War. We Did It Anyway” the authors point out:
Seven of the United States’ eight five-star Army and Navy officers in 1945 agreed with the Navy’s vitriolic assessment. Generals Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and Henry “Hap” Arnold and Admirals William Leahy, Chester Nimitz, Ernest King, and William Halsey are on record stating that the atomic bombs were either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible, or both.
Keep in mind that there is nothing in the principles of warfare that required Truman and Roosevelt to demand the unconditional surrender of Japan (or Germany). Wars can be — and often are — ended with terms of surrender. Both presidents were willing to sacrifice countless people on both sides of the conflict to attain their demand for unconditional surrender.
But Truman’s unconditional surrender demand is not why his action constituted a war crime. This bombings constituted war crimes because they targeted non-combatants, including children, women, and seniors with death as a way to bring about an unconditional surrender of the Japanese government.
It has long been considered a rule of warfare that armies fight armies in war. They don’t target non-combatants. The intentional killing of non-combatants is considered a war crime.
A good example of this principle involved the case of Lt. William Calley in the Vietnam War. Calley and his men shot and killed numerous non-combatants in a South Vietnamese village. The victims included women and children.
The U.S military prosecuted Calley as a war criminal — and rightly so. While the deaths of non-combatants oftentimes occurs incidentally to wartime operations, it is a war crime to specifically target them for death.
Truman justified his action by arguing that the bombings shortened the war and, therefore, saved the lives of thousands of American soldiers and Japanese people if an invasion had become necessary. It is a justification that has been repeated ever since by proponents of the bombings.
There are two big problems with that justification, however.
First, an invasion would not have been necessary. All that Truman had to do was to accept Japan’s only condition for surrender, and that would have meant the end of the war, without the deaths that would have come with an invasion and that did come with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
More important, the fact that lives of American soldiers would have been saved is not a moral or legal justification for targeting non-combatants. If Calley had maintained at his trial that his actions were intended to shorten the Vietnam War, his defense would have been rejected. He would have still be convicted for war crimes.
Soldiers die in war. That is the nature of war. To kill women, children, and seniors in the hopes of saving the lives of soldiers by shortening the war is not only a war crime, it is also an act of extreme cowardice. If an invasion of Japan would have become necessary to win the war, thereby resulting in the deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers, then that’s just the way that war works.
It’s also worth pointing out that Japan never had any intention of invading and conquering the United States. The only reason that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor was in the hope of knocking out the U.S. Pacific fleet, not as a prelude to invading Hawaii or the continental United States but simply to prevent the U.S. from interfering with Japan’s efforts to secure oil in the Dutch East Indies.
And why was Japan so desperate for oil as to initiate war against the United States? Because President Franklin Roosevelt had imposed a highly effective oil embargo on Japan as a way to maneuver the Japanese into attacking the United States.
FDR’s plan, of course, succeeded, which ended up costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and millions of Japanese citizens, including those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
First published by Global Research on November 16, 2022
***
Most people are bewildered by what is a global energy crisis, with prices for oil, gas and coal simultaneously soaring and even forcing closure of major industrial plants such as chemicals or aluminum or steel. The Biden Administration and EU have insisted that all is because of Putin and Russia’s military actions in Ukraine. This is not the case. The energy crisis is a long-planned strategy of western corporate and political circles to dismantle industrial economies in the name of a dystopian Green Agenda. That has its roots in the period years well before February 2022, when Russia launched its military action in Ukraine.
Blackrock pushes ESG
In January, 2020 on the eve of the economically and socially devastating covid lockdowns, the CEO of the world’s largest investment fund, Larry Fink of Blackrock, issued a letter to Wall Street colleagues and corporate CEOs on the future of investment flows. In the document, modestly titled “A Fundamental Reshaping of Finance”, Fink, who manages the world’s largest investment fund with some $7 trillion then under management, announced a radical departure for corporate investment. Money would “go green.” In his closely-followed 2020 letter Fink declared,
“In the near future – and sooner than most anticipate – there will be a significant re-allocation of capital…Climate risk is investment risk.” Further he stated, “Every government, company, and shareholder must confront climate change.” [i]
In a separate letter to Blackrock investor clients, Fink delivered the new agenda for capital investing. He declared that Blackrock will exit certain high-carbon investments such as coal, the largest source of electricity for the USA and many other countries. He added that Blackrock would screen new investment in oil, gas and coal to determine their adherence to the UN Agenda 2030 “sustainability.”
Fink made clear the world’s largest fund would begin to disinvest in oil, gas and coal. “Over time,” Fink wrote, “companies and governments that do not respond to stakeholders and address sustainability risks will encounter growing skepticism from the markets, and in turn, a higher cost of capital.” He added that, “Climate change has become a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects… we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance.” [ii]
From that point on the so-called ESG investing, penalizing CO2 emitting companies like ExxonMobil, has become all the fashion among hedge funds and Wall Street banks and investment funds including State Street and Vanguard. Such is the power of Blackrock. Fink was also able to get four new board members in ExxonMobil committed to end the company’s oil and gas business.
Image is by Michael Buholzer / Copyright WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM/swiss-image.ch
The January 2020 Fink letter was a declaration of war by big finance against the conventional energy industry. BlackRock was a founding member of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (the TCFD) and is a signatory of the UN PRI— Principles for Responsible Investing, a UN-supported network of investors pushing zero carbon investing using the highly-corrupt ESG criteria—Environmental, Social and Governance factors into investment decisions. There is no objective control over fake data for a company’s ESG. As well Blackrock signed the Vatican’s 2019 statement advocating carbon pricing regimes. BlackRock in 2020 also joined Climate Action 100, a coalition of almost 400 investment managers managing US$40 trillion.
With that fateful January 2020 CEO letter, Larry Fink set in motion a colossal disinvestment in the trillion-dollar global oil and gas sector. Notably, that same year BlackRock’s Fink was named to the Board of Trustees of Klaus Schwab’s dystopian World Economic Forum, the corporate and political nexus of the Zero Carbon UN Agenda 2030. In June 2019, the World Economic Forum and the United Nations signed a strategic partnership framework to accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. WEF has a Strategic Intelligence platform which includes Agenda 2030’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals.
In his 2021 CEO letter, Fink doubled down on the attack on oil, gas and coal. “Given how central the energy transition will be to every company’s growth prospects, we are asking companies to disclose a plan for how their business model will be compatible with a net zero economy,” Fink wrote. Another BlackRock officer told a recent energy conference, “where BlackRock goes, others will follow.” [iii]
In just two years, by 2022 an estimated $1 trillion has exited investment in oil and gas exploration and development globally. Oil extraction is an expensive business and cut-off of external investment by BlackRock and other Wall Street investors spells the slow death of the industry.
