Global Research

Dozens of worshipers have reportedly been killed in an airstrike on a mosque in Syria’s Aleppo province. While the Pentagon only admitted to striking terrorists several miles away in Idlib, some reports suggest US missile debris were recovered from the mosque’s rubble.

Details of the strike on the Al-Jinah mosque are scarce, but over 50 people might have been killed in the incident, according to various reports. Images from the scene shared on social media show the wide-scale destruction.

Click here to watch the video showing scale of devastation and huge crater outside the Mosque of Al-Jinah in SW Aleppo countryside.

None of the forces present in the area have taken responsibility for the strike yet. Both Russian and Syrian planes in addition to American-led air power are conducting operations against terrorist units in the area.

Some rushed to blame Moscow or Damascus for the carnage, after activists of the so-called White Helmets rescue organization and no less the notorious UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights shared first images from the scene.

A destroyed mosque in the village of Al-Jineh in Aleppo province March 16, 2017. © Omar haj kadour / AFP

Syrian civil defence volunteers dig through the rubble of a mosque in the village of Al-Jineh in Aleppo province March 16, 2017. © Omar haj kadour / AFP

“We did not target a mosque, but the building that we did target — which was where the meeting took place — is about 50 feet (15 meters) from a mosque that is still standing,” said Colonel John J. Thomas, spokesman for US Central Command according to AFP.

Journalist Samuel Oakford, who was previously UN correspondent at Vice News, said that the US central Command confirmed it had carried out a strike in relative close proximity to the mosque.

“US official says that they were targeting an ‘Al Qaeda meeting place” that was across from the mosque in Aleppo. ‘We took the strike’”, he tweeted. Earlier, the reporter claimed the US Central Command told him the Americans conducted a strike on a target just several miles away, in the bordering Idlib province, and was looking into the Aleppo suburb mosque strike.

Click here to see Oakford’s post on his social media page.

CENTCOM spokesperson, Maj. Josh Jacques, told the London-based Airwars monitoring group that the target was “assessed to be a meeting place for al Qaeda, and we took the strike.”

“It happened to be across the street from where there is a mosque,” said Jacques, specifying that the mosque was not the target and that it wasn’t hit directly.

Click here to see the news release on CENTCOM statement.

“To be clear: this was a unilateral US strike, not part of anti-ISIS Coalition activities,” Oakford emphasized in another tweet.

Meanwhile Sakir Khader, who identifies himself as a journalist with a focus on Syria, Turkey, and the wider Middle East, posted a picture of the missile debris, which he claims to have come from the rubble of the destroyed mosque.

Click here to see Khader’s post on his social media page.

While the location and authenticity of the photo are yet to be independently investigated, the picture shows latin inscription on a metal plate alleged to be a piece of the missile.

Neither the Russian nor the US militaries, as well as Damascus, have yet to officially comment on the incident.

“All of the news is fake when corporate media connive with the powerful to produce their desired ends.”

There is still no evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election. What substitutes for proof is nothing but an endless loop of corporate media repetition. The Democratic Party has plenty of reason to whip up hysteria in an effort to divert attention from its endless electoral debacles.

What no one mentions is that the United States government has a very long history of interfering in elections around the world. Since World War II American presidents have used electoral dirty tricks, fraud and violence to upend the will of people in Italy, Iran, Guatemala, Vietnam and Honduras to name but a few nations. If possible brute force and murder are used to depose elected leaders as in Haiti and Chile.

Amid all the hoopla about Russia’s supposed influence in the election or with Donald Trump directly, there is little mention of a successful American effort to intervene in that country. In 1996 American political consultants and the Bill Clinton administration made certain that Boris Yeltsin remained in the Russian presidency.

There is no need for conjecture in this case. The story was discussed quite openly at the time and included a Time magazine cover story with the guilty parties going on record about their role in subverting democracy.

“In 1996 American political consultants and the Bill Clinton administration made certain that Boris Yeltsin remained in the Russian presidency.”

Polls showed that Yeltsin was in danger of losing to the Communist Party candidate Gennadi Zhuganov. The collapse of the Soviet Union had created an economic and political catastrophe for the Russian people. Oligarchs openly stole public funds while government workers went without pay. Russians lost the safety net they had enjoyed and the disaster resulted in a precipitous decline in life expectancy and birth rates.