Video: BlackRock, the Company that Owns the World
Biden—A BlackRock President?
Early in his then-lackluster Presidential bid, Biden had a closed door meeting in late 2019 with Fink who reportedly told the candidate that, “I’m here to help.” After his fateful meeting with BlackRock’s Fink, candidate Biden announced, “We are going to get rid of fossil fuels…” In December 2020, even before Biden was inaugurated in January 2021, he named BlackRock Global Head of Sustainable Investing, Brian Deese, to be Assistant to the President and Director of the National Economic Council. Here, Deese, who played a key role for Obama in drafting the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015, has quietly shaped the Biden war on energy.
This has been catastrophic for the oil and gas industry. Fink’s man Deese was active in giving the new President Biden a list of anti-oil measures to sign by Executive Order beginning day one in January 2021. That included closing the huge Keystone XL oil pipeline that would bring 830,000 barrels per day from Canada as far as Texas refineries, and halting any new leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Biden also rejoined the Paris Climate Accord that Deese had negotiated for Obama in 2015 and Trump cancelled.
The same day, Biden set in motion a change of the so-called “Social Cost of Carbon” that imposes a punitive $51 a ton of CO2 on the oil and gas industry. That one move, established under purely executive-branch authority without the consent of Congress, is dealing a devastating cost to investment in oil and gas in the US, a country only two years before that was the world’s largest oil producer.[iv]
Killing refinery capacity
Even worse, Biden’s aggressive environmental rules and BlackRock ESG investing mandates are killing the US refinery capacity. Without refineries it doesn’t matter how many barrels of oil you take from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In the first two years of Biden’s Presidency the US has shut down some 1 million barrels a day of gasoline and diesel refining capacity, some due to covid demand collapse, the fastest decline in US history. The shutdowns are permanent. In 2023 an added 1.7 million bpd of capacity is set to close as a result of BlackRock and Wall Street ESG disinvesting and Biden regulations. [v]
Citing the heavy Wall Street disinvestment in oil and the Biden anti-oil policies, the CEO of Chevron in June 2022 declared that he doesn’t believe the US will ever build another new refinery.[vi]
Larry Fink, Board member of Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum, is joined by the EU whose President of the EU Commission, the notoriously corrupt Ursula von der Leyen left the WEF Board in 2019 to become EU Commission head. Her first major act in Brussels was to push through the EU Zero Carbon Fit for 55 agenda. That has imposed major carbon taxes and other constraints on oil, gas and coal in the EU well before the February 2022 Russian actions in Ukraine. The combined impact of the Fink fraudulent ESG agenda in the Biden administration and the EU Zero Carbon madness is creating the worst energy and inflation crisis in history.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Introductory Note
This incisive article by William Arkin summarizes the key elements of America’s nuclear doctrine, formulated both before and in the immediate wake of September 11, 2001.
The article was originally published by the Los Angeles Times on March 10, 2002, a few months prior to the official release of the infamous 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).
The doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) of the Cold War era has been indefinitely scrapped.
The NPR 2001 confirms America’s foreign policy stance:
the pre-emptive use of nukes as a means of “self-defense” against both nuclear and non-nuclear states.
Nuclear weapons are also slated to be used in the conventional war theater.
Post Cold War Nuclear Doctrine. NPR 2001 (Drafted 23 Years Ago) Sets The Stage
Let us be under no illusions.
Today, nuclear war is on the drawing board of the Pentagon.
The 2001 NPR (full document) released (officially) in July 2002 is of utmost significance. It determines America’s nuclear doctrine. It has a direct bearing on our understanding of the war in Ukraine, and the danger of a World War III scenario. For details, see also NPR 2001 (excerpts by FAS).
The geopolitics of America’s nuclear doctrine (NPR 2001) are outlined: Russia and the “Axis of Evil”, China and the status of Taiwan, Israel, Iran and the Middle East, North Korea.
The modalities consist in integrating a new category of nuclear weapons (allegedly safe for the surrounding civilian population) into the conventional war arsenal.
Minimizing Collateral Damage while “Blowing up the Planet”
Here are some of the highlights outlined in William Arkin’s article, most of which are being implemented:
“...the use of nuclear weapons against at least seven countries … naming not only Russia and the “axis of evil”–Iraq, Iran, and North Korea–but also China, Libya and Syria.”
“nuclear weapons may be required in some future Arab-Israeli crisis.”
“…using nuclear weapons to retaliate against chemical or biological attacks”
“the NPR lists a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan as one of the scenarios that could lead Washington to use nuclear weapons.”
“nuclear strategy …viewed through the prism of Sept. 11. faith in old-fashioned deterrence is gone”
“developing such things as nuclear bunker-busters and surgical “warheads that reduce collateral damage,”
“cyber-warfare and other nonnuclear military capabilities would be integrated into nuclear-strike forces”
“the integration of “new nonnuclear strategic capabilities” into nuclear-war plans.
“expand the breadth and flexibility of U.S. nuclear capabilities.
“what has evolved since last year’s [September 11, 2001] terror attacks is an integrated, significantly expanded planning doctrine for nuclear wars.”
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 10, 2022, August 4, 2024
***
Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable
By William Arkin,
Los Angeles Times, March 10, 2002
The Bush administration, in a secret policy review completed early this year, has ordered the Pentagon to draft contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, naming not only Russia and the “axis of evil”–Iraq, Iran, and North Korea–but also China, Libya and Syria.
In addition, the U.S. Defense Department has been told to prepare for the possibility that nuclear weapons may be required in some future Arab-Israeli crisis. And, it is to develop plans for using nuclear weapons to retaliate against chemical or biological attacks, as well as “surprising military developments” of an unspecified nature.
These and a host of other directives, including calls for developing bunker-busting mini-nukes and nuclear weapons that reduce collateral damage, are contained in a still-classified document called the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which was delivered to Congress on Jan. 8.
Like all such documents since the dawning of the Atomic Age more than a half-century ago, this NPR offers a chilling glimpse into the world of nuclear-war planners: With a Strangelovian genius, they cover every conceivable circumstance in which a president might wish to use nuclear weapons–planning in great detail for a war they hope never to wage.
In this top-secret domain, there has always been an inconsistency between America’s diplomatic objectives of reducing nuclear arsenals and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, on the one hand, and the military imperative to prepare for the unthinkable, on the other.
Nevertheless, the Bush administration plan reverses an almost two-decade-long trend of relegating nuclear weapons to the category of weapons of last resort. It also redefines nuclear requirements in hurried post-Sept. 11 terms.
In these and other ways, the still-secret document offers insights into the evolving views of nuclear strategists in Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s Defense Department.
While downgrading the threat from Russia and publicly emphasizing their commitment to reducing the number of long-range nuclear weapons, Defense Department strategists promote tactical and so-called “adaptive” nuclear capabilities to deal with contingencies where large nuclear arsenals are not demanded.
They seek a host of new weapons and support systems, including conventional military and cyber warfare capabilities integrated with nuclear warfare. The end product is a now-familiar post-Afghanistan model–with nuclear capability added. It combines precision weapons, long-range strikes, and special and covert operations.
But the NPR’s call for development of new nuclear weapons that reduce “collateral damage” myopically ignores the political, moral and military implications–short-term and long–of crossing the nuclear threshold.
Under what circumstances might nuclear weapons be used under the new posture? The NPR says they “could be employed against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack,” or in retaliation for the use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, or “in the event of surprising military developments.”
Planning nuclear-strike capabilities, it says, involves the recognition of “immediate, potential or unexpected” contingencies. Show me why. “All have long-standing hostility towards the United States and its security partners. All sponsor or harbor terrorists, and have active WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and missile programs.”
China, because of its nuclear forces and “developing strategic objectives,” is listed as “a country that could be involved in an immediate or potential contingency.” Specifically, the NPR lists a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan as one of the scenarios that could lead Washington to use nuclear weapons.
Other listed scenarios for nuclear conflict are a North Korean attack on South Korea and an Iraqi assault on Israel or its neighbors.
The second important insight the NPR offers into Pentagon thinking about nuclear policy is the extent to which the Bush administration’s strategic planners were shaken by last September’s terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Though Congress directed the new administration “to conduct a comprehensive review of U.S. nuclear forces” before the events of Sept. 11, the final study is striking for its single-minded reaction to those tragedies.
Heretofore, nuclear strategy tended to exist as something apart from the ordinary challenges of foreign policy and military affairs. Nuclear weapons were not just the option of last resort, they were the option reserved for times when national survival hung in the balance–a doomsday confrontation with the Soviet Union, for instance.
Now, nuclear strategy seems to be viewed through the prism of Sept. 11. For one thing, the Bush administration’s faith in old-fashioned deterrence is gone. It no longer takes a superpower to pose a dire threat to Americans.
“The terrorists who struck us on Sept. 11th were clearly not deterred by doing so from the massive U.S. nuclear arsenal,” Rumsfeld told an audience at the National Defense University in late January.
Similarly, U.S. Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton said in a recent interview, “We would do whatever is necessary to defend America’s innocent civilian population …. The idea that fine theories of deterrence work against everybody … has just been disproven by Sept. 11.”
Moreover, while insisting they would go nuclear only if other options seemed inadequate, officials are looking for nuclear weapons that could play a role in the kinds of challenges the United States faces with Al Qaeda.
Accordingly, the NPR calls for new emphasis on developing such things as nuclear bunker-busters and surgical “warheads that reduce collateral damage,” as well as weapons that could be used against smaller, more circumscribed targets–“possible modifications to existing weapons to provide additional yield flexibility,” in the jargon-rich language of the review.
It also proposes to train U.S. Special Forces operators to play the same intelligence gathering and targeting roles for nuclear weapons that they now play for conventional weapons strikes in Afghanistan. And cyber-warfare and other nonnuclear military capabilities would be integrated into nuclear-strike forces to make them more all-encompassing.
As for Russia, once the primary reason for having a U.S. nuclear strategy, the review says that while Moscow’s nuclear programs remain cause for concern, “ideological sources of conflict” have been eliminated, rendering a nuclear contingency involving Russia “plausible” but “not expected.”
“In the event that U.S. relations with Russia significantly worsen in the future,” the review says, “the U.S. may need to revise its nuclear force levels and posture.”
When completion of the NPR was publicly announced in January [2002], Pentagon briefers deflected questions about most of the specifics, saying the information was classified. Officials did stress that, consistent with a Bush campaign pledge, the plan called for reducing the current 6,000 long-range nuclear weapons to one-third that number over the next decade. Rumsfeld, who approved the review late last year, said the administration was seeking “a new approach to strategic deterrence,” to include missile defenses and improvements in nonnuclear capabilities.
Also, Russia would no longer be officially defined as “an enemy.”
Beyond that, almost no details were revealed.
The classified text, however, is shot through with a worldview transformed by Sept. 11. The NPR coins the phrase “New Triad,” which it describes as comprising the “offensive strike leg,” (our nuclear and conventional forces) plus “active and passive defenses,”(our anti-missile systems and other defenses) and “a responsive defense infrastructure” (our ability to develop and produce nuclear weapons and resume nuclear testing). Previously, the nuclear “triad” was the bombers, long-range land-based missiles and submarine-launched missiles that formed the three legs of America’s strategic arsenal.
The review emphasizes the integration of “new nonnuclear strategic capabilities” into nuclear-war plans. “New capabilities must be developed to defeat emerging threats such as hard and deeply-buried targets (HDBT), to find and attack mobile and re-locatable targets, to defeat chemical and biological agents, and to improve accuracy and limit collateral damage,” the review says.
It calls for “a new strike system” using four converted Trident submarines, an unmanned combat air vehicle and a new air-launched cruise missile as potential new weapons.
Beyond new nuclear weapons, the review proposes establishing what it calls an “agent defeat” program, which defense officials say includes a “boutique” approach to finding new ways of destroying deadly chemical or biological warfare agents, as well as penetrating enemy facilities that are otherwise difficult to attack. This includes, according to the document, “thermal, chemical or radiological neutralization of chemical/biological materials in production or storage facilities.”
Bush administration officials stress that the development and integration of nonnuclear capabilities into the nuclear force is what permits reductions in traditional long-range weaponry. But the blueprint laid down in the review would expand the breadth and flexibility of U.S. nuclear capabilities.
In addition to the new weapons systems, the review calls for incorporation of “nuclear capability” into many of the conventional systems now under development. An extended-range conventional cruise missile in the works for the U.S. Air Force “would have to be modified to carry nuclear warheads if necessary.” Similarly, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter should be modified to carry nuclear weapons “at an affordable price.”