The United States didn’t care about the suffering of ordinary Russians. Its only concern was making sure that the once socialist country never turned in that direction again. When Yeltsin looked like a loser the Clinton administration pressed the International Monetary Fund to send quick cash and bolster Yeltsin’s government with a $10 billion loan.

Clinton had an even more direct involvement. Led by a team connected to his adviser Dick Morris, a group of political consultants went to work in Moscow, but kept their existence a secret. One of the conspirators put the case succinctly. “Everyone realized that if the Communists knew about this before the election, they would attack Yeltsin as an American tool.” Of course Yeltsin was an American tool, and that was precisely the desired outcome.

The Time magazine article wasn’t the only corporate media expose of the American power grab. The story was also made into a film called “Spinning Boris.” One would think that this well known and documented account would be brought to attention now, but just the opposite has happened. The tale of Clinton administration conniving has instead been disappeared down the memory hole as if it never took place.

“When Yeltsin looked like a loser the Clinton administration pressed the International Monetary Fund to send quick cash and bolster Yeltsin’s government with a $10 billion loan.”

The supposedly free media in this country march in lock step with presidents. After Obama and his secretary of state Hillary Clinton made Russia bashing a national pastime the media followed suit. The reason for the hostility is very simple. Russia is an enormous country spanning Europe and Asia and has huge amounts of energy resources which European countries depend on. Its gas and oil reserves make it a player and therefore a target for sanctions and war by other means.

The American impulse to control or crush the rest of the world is thwarted by an independent Russia. While Americans are fed an endless diet of xenophobia Russia and China continue their New Silk Road economic partnership. Of course this alliance is born of the necessity to protect against American threats but no one reading the New York Times or Washington Post knows anything about it. Nor do they know that Vladimir Putin’s mentor stayed in power because of Bill Clinton’s meddling.

All of the news is fake when corporate media connive with the powerful to produce their desired ends. If they want to make Yeltsin a hero, they make him a hero. If they want his successor to be cast as the villain then he becomes the villain. If the United States wants to play the victim it is turned into the hapless target of Russian espionage. If its history of thwarting the sovereignty of other countries becomes an inconvenient truth, then the truth is disappeared.

It is difficult to know what is true and what is not. But it usually a safe bet to assume that this government and its media hand maidens are covering up criminality of various kinds. The story of the 1996 manipulation of Russian voters is but one example.

Margaret Kimberley‘s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

Hay cosas que serían imposibles sin el inestimable trabajo del periodismo objetivo. Una de ellas es la actual conversión de cualquier mala noticia para el establishment occidental en un elemento de la desempolvada hostilidad hacia el enemigo ruso de la guerra fría. Y eso, cuando ya compartimos con ese enemigo sistema socioeconómico (capitalista) y tipo (oligárquico) de régimen político, tiene su mérito.

El mensaje de que la victoria del energúmeno Trump en Estados Unidos fue, en gran medida, resultado de la “injerencias” de Rusia en sus elecciones, ha calado hondo. Por si accidentes parecidos se repitieran en Europa, ya se lanzan advertencias sobre el intervencionismo de la ciberpotencia rusa en las elecciones alemanas o francesas. Y lo mismo ocurre con las sensacionales revelaciones de WikiLeaks o del heroico Edward Snowden.

“Con Julian Assange WikiLeaks se ha convertido en una máquina de propaganda que con gran fervor y en los momentos más interesantes publica filtraciones útiles a Donald Trump y Vladimir Putin”, explica el semanario alemán Der Spiegel, histórico luchador de la guerra fría (cold warrior) desde su misma fundación en 1947. “Piratas rusos proveen de contenido a la plataforma de Assange para desestabilizar Estados Unidos”, informaba hace unos días nuestro diario, que, siguiendo la estela de los grandes medios de Estados Unidos, considera “probado por 17 agencias de inteligencia estadounidenses” que, “Rusia ha sido la gran provedora de contenido a WikiLeaks”. La red de Assange, “forma parte de una campaña que manipula las redes sociales para diseminar falsedades y noticias favorables a Trump”. El milagro se ha realizado: los criminales no son los responsables de las enormidades documentadas, sino sus denunciantes.