The review calls for research to begin next month on fitting an existing nuclear warhead into a new 5,000-pound “earth penetrating” munition.
Given the advances in electronics and information technologies in the past decade, it is not surprising that the NPR also stresses improved satellites and intelligence, communications, and more robust high-bandwidth decision-making systems.
Particularly noticeable is the directive to improve U.S. capabilities in the field of “information operations,” or cyber-warfare.
The intelligence community “lacks adequate data on most adversary computer local area networks and other command and control systems,” the review observes. It calls for improvements in the ability to “exploit” enemy computer networks, and the integration of cyber-warfare into the overall nuclear war database “to enable more effective targeting, weaponeering, and combat assessment essential to the New Triad.”
In recent months, when Bush administration officials talked about the implications of Sept. 11 for long-term military policy, they have often focused on “homeland defense” and the need for an anti-missile shield. In truth, what has evolved since last year’s terror attacks is an integrated, significantly expanded planning doctrine for nuclear wars.
***
Our thanks to William Arkin and the Los Angeles Times. Copyright Los Angeles Times
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3 Year: 2012 Pages: 102
PDF Edition: $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
Reviews
“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.” –John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.” -Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction. –Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
Comments Off on Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable. America’s Post 9/11 Nuclear Doctrine. “Incorporation of Nuclear Capability into Conventional Systems”
August 5th, 2024 by International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
ICAN and its partner organisation Pax have released a report with full profiles of 28 companies connected to the production of nuclear weapons.
Here are the 28 companies on ICAN’s Red Flag list. Download the full report here.
Aecom (United States) Aecom is involved in work at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, it is involved in research, design, development and production of nuclear weapons including the life extension program of the B61 nuclear bomb10 and of the W80-1 nuclear warhead for air-launched cruise missiles. Aecom has held this US $45.5 million (€ 40.1 million) per year contract since 2007.
Aerojet Rocketdyne (United States) Aerojet Rocketdyne is involved in maintaining the propulsion systems for Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles for the US, under a US $28.9 million (€ 25.5 million) contract initially awarded in 2013. It also produces propulsion systems for the Trident II (D5) missiles for the US and UK. Aerojet Rocketdyne is also a subcontractor on the new Ground Based Strategic Deterrent for the US arsenal. In 2018, Aerojet Rocketdyne secured an additional five-year contract for US $20 million (€ 17.6 million) for solid boost technology that will be applied to the next generation of weapons systems.
Airbus (Netherlands) Airbus is a Netherlands based company involved in the ongoing maintenance and development of several nuclear armed missiles for the French nuclear arsenal through ArianeGroup, a joint venture with the French company Safran. Airbus is also part of the joint venture MBDA that supplies medium-range air to surface missiles, also for the French arsenal.
BAE Systems (United Kingdom) BAE Systems has a maximum value US$ 368.7 million (€ 328 million) contract originally from October 2014 that will run until 2021 that is paid by the US and UK governments for key components for Trident II (D5) missiles. BAE also has a US$ 951.4 million (€ 830.8 million) contract from the US Air Force for Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) system, which will run until 2022. BAE is also involved in the French arsenal directly, through MBDA Systems, developing the mediumrange air-to-surface missile ASMPA and its successor, ASN4G. In July 2017, BAE got a new US$ 45.2 million (€ 39.6 million) modification to an existing contract for development work on the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) intercontinental ballistic missile replacement programme.
Bechtel (United States) Bechtel is a family run company involved in nuclear weapon development at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Y-12 Complex, and the Pantex Plant. Bechtel currently has approximately US $ 1,174 million (€ 1,035 million) in outstanding contracts at these facilities. Bechtel is also involved in one of the new nuclear weapons under design in the US, the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, though their exact contract amount is unclear.
Bharat Dynamics Limited (India) Bhrat Dynamics Limited produces key components for the Prithvi-II and Agni- V nuclear capable missiles for the Indian arsenal.
Boeing (United States) Boeing is building new nuclear weapons for the US. These include a 2017 contract for US$ 349.2 million (€ 297 million) for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent to replace the Minuteman III ICBMs. Boeing is also involved in the Long-Range Standoff weapon development and has been awarded several contracts since 2017 for this new nuclear weapon, valued at US $ 344.5 million (€ 304 million). Boeing holds several contracts related to the the US long-range nuclear Minuteman Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM). Boeing currently has contracts valued at over US$ 703.3 million (€ 620 million) for key components for the Minuteman system. One of these contracts includes the development of ‘kill switches’ to cause the missile to self-destruct after launch. Boeing received a new US$ 26.7 million (€ 23.0 million) contract from the US and UK for Trident II (D5) work in October 2018.25 This is in addition to existing outstanding contracts for work related to the system valued at over US$ 88.9 million (€ 79.0 million). Boeing is also producing the tail-kit assembly for the new B61 bombs. More than half of all these bombs are currently deployed by the US in five European countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey). The US$ 185 million (€ 163 million) in contracts will mean the new B61-12 bombs are ready for use by May 2019. It is yet unclear when the new bombs will be delivered to their European locations, other companies are currently modifying the storage facilities in the host countries.
BWX Technologies (United States) BWX Technologies has a new US$ 76 million (€ 70.8 million) contract for Trident II (D5) components for the US and UK navies. BWXT also got a US$ 505 million (€ 427.5 million) contract to prepare for additional US nuclear materials production for nuclear weapons, this will initially be Tritium production, but there are also plans to produce additional nuclear materials in the near term. BWXT is also involved in the partnership that oversees the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, including the life extension program of the B61 nuclear bomb and of the W80-1 nuclear warhead for air-launched cruise missiles. The partnership receives US$ 45.5 million (€ 37.6 million) a year for this work.
Charles Stark Draper Laboratory (United States) Charles Stark Draper Laboratory has a US$ 370.2 (€350.5 million) contract, paid by the US and the UK, for work on the Trident II (D5) system. In 2018, Draper got another US & UK funded to US$ 109.5 million (€ 95.9 million) contract for additional work on the Trident system, including hypersonic guidance and support for hypersonic flight experiments, to be concluded by September 2019.
Constructions Industrielles de la Méditerranée(France) Constructions Industrielles de la Méditerranéeis included for the first time as more information on the specifically designed key components for the French nuclear arsenal has become available. CNIM designs and manufactures the submarine launching systems designed for the nuclear-armed M51 missiles.
Fluor (United States) Fluor is involved at several US nuclear weapons enterprise facilities. Through a joint venture, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS) it has an US$ 8 billion (€ 7.1 billion) contract for efforts related to key components for the W88 Alt 370 program, the nuclear warhead deployed on the Trident II (D5).
General Dynamics (United States) General Dynamics has a number of contracts related key components for the UK & US Trident II (D5) systems. An initial US$ 30.6 million (€ 28.2 million) contract awarded in 2015 has been modified repeatedly (including five times between November 2017 and December 2018) bringing the total contract value to over US$ 174.4 million (€ 155.6 million). Another General Dynamics subsidiary, General Dynamics Electric Boat received a maximum dollar value of US$ 46.5 (€ 43.4 million) contract in September 2017 for integration work for United Kingdom Strategic Weapon Support System kit manufacturing for the Columbia class ballistic missile submarines. In 2018 this contract was modified significantly, first in April for US$ 126.2 million (€ 102.4 million), and again for US$ 480.6 million (€ 414 million) in September 2018.
Honeywell International (United States) Honeywell International manages and operates the National Security Campus (NSC) (formerly Kansas City Plant), the facility responsible for producing an estimated 85% of the non-nuclear components for US nuclear weapons under a five year US$ 900 million (€ 817.4 million) contract awarded in July 2015. It is also a co-owner of Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS) which has a US$ 8 billion (€ 7.1 billion) contract for efforts related to key components for the W88 Alt 370 program, the nuclear warhead deployed on the Trident II (D5). Honeywell is also associated with other US nuclear weapons enterprise facilities, including an outstanding US$ 5 billion (€ 4.6 billion) contract for the Nevada National Security Site and a US$ 2.6 billion (€ 2.5 billion) contract for the Sandia National Laboratory. Both facilities are responsible for warhead production, testing, and design. Also, Honeywell received new contracts in 2018 valued at US$ 19.0 million (€ 16.2 million) for the PIGA guidance instrument for the Minuteman III.
Huntington Ingalls Industries (United States) Huntington Ingalls Industries took over the management and operations for the Los Alamos National Laboratory in 2018 with a five-year contracted with an estimated value of US$ 2.5 billion (€ 2.2 billion) annually. Huntington Ingalls Industries will be providing “personnel, systems, tools and corporate reachback in the areas of pit production, plutonium manufacturing, production scale-up and nuclear operations and manufacturing”. Huntington Ingalls Industries is also part of a US$ 5 billion (€ 4.6 billion) contract at the Nevada National Security Site, and the US$ 8 billion (€ 7.1 billion) contract at the US Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site and Savannah River National Laboratory in South Carolina.
Jacobs Engineering (United Kingdom) Jacobs Engineering is part of the UK Atomic Weapons Establishment, which currently has a 25-year £ 25.4 billion (€29.6 billion) contract for maintenance of the UK Trident arsenal. Jacobs was also part of the group that took over management and operations of the Nevada National Security Site in 2017 under a 10-year US$ 5 billion (€ 4.6 billion) contract.
Larsen and Toubro (India) are involved in producing key components for the Indian nuclear arsenal. These include the launcher system for the nuclear-capable Prithvi II missile. It is also involved in the Dhanush, the ship-based variant of the Prithvi-II.
Leidos (United States) Leidos is a minority partner of Consolidated Nuclear Services LLC (CNS), which took over the management and operation of the Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee and the Pantex Plant in Texas under the same US$ 446 million (€ 326.5 million) contract in 2014. These facilities are involved in producing Tritium for US nuclear weapons as well as the M76/MK4A, W76-2, W80-1 and, W88 warhead modifications.
Leonardo (Italy) Leonardo is an Italian company (formerly known as Finmeccanica) involved in the French nuclear arsenal through MBDA-Systems. In contracts from 2016, MBDA began design and development of the mid-life upgrade of the ASMPA to keep it in the French arsenal through 2035. In the 2019 French Ministry of Defence Budget, three deliveries of upgraded ASMPAs are planned after 2019. MBDA is also involved in work on the successor system (ASN4G) which is meant to be operational after 2035.
Lockheed Martin (United States) Lockheed Martin has outstanding Trident II (D5) contracts valued at approximately US$ 6,550.1 million (€5,730.4 million). Of these US$ 918.9 million (€ 801.9) were awarded in between March 2018 and January 2019. Lockheed also has at least US$ 495 million (€ 413.6 million) in outstanding contracts related to the Minuteman III ICBM. It is also involved in a US$ 900 million (€ 764.2 million) research and design contract for the new US the Air Force Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) missile. Lockheed Martin’s nuclear weapon associated activities aren’t limited to US missile production alone. It is also part of the 25-year £ 25.4 billion (€29.6 billion) contract for the UK Atomic Weapons Establishment.
Moog (United States) Moog has developed launch vehicle and strategic missile controls for the Minuteman III and Trident (D5) missiles. Moog is also part of the Boeing team that won a US$ 349.2 million (€ 297.0 million) contract in 2017 for technology maturation and risk reduction activities for the new Ground Based Strategic Deterrent.
Northrop Grumman (United States) Northrop Grumman is currently handing over responsibilities to BAE Systems as the prime contractor for the Minuteman III ICBM system. This process began in 2013, but there have been repeated ‘bridge’ contracts valued at over US$ 165.0 million (€ 128.3 million), most recently in September 2018. Now the handover process is expected to be complete in April 2019. Although Northrop Grumman is no longer the prime ICBM contractor, it still has additional US ICBM related contracts including those it took over when it acquired Orbital ATK. These additional contracts were mostly awarded in 2015, with a total value of approximately US$ 1,852.9 million (€ 1,642.9 million). Northrop Grumman, via ATK Launch Systems was also awarded another Minuteman related contract for US$ 86.4 million (€ 74.5 million) in September 2018. Northrop Grumman is also involved in the Trident II (D5) systems for the US and the UK, with outstanding contracts valued at approximately US$ 531.3 million (€ 493.2 million). Many of these Trident II (D5) related production activities are meant to conclude in 2020. Northrop Grumman is also connected to the nuclear weapons facilities at the Pantex and Y-12 through at US$ 446 million (€ 326.5 million) contract to the Consolidated Nuclear Services (CNS) joint venture.
Raytheon (United States) Raytheon has an outstanding US$ 33.4 million (€ 24.8 million) contract for work related to the Minuteman III ICBMs. Raytheon is also involved in new nuclear weapons development for the US. It is part of the Boeing team working on the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, and in August 2017, Raytheon received a five-year contract for US$ 900 million (€ 764.2 million) for the new Long-Range Standoff weapon.