Le Monde, que publica estos días páginas enteras sobre la ciberpotencia rusa y sus ingerencias en el mundo -como si se tratara de algo específico ruso- ha ido mucho más lejos: ha puesto en marcha un “detector de fake news” (noticias falsas), llamado Décodex, para, “localizar los sitios poco fiables y sus informaciones falsas” en la red. ¿Se aplicará el pintoresco detector, a cargo de periodistas objetivos y sin ideología, a sí mismo? Seguramente no, sin embargo debería hacerlo: Según los datos del barómetro anual sobre medios de comunicación Kantar/La Croix divulgados en febrero, la mitad de los franceses no confían en los medios de comunicación, el 76% de ellos opina que los periodistas no son independientes ni resisten a las presiones del dinero. El 80% de los medios de comunicación franceses, incluido Le Monde, pertenecen a 9 grupos empresariales. ¿Será todo eso fake news? ¿Propaganda de Moscú? Vayamos a lo esencial.

Tres presidentes franceses (Jacques Chirac, Nicolas Sarkozy y François Hollande) y por lo menos 51 políticos de este país han estado sometidos a las escuchas de la agencia nacional de seguridad (NSA) de Estados Unidos. La CIA espió a todos los grandes partidos políticos y candidatos a la presidencia de Francia en la campaña de 2012 a lo largo de siete meses. La principal ciberguerra y el principal intervencionismo político en los asuntos de otros países hasta ahora documentado en Europa corre a cargo de Estados Unidos. La hipótesis Big Brother de Orwell es hoy un hecho americano documentado. Lo de menos es el teléfono intervenido de Merkel o de Hollande. Eso es muy poco al lado de la dimensión global del asunto, las complicidades de las grandes empresas y de los gobiernos europeos y de sus servicios secretos. Todo eso ha sido documentado a lo largo de años por WikiLeaks, Snowden, etc. Aunque es obvio que todo el mundo espía, y Rusia también, la primera potencia es la más avanzada (la red es suya) y en ausencia de un Snowden ruso o chino, es la única cuya labor está documentada al detalle.

Hay que agradecer a los periodistas que, pese a esa evidencia, se consiga que el público esté tan preocupado e indignado por los informes no demostrados sobre las manipulaciones orquestadas por Moscú para influir en las elecciones europeas.

La última revelación de WikiLeaks documenta la posibilidad técnica de convertir en instrumento de vigilancia y control prácticamente cualquier aparato digital. Informa sobre la existencia de un centro secreto de ciberguerra en el consulado de Estados Unidos en Frankfurt que emplea a 200 hackers. Gracias al programa de la CIA “Umbrage” puede no solo evitarse que detecten el origen de la potencia atacante, sino también atribuir cualquier ataque a quien se desee. Es un dato que relativiza, aún más, las no documentadas “revelaciones” sobre los ataques rusos.

Sumamente interesante resulta también la capacidad de la CIA por interferir en los sistemas de control de vehículos, coches o camiones, lo que permite provocar accidentes de tráfico si se quiere eliminar a alguien. “El propósito de tal control no se especifica (en los documentos), dice WikiLeaks, “pero permitiría a la CIA realizar asesinatos indetectables”. Es una información reveladora si uno piensa, por ejemplo, en el caso del periodista Michael Hastings, fallecido en 2013 en un misterioso accidente en Los Angeles.

Conocido por su trabajo que acabó con la dimisión del General Stanley McChrystal como comandante en jefe de las tropas de Estados Unidos en Afganistán, Hastings estaba trabajando sobre la persona del director de la CIA con Obama, John Brennan. Antes de su muerte comentó a sus colegas que tenía “una gran historia (periodística) entre manos”, que estaba siendo vigilado y que necesitaba “desaparecer del radar un rato”. También pidió prestado el coche a un vecino porque temía que el suyo hubiera sido manipulado. Hastings pudo haber sido una de las fuentes del actual informe WikiLeaks. Pocas horas antes de morir mantuvo un contacto con el abogado de esa red, Jennifer Robinson. Su mercedes aceleró anormalmente y se prendió instantes antes de estrellarse contra una palmera e incendiarse por completo en una despejada avenida de la ciudad, el 18 de junio de 2013…

Como en la época de los disidentes soviéticos, que la URSS descalificaba inmediatamente como “agentes del enemigo”, “antisoviéticos” y “traidores” (en Moscú se regresa ahora al mismo tipo de recursos), las denuncias de estos hechos pueden ser desestimadas con argumentos de guerra fría siempre que se olvide que afectan a derechos básicos que están siendo escandalosamente atropellados en violación de la legislación vigente en Estados Unidos y Europa. Y la simple realidad es que a diferencia de estos casos documentados, no hay pruebas de las denunciadas injerencias moscovitas en las elecciones europeas.