Safran (France) Safran is a French company and two of their subsidiaries (Snecma and Sagem) are developing key components for the M51 missiles for the French nuclear weapons arsenal. Safran is also part of the joint venture with Dutch company Airbus, responsible for ongoing production and maintenance of the missile system overall. This joint venture is also contracted to carry out the 2019 budgeted tasks of the French Ministry of Defence for three deliveries of upgraded ASMPAs after 2019.
Serco (United Kingdom) Serco is a UK company involved in management and operations of the UK Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) under 25-year contract (1999 to 2024) valued at £ 25.4 billion (€29.6 billion).
Textron (United States) Textron has an outstanding US$ 17.2 million (€ 12.5 million) contract to convert up to six Minuteman III MK 12A re-entry vehicles to the Mod 5F configuration.
Thales (France) According to the French Ministry of Defence, Thales is one of MBDA’s subcontractors supplying medium-range air-to-surface missile ASMPA to the French air force.
United Technologies Corporation (United States) United Technologies Corporation acquired Rockwell Collins in November 2018 and renamed it Collins Aerospace Systems. This company has an outstanding US$ 76 million (€ 67 million) contract for the Airborne Launch Control System Replacement for the Minuteman III ICBM missiles.
Walchandnagar Industries Limited (India) Walchandnagar Industries Limited produces launching systems for the Indian Agni series of nuclear armed missiles.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
This incisive article was first published by Global Research at the Height of the Covid-19 Crisis, October 24, 2021.
**
No one group has done more to damage our global agriculture and food quality than the Rockefeller Foundation. They began in the early 1950s after the War to fund two Harvard Business School professors to develop vertical integration which they named “Agribusiness.” The farmer became the least important.
They then created the fraudulent Green Revolution in Mexico and India in the 1960s and later the pro-GMO Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa since 2006.
Money from the Rockefeller Foundation literally created the disastrous GMO genetically altered plants with their toxic glyphosate pesticides.
Now again, the foundation is engaged in a major policy change in global food and agriculture and it’s not good.
In their latest report, True Cost of Food: Measuring What Matters to Transform the U.S. Food System, the Rockefeller Foundation is deeply engaged in a coordinated effort to radically change the way we produce food and how we calculate its true cost.
They claim it is part of a global consensus, through the UN, to create “sustainable” agriculture amid the ongoing COVID breakdown crisis. Far from being a positive change, it is intended to radically change our access to healthy food and our choice of what we eat. The foundation, which has just released the second food report in two years, is partnering with the Davos World Economic Forum and big agribusiness to lead the drive. Their new slogan is “True Cost of Food.”
True Cost?
Rajiv Shah, President of the Foundation writes,
“we spent the past year working with experts and advocates across the field to measure impact of the US food system. The result is the first US-wide set of metrics that can help us measure the cost of our food more accurately. With this new analysis, governments, advocates, food producers, and individuals are better equipped to transform our food system to be more nourishing, regenerative, and equitable…”
Here is where the words must be looked at more closely. These guys are experts at NLP. In effect, it reads as if the same Rockefeller Foundation responsible for our industrialized, globalized food chain and the destruction that process has wrought on not only the family farm but also the quality of our global agriculture and diet, is now blaming their creation for huge external costs of our food. However they write as if the greedy family farmer is to blame, not corporate agribusiness.
Shah states,
“This report is a wake-up call. The US food system as it stands is adversely affecting our environment, our health, and our society.” Shah’s Rockefeller study states, “The U.S. food system’s current set-up has led to costly impacts on the health of people, society, and the planet. Global warming, reduced biodiversity, water and air pollution, food waste, and the high incidence of diet-related illnesses are key unintended consequences of the current production system.” This is ominous.
The study adds,
“ The burden of impact of these costs are disproportionately borne by communities that are marginalized and underserved, often communities of color, many of whom are the backbone as farmers, fishers, ranchers, and food workers.”
Using a Dutch group, True Price Foundation, the report calculates that the “true cost” of the US food system is not the $1.1 trillion that Americans spend annually on food, but rather at least $3.2 trillion per year when taking into account its impact on the health of people, livelihoods, and the environment. This huge added cost is calculated mainly from health effects including cancer and diabetes and environmental effects such as CO2 emissions of what they call “unsustainable” agriculture. True Cost Foundation has a three man board including Herman Mulder, a former banker with ABN Amro, one of the world’s leading agribusiness banks; Charles Evers, former Corporate controller and CFO with Unilever NV (1981-2002), one of the world’s leading agribusiness giants; and Jasper de Jong, Partner at Allen & Overy, one of the world’s largest law firms based in London. This is the team behind pricing such abstractions as a ton of CO2 and other costs for the Rockefeller report. The only point is that CO2 is a harmless essential component of all life and no cause for a rising global temperature.
Also notable about the Rockefeller report, True Cost of Food, is that the contributors included law school professors, university economists, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and True Cost Foundation. No single farmer organization was included.
The report calculates that the major “hidden” costs of America’s food production come from agriculture’s negative impact on health and on the environment: “The biggest unaccounted costs are from negative impacts on human health, worsening environmental degradation, and biodiversity loss.” They put a number on all this.
For example, direct environmental impacts including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water use, and soil erosion they claim cost $350 billion annually; and the impact on biodiversity as a result of land use, and soil, water, and air pollution they say costs the US economy $455 billion. Then they calculate the health costs of the US food system. Here the report includes costs to the economy of obesity, of cardio-vascular diseases which are the leading cause of death globally, cancer, diabetes and other non-communicable diseases. This supposedly adds another $ 1 trillion to our “true” food costs. Totaling both effects as claimed adds some $1.8 trillion of the estimated $2.2 external costs of food. To claim dollar costs of these diseases in the rigged US healthcare system is the sole fault of the agriculture ignores the bloated health costs since Obamacare insurance took effect. By the way Rockefeller also created the modern medical system with his Flexner Report along with the Carnegie Foundation in 1910. But that’s another story.
There is no disputing that agribusiness industrialized food production in the USA since the 1950s has turned the once-productive family farm into a corporate appendage of a system of factory farms, GMO seed and agrichemicals monopolies like Monsanto-Bayer and DuPontDow (Corteva), huge slaughtering operations such as of Tyson and Smithfield Foods, and retailers like Walmart or Whole Foods. But the report suggests that traditional family farmers are to blame. This is to set the stage for an agriculture Great Reset that will be even more harmful as the remaining range-fed beef is replaced with lab-grown GMO plant beef and similar products. The USDA recently wrote that the “primary sources of greenhouse gases in agriculture are the production of nitrogen-based fertilizers; the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, gasoline, diesel fuel and natural gas; and waste management. Livestock enteric fermentation, or the fermentation that takes place in the digestive systems of ruminant animals, results in methane emissions.”