Esa fue, precisamente, la conclusión de un informe de las dos principales agencias de inteligencia alemanas, el BND y el BfV, según informó (con muy poco relieve y apenas eco) el Süddeutsche Zeitung en su edición del 7 de febrero. Su conclusión fue tan poco favorable a las tesis deseadas, que la canciller Merkel ha ordenado un nuevo informe que incluya específicamente, “la información de los medios de comunicación rusos sobre Alemania”. La intención es descubrir la sopa de ajo.

El informe de las agencias de inteligencia de Estados Unidos sobre ese mismo tema descubrió que, “la máquina de propaganda del estado ruso contribuyó a influir en la campaña (electoral de Estados Unidos) sirviendo como plataforma de los mensajes del Kremlin al público ruso e internacional”. Que los medios de comunicación de un país -y desde luego, los rusos también- son una plataforma de sus mensajes, es algo que ya sabíamos desde el descubrimiento de la sopa de ajo. Y lo mismo vale para los “criminales” contactos con diplomáticos rusos que le han costado el puesto a alguno de los siniestros personajes de la nueva administración Trump. Que el embajador ruso en Washington, Sergei Kislyak, esté rutinariamente bajo escucha, es algo que en el actual contexto no puede ser noticia. La verdadera primicia son los contactos.

“En calidad de alguien que pasó 35 años de su carrera diplomática trabajando para abrir la URSS y hacer de la comunicación de nuestros diplomáticos y ciudadanos con ella una práctica normal, encuentro bastante incomprensible la actitud de gran parte de nuestro establishment político y de algunos respetados medios de comunicación”, explicaba recientemente el ex embajador de Estados Unidos en la URSS de Gorbachov, Jack Matlock.

“¿Qué demonios hay de malo en consultar a una embajada extranjera sobre las vías para mejorar las relaciones? Cualquiera que aspire a aconsejar a un presidente americano debe hacer precisamente eso”, decía Matlock. “Cualquiera que esté interesado en mejorar las relaciones con Rusia y en impedir otra carrera de armas nucleares, lo que es un interés vital de Estados Unidos, debe discutir esos asuntos con el embajador Kislyak y sus ayudantes, considerar eso “tóxico” es ridículo y no veo en ello nada malo siempre que estuviera autorizado por el presidente electo. El escándalo que han hecho de los contactos tiene todo el aspecto de una caza de brujas, las filtraciones (de los contactos con Kislyak) implican que cualquier conversación con un funcionario de la embajada rusa es sospechosa, esa es la actitud de un estado policial y filtrar esos alegatos vulnera cualquier norma legal de una investigación del FBI”.

Efectivamente, hay cosas que sería imposible que parecieran sospechosas y denunciables sin el inestimable trabajo de los periodistas objetivos y sin ideología. De ahí su creciente descrédito en nuestra corrupta selva de propagandas.

Rafael Poch

Rafael Poch: Corresponsal en París de La Vanguardia.

IMAGEN: Lázaro Cárdenas, presidente mexicano que nacionalizó la industria petrolera en 1938.

Puesto que, al tenor del artículo 27 de la Constitución, el petróleo era propiedad de la nación, lo que propiamente hizo en 1938 Lázaro Cárdenas, fue expropiar los bienes físicos de las empresas que explotaban los yacimientos en México y transportaban y comercializaban el producto.

El potencial valor del mercado en la perspectiva de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, sin embargo, provocó la resistencia de las compañías afectadas, algunas de las cuales tramaron el boicot internacional de suministros de refacciones e insumos a México, necesarios para la gestión de la industria.

Entre las más agresivas de esas compañías extranjeras, estuvo Royal Dutch Shell que, sin el apoyo formal de su gobierno, se embarcó en esa operación de desestabilización del gobierno cardenista.

El secretario de Energía, Pedro Joaquín Coldwell, no es rencoroso: Sabe perdonar los agravios contra la nación. Lo veremos el próximo 18 de marzo, ahora de ritual descafeinado.

Ya se han festinado hasta la saciedad la Reforma Energética y el maná que derramará sobre México en décadas por venir. Lo que ahora se festeja es El retorno de los brujos.

Volvieron las hijas méndigas

Se saluda con fanfarrias la amnistía a aquellas compañías que litigaron ferozmente contra la expropiación, y financiaron La rebelión cedillista para derrocar Cárdenas.

Entre las hijas pródigas que regresan en busca del oscuro objeto del deseo, está la Royal Dutch Shell. La acompañan la ExxonMobil y  Chevron Corporation. Sus banderas y logos ya flamean en el cielo mexicano.

Pero como entremés del 18 de marzo, el gobierno mexicano apapacha especialmente a la British Petroleum (PB).

Entre las cartas de presentación que trae a México PB, una habla de su obra en 2006, en la Bahía de Prudhue, Alaska, donde  tuvo un ensayo de desastre ecológico.

Lo mejor vino después, en 2010: La negligencia del personal de PB generó una fuga en sus instalaciones en la costa tejana del Golfo de México. El resultado fue la explosión de la plataforma Deepwate.

En un  primer corte, los daños provocados al entorno por el derrame-explosión, tuvo un costo de dos mil 700 millones de euros. Ya en las cuentas por concepto de indemnizaciones inmediatas y futuras se contabilizaron unos 20 mil millones de dólares.

Las pérdidas por el valor de las acciones de PB en el mercado bursátil, se etiquetaron en otro casillero.

Son los datos más recientes de la biografía de PB, que en México escribe una nueva página.

¿Cuándo se subasta la torre?

La división Comercialización de Lubricantes y Combustibles de PB colocó sus primeros logos en estaciones de servicio que, según su plan, en cinco años abarcarán una red de mil 500 estaciones.

Otra firma con registro nacional anuncia el control de otras 500 gasolinerías. Y por ahí va el asunto, ahora que los gasolinazos están en pleno apogeo.

Petróleos Mexicanos ha sido tácitamente  obligada a cerrar esa rama de sus operaciones. Los postores están en espera del remate de la antes airosa torre en Marina Nacional.

En reciente conferencia de prensa de trabajadores jubilados y disidentes en activo, se denunció que sólo con lo que robaron a Pemex funcionarios y líderes charros del sindicato, se podrían haber instalado en México 100 refinerías.

¿Para qué se quieren refinerías en México, si los derivados vienen, a precio de dólar, de los Estados Unidos?

El 18 de marzo cae en sábado. Por semana inglesa y por Cuaresma, es día de guardar. Olvidémonos que el petróleo “es de todos los mexicanos”. No es hora de los mitos geniales.

Mouris Salloum George

Mouris Salloum George: Director del Club de Periodistas de México A.C.

Arnie Gundersen, former nuclear engineer, Mar 11, 2017: “The scientific impact of the triple meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi is an ongoing disaster that was never envisioned by the engineers who created and designed these atomic reactors and countries who built them… no country in the world with nuclear power reactors was prepared for the explosive radioactive contamination of Fukushima Daiichi.”

Over and over, people ask me about what happened inside the plants and what is still happening inside with robots fried by radiation, corium that can’t be found, and massive amounts of radioactivity migrating to sensitive estuaries, aquifers, contaminating all the ground water, and polluting the Pacific Ocean…

No one has discovered where the nuclear cores have disappeared to.  The $400,000,000 “ice wall” continues to leak…

Moreover, the cover-up continues, with the health effects from radiation being camouflaged as stress related illnesses…

I decided to share the photographs I took last year in Japan… these photos cannot adequately convey the scientific and human impact of the worst industrial cataclysm in the history of the world… [R]adioactive isotopes will be extreme hazards for 250,000 years, of course no one knows when it will end.

BBC Newsday interview with nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen, Feb 28, 2017:

“As they get in [the containment vessel at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2], they’re finding that combination of hot steam — these are not just radioactive chemicals, but it’s a toxic mix of chemicals that are going to react with the steel. So there’s rust and hunks of nuclear fuel lying around, and steam, and it’s raining all the time because of the condensation. I think it’s about as close to hell as I could imagine.”

Arjun Makhijani, nuclear engineer, Feb 17, 2017:

Yes, so the bottom of the reactor under the reactor there is a grating and then under the grating there’s the concrete floor, and what this robot discovered… the grating was deformed and broken. So, now it appears that some of the molten fuel may have gone through the grating… [H]igh radiation turns into heat, so the whole environment around the molten fuel is thermally very hot, and so whether it is going through the concrete, whether it is under the concrete, I don’t know that we have a good grip on that issue… Fukushima is possibly the longest running, continuous industrial disaster in history. It has not stopped because the risks are still there.