The message is that the current American food production is to blame and that radical and costly changes are urgently needed. The difficulty in reading the report is that the language is deliberately vague and deceptive. For example one of the most damaging components of American agriculture since the 1990s has been the wholesale introduction of GMO crops—especially soybeans, corn and cotton and the highly carcinogenic Monsanto-Bayer Roundup with glyphosate. The Rockefeller report omits their direct role in fostering that devastation by their creating and promoting Monsanto and GMO for decades, knowing it was destructive. Rockefeller Foundation policy is to introduce gene-edited crops, GMO.2, and destroy America’s present agriculture in favor of patented costly alternatives, claiming it is too costly and not “sustainable” or “inclusive.” The second largest global food producer, the EU, will be their next target.
AGRA, Gates and Davos
This agenda is not surprising when we look at the background of the key actors at Rockefeller Foundation. The President, Rajiv Shah, came out of a background at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, where he was Director of Agricultural Development. At Gates Foundation Shah worked with the Rockefeller Foundation to create the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. He is intimately tied to the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) of Great Reset guru, Klaus Schwab, where Shah recently co-chaired the WEF Global Future Council on the New Agenda for Economic Growth and Recovery. There he wrote that “governments must actively shape markets towards green and inclusive growth.”
The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) is a project that has tried to force GMO seeds and related pesticides at huge cost on poorer African small farmers. It has been an agriculture disaster for African farmers. The AGRA model plays a key role in understanding the unspoken agenda of the Rockefeller Foundation and allies such as WEF and Gates Foundation. The person responsible under Shah at Rockefeller for the agriculture program is Roy Steiner, the foundation’s Senior Vice President for Food Initiative. Steiner was with Shah at the Gates Foundation and worked with Shah to create the pro-GMO AGRA in Africa.
The deep role of both Shah and Steiner in AGRA and its GMO agenda gives a very good idea how Rockefeller & Co. plan the radical transformation of US agriculture, and it is not good. The report says that it will reduce CO2 and methane emissions and introduce plant-based alternatives. Bill Gates co-funded the startup of the imitation meat company, Impossible Foods, using lab-grown fake meat and gene-editing. He insists synthetic beef is a necessary strategy to address climate change and declares that Americans and other Western nations must switch to a diet of 100% synthetic beef. No more cows no more gas emissions…
Davos, Rockefeller and UN World Food Summit
The agriculture agenda of the influential Rockefeller Foundation, the agenda of Davos WEF and of the UN all converge on the Great Reset and UN Agenda 2030 for “sustainable agriculture.” On September 23, 2021 in New York the UN hosted Food Systems Summit 2021. The chair of the summit was Agnes Kalibata UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy to the 2021 Food Systems Summit. Her selection was vehemently opposed by dozens of NGOs based on the fact she is President of the Gates-Rockefeller AGRA in Africa. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres announced the summit as a part of the Decade of Action for achieving Agenda 2030 sustainable goals. Olivier De Schutter, former UN special rapporteur on the right to food, stated that the Food Summit was the result of “closed-door agreements” at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
In June 2019 at the UN, WEF head Klaus Schwab and UN’s Guterres signed a formal partnership “to accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” One year later amid the covid pandemia, Klaus Schwab announced launch of the technocratic Great Reset together with Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the UN; and Kristalina Georgieva of the International Monetary Fund. Davos, the UN and Rockefeller Foundation are all on one agenda and it is not good for the future health and food of mankind. This is no conspiracy theory; it’s the real conspiracy.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
On the very last day of July, the Russian military announced it started “the third and ‘final’ phase of drills to practice the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons”. The Kremlin’s Ministry of Defense (MoD) also initiated joint exercises with Belarus, its closest ally. To some, it may seem strange that Minsk is participating in such activities, but it should be noted that Belarus joined Russia’s nuclear weapons sharing program back in March last year, resulting in the redeployment of Russian thermonuclear weapons in response to NATO’s perpetually escalating belligerence. At the time, Minsk issued a formal request to Moscow, asking for top security guarantees in case the world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel got any “funny ideas”. Now, both countries are capitalizing on this close partnership, with the Belarussian military even operating the unrivaled “Iskander-M” ground-based hypersonic missile systems.
Precisely such weapons will be the primary carriers of tactical nuclear warheads in the country’s armed forces, giving Minsk unprecedented operational deterrence capabilities in Europe. The decision for such a move came after Poland and the United States kept floating the idea of transferring some of American nuclear weapons to Poland. Thus, the Russian military already provided Belarus with the necessary upgrades to be able to deliver tactical nuclear warheads. At least 10 Belarussian Air Force jets have been assigned and equipped to carry such weapons, although neither side specified what type of aircraft received the said upgrades. Minsk operates several types of nuclear-capable fighter jets, including the recently acquired Su-30SM and the Soviet-era MiG-29, in addition to the ground-based assets such as the aforementioned “Iskander” systems capable of launching nuclear-tipped hypersonic missiles.
What’s more, Belarus still maintains a number of Soviet-era nuclear-capable assets, including a substantial arsenal of “Tochka-U” tactical ballistic missiles. These could serve as a secondary delivery option given their shorter range and inferior accuracy when compared to the “Iskander” which boasts a 500 km range, high precision, extreme maneuverability at every stage of flight, as well as a hypersonic speed of up to Mach 8.7. This makes the “Iskander” virtually impossible to intercept, as evidenced by its performance during the special military operation (SMO). It gives Minsk a significant asymmetric advantage over NATO occupation forces in Eastern Europe. In addition, Belarus is home to a growing arsenal of state-of-the-art Russian military units and equipment, including strategic assets such as the S-400 SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems, as well as Russian “Iskander” units.
Other top-of-the-line weapons that the Kremlin deploys in the country are the Su-35S air superiority fighter jets and superfast, high-flying MiG-31 interceptors/strike fighters, including the K/I variants capable of deploying the now legendary 9-S-7760 “Kinzhal” hypersonic missiles, which are also nuclear-capable. All this suggests that the interoperability of the Russian and Belarussian militaries is on such a high level that they can effectively act as a unified fighting force. In recent months, this was also demonstrated in practice, with the second stage of Moscow’s joint nuclear drills with Minsk taking place already in June. However, the timing of the ongoing third stage is quite peculiar, as it “coincides” with the first reports about the pompously announced F-16s finally reaching Ukraine. Citing unverified footage, many sources are reporting that the US-made jet is already flying over parts of Western Ukraine.