Interview with Gundersen here | Interview with Makhijani here

The government is already spying on us through our computers, phones, cars, buses, streetlights, at airports and on the street, via mobile scanners and drones, through our credit cards and smart meters (see this), television, doll, and in many other ways.

The CIA wants to spy on you through your dishwasher and other “smart” appliances. Slate reported in 2012:

Watch out: the CIA may soon be spying on you—through your beloved, intelligent household appliances, according to Wired.

In early March, at a meeting for the CIA’s venture capital firm In-Q-Tel, CIA Director David Petraeus reportedly noted that “smart appliances” connected to the Internet could someday be used by the CIA to track individuals. If your grocery-list-generating refrigerator knows when you’re home, the CIA could, too, by using geo-location data from your wired appliances, according to SmartPlanet.

“The current ‘Internet of PCs’ will move, of course, toward an ‘Internet of Things’—of devices of all types—50 to 100 billion of which will be connected to the Internet by 2020,” Petraeus said in his speech. He continued:

Last year, U.S. Intelligence Boss James Clapper said that the government will spy on Americans through the internet of things (“IoT”):

In the future, intelligence services might use the [IoT] for identification, surveillance, monitoring, location tracking, and targeting for recruitment, or to gain access to networks or user credentials.

Yves Smith commented at the time:

Oh, come on. The whole point of the IoT is spying. The officialdom is just trying to persuade you that it really is a big consumer benefit to be able to tell your oven to start heating up before you get home.

The Guardian notes:

As a category, the internet of things is useful to eavesdroppers both official and unofficial for a variety of reasons, the main one being the leakiness of the data.

***

There are a wide variety of devices that can be used to listen in, and some compound devices (like cars) that have enough hardware to form a very effective surveillance suite all by themselves.

***

There’s no getting around the fundamental creepiness of the little pinhole cameras in new smart TVs (and Xbox Kinects, and laptops, and cellphones), but the less-remarked-on aspect – the audio – may actually be more pertinent to anyone with a warrant trying to listen in. Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society observed that Samsung’s voice recognition software in its smart TVs had to routinely send various commands “home” to a server where they were processed for relevant information; their microphones are also always on, in case you’re trying to talk to them. Televisions are also much easier to turn on than they used to be: a feature creeping into higher-end TVs called “wake on LAN” allows users to power on televisions over the internet (this is already standard on many desktop PCs).

***

A cyberattack on toymaker VTech exposed the personal data of 6.4m children last year; it was a sobering reminder of the vulnerability of kids on the web. But technology waits for no man. Mattel’s Hello Barbie doll works the same way the Nest and Samsung voice operators do, by passing kids’ interactions into the cloud and returning verbal responses through a speaker in the doll. HereO manufactures a watch for kids with a GPS chip in it; Fisher-Price makes a WiFi-enabled stuffed animal. Security researchers at Rapid7 looked at both and found that they were easy to compromise on company databases, and in the case of the watch, use to locate the wearer.

In a separate article, the Guardian pointed out:

Just a few weeks ago, a security researcher found that Google’s Nest thermostats were leaking users’ zip codes over the internet. There’s even an entire search engine for the internet of things called Shodan that allows users to easily search for unsecured webcams that are broadcasting from inside people’s houses without their knowledge.

While people voluntarily use all these devices, the chances are close to zero that they fully understand that a lot of their data is being sent back to various companies to be stored on servers that can either be accessed by governments or hackers.

***

Author and persistent Silicon Valley critic Evgeny Morozov summed up the entire problem with the internet of things and “smart” technology in a tweet last week:

In case you are wondering what “smart” – as in “smart city” or “smart home” – means:

Surveillance
Marketed
As
Revolutionary
Technology

In case you are wondering what “smart” – as in “smart city” or “smart home” – means:

Surveillance
Marketed
As
Revolutionary
Technology

— Evgeny Morozov (@evgenymorozov) February 1, 2016

And in the wake of the CIA leaks showing that the agency can remotely turn on our tvs and spy on us using a “fake off” mode so that it looks like the power is off, Tech Dirt wrote in an article called CIA Leaks Unsurprisingly Show The Internet Of Broken Things Is A Spy’s Best Friend:

The security and privacy standards surrounding the internet of (broken) things sit somewhere between high comedy and dogshit.