Namely, preliminary reports suggest that precisely these nuclear-capable Dutch F-16s were the first to arrive, further strengthening Moscow’s hypothesis that these could possibly be used as a crawling strategy to give the Neo-Nazi junta nuclear weapons, as NATO thinks that’s the only way to prevent the total defeat of its favorite puppet regime. However, apart from this being a great way to start WW3, what’s even worse, there are plans to station these US-made jets in airbases outside of Ukraine and then fly them from there to attack Russian forces. The Kiev regime possibly thinks that Moscow won’t dare to attack NATO airbases housing these F-16s. However, the Kremlin has repeatedly warned that any such airbases will immediately be considered legitimate targets for the Russian military. Thus, this is yet another “perfect” way to start WW3, resulting in the destruction of the globe.
In other words, there are so many ways in which all this could go wrong that anyone remotely familiar with the current geopolitical situation has stopped counting long ago. Russian nuclear exercises make a lot more sense if we assume that Moscow’s position is that these F-16s are being transferred as carriers of nuclear weapons. This is also reinforced by the fact that these US-made jets are heavily outclassed by Russia’s top-notch fighters, in virtually every category. In other words, employing them in a purely conventional military role simply doesn’t make sense, as they won’t make any difference. Another somewhat less gloomy possibility is that the political West could try to use these nuclear-capable F-16s as a bargaining chip in a potential new “peace summit” that Russia could be invited to. As NATO and the Neo-Nazi junta are becoming increasingly desperate, anything can be expected.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: F-16 Fighting Falcon from the Royal Danish Air Force. Picture taken at Karup Air Force Base in Denmark. 18th of June 2005. /PAJ (From the Public Domain)
Since the beginning of the special military operation, the US has been encouraging other countries to participate directly or indirectly in hostilities against the Russian Federation. Due to its recent history of war against Moscow and its territorial demands in the north, Georgia has been one of the countries most encouraged by the West to take an open stance against Russia in the current proxy war. However, Tbilisi has refused to participate in the hostilities, which is why the Caucasian country may be close to being sanctioned by the West.
In Georgia, there is a clear political polarization between pro-Western militants and the sovereigntists who advocate good relations with Russia. Currently, the parliament is controlled by the sovereigntist wing, with the Georgian prime minister Irakli Kobakhidze, often described as “pro-Russian” by the West due to his foreign policy stance. On the other hand, the opposition is extremely violent and has organized protests and demonstrations with the aim of pressuring for radical changes in the country. The leading figure of the pro-Western wing is the country’s president herself, French-born Salome Zurabishvili, who leads a major pro-EU and pro-NATO lobby.
Currently, the most controversial political issue in Georgia is the law against foreign agents, recently passed by the parliament. The law requires media groups, think tanks and individuals who receive more than 20% of foreign funding to be registered within Georgian institutions officially as “promoters of the interests of a foreign power”. Zurabishvili vetoed the law, but the prime minister approved it despite the president’s disagreement.
Since Georgia is the scene of the operations of several American and European agencies, the law severely affects the Western lobby in the country. Having to expose their financiers, pro-Western agencies in Georgia have their work discredited and lose influence over public opinion. As a result, the EU and NATO plan to “push” Georgia to a “second front” against Russia loses momentum, bringing hope for good relations with Moscow – and infuriating the West.
Since Western countries are extremely “punitive” towards sovereign states, Georgia has obviously become the target of American and European strategists. After several hostile statements, threats and even attempts at a color revolution, now the Under Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs James O’Brien officially announced to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Washington is planning to impose sanctions on Georgia.
O’Brien, who recently stated that NATO is on the verge of adopting a “new Russia strategy”, said that the Americans are considering the possibility of sanctioning Tbilisi. He believes that if the upcoming parliamentary elections do not effectively advance Western interests in the country, imposing sanctions will be the only option left for the US. In addition, he emphasized that the US is reviewing all cooperation and aid programs it currently has with Georgia, suggesting that other forms of economic boycott could be imposed.
“You asked about sanctions, we are actively considering our options there. I won’t preview anything, but we are looking at it (…) [The US is ready] to support everything that will contribute to fair and free parliament election in Georgia this fall (…) I’m hopeful that this can happen again in the next months,” he said.
Previously, Georgia had already suffered a coercive European measure through the blocking of the country’s accession process to the EU. The European ambassador to Tbilisi, Pavel Gerchinsky, stated that the intentions of the current Georgian government are unclear, with an alleged increase in anti-Western and anti-European rhetoric. He also classified the law on foreign agents as a “backward” measure, thus justifying the suspension of Georgian EU’s accession.
“The intentions of the current Georgian government are unclear to EU leaders. The Transparency of Foreign Influence Act is clearly a step backwards. […] Also, the anti-Western, anti-European rhetoric is completely incompatible with the declared goal of joining the European Union. Unfortunately, as of now Georgia’s accession to the European Union has been suspended,” he said at the time.
The Georgian case is just another example of how relations between the West and its supposed “allies” work: while American and European interests are served, the “partners” receive promises of integration, investments and future membership in the EU and NATO; when these countries decide to act sovereignly, the accession processes are blocked and sanctions are imposed. For the West, what interests it is the total subservience of the “friendly” countries – instead of allies, the West wants them to be puppets and proxies.
Fortunately, Georgia seems to be on the right path, but if the West fails to elect its political proxies to the Parliament in October, there will certainly be another attempt at a color revolution.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Protest held in Tbilisi against the “foreign agent” bill reintroduced by the Kobakhidze government (Licensed under CC BY 2.0)
The President of the ICJ Joan E. Donoghue was a legal advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton under the Obama administration. Joan Donoghue takes her instructions from Washington. 
And now the World Court has instructed a criminal government led by Netanyahu (who has a criminal record) to “take all measures within its power” to “prevent” and “punish” “public officials, “private individuals” 
Are they telling us that our last hour has wrung? The three initial phases of the Apocalypse have come and gone and some are being executed in parallel with each other – Conquest, War, Famine… while we are indeed entering the fourth – meaning Death. This, the Fourth Horseman, is meant to tell us.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
Rethinking Srebrenica