As security expert Bruce Schneier points out, the entire concept of the IoT is wildly insecure and vulnerable to hacking.

The highest-level NSA whistleblower in history (William Binney) – the NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information, 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, and managed thousands of NSA employees – reviewed an earlier version of this post, and told Washington’s Blog:

Yep, that summarizes it fairly well. It does not deal with industry or how they will use the data; but, that will probably be an extension of what they do now. This whole idea of monitoring electronic devices is objectionable.

If forced to buy that stuff, I will do my best to disconnect these monitoring devices also look for equipment on the market that is not connected in any way.

Republic of South Africa President Jacob Zuma has leveled sharp attacks on the financial industry inside the country accusing banks of treating the population unfairly.

During the course of his response to a debate surrounding the State of the Nation Address (February 8) to parliament in Cape Town on February 16, Zuma stressed his:

“Government is ready to act against market abuse, price fixing and collusion in the private sector in order to protect our country’s economy. This matter is still under investigation. The Competition Commission can impose fines on companies but the impact is far reaching as it distorts our economic system.”

These comments come amid a series of revelations related to currency fixing and the closing of accounts by those who have close ties with the African National Congress (ANC) dominated national government in Pretoria and Cape Town.

In addition, to these remarks related to the currency fixing scandal, Zuma pointed out in the actual SONA speech that the national economy inherited from the racist apartheid system in 1994, remains unequal favoring the owners of capital. This concentration of wealth among the European settler-class is also reflected in the bureaucratic composition of corporate and state structures.

“In terms of the 2015/16 information submitted to the Employment Equity Commission, the representation of whites at top management level amounted to 72 percent whilst African representation was at 10 percent,” Zuma said on February 8. He continued emphasizing that” “The representation of Coloreds stood at 4.5 percent and Indians 8.7 percent. The report further provides that white South Africans, in particular males, are afforded higher levels of recruitment, promotion and training opportunities as compared, to the designated groups. At the level of gender at senior management level, males remain dominant at 67.6 percent and females at 32.4 percent.”

The country, which is considered the most advanced and industrialized on the continent, is currently undergoing a recession characterized by negligible and negative economic growth, rising joblessness, increasing poverty and declining currency values. These difficulties are mirrored across Africa in light of the decline in commodity prices over the last two years resulting in the scramble for foreign exchange and direct capital investment from financial institutions outside of the continent.

Currency Rate Manipulation Exposed

In South Africa, it was revealed by an anti-trust agency that during the period where residents were negatively impacted by the uncertainty in the economy fueled in part by the fluctuating value of the rand, banks were profiting from these problems. These multi-national firms represent some of the largest of such entities in South Africa and the world.

The South African Competition Commission cited the following companies in relationship to the currency fixing matter: Citigroup, Nomura, Standard Bank, Investec, JP Morgan, BNP Paribas, Credit Suisse Group, Commerzbank AG, Standard New York Securities Inc., Macquarie Bank, Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BAML), ANZ Banking Group Ltd, Standard Chartered Plc and Barclays Africa (Absa), part of the Barclays Plc. Investec and Barclays agreed to participate in the probe. Nonetheless, Standard Bank, BAML, Nomura, Credit Suisse, ANZ and Standard Chartered have not gone on record as to whether they will cooperate in the inquiry.

The Commission has referred the case to a Tribunal for prosecution alleging they violated the Competition Act suggesting that 10 percent of the firms’ annual turnover be paid in compensation to the government. Currency fixing practices are said to extend back to at least 2007 involving the manipulation of values of exchange between the U.S. dollar and the rand, coinciding with the beginning of the world financial crisis.

The Commission findings indicate that the banks manipulated bid prices as well as offers utilizing informal agreements to not engage in trading and therefore generating fictitious offers. These actions were enacted through platforms such as Reuters currency trading to provide the veneer of legality.

Other methods of collusion took place in the Bloomberg instant messaging system (chatroom) and telephone discussions, where meetings were conducted to plan fraudulent activity. The banks cooperated with each other to agree on what they perceived to be the desired prices by coordinated trading. The end result was to create fictitious bids and offers and consequently manufacture demand and supply in order to maximize profits.

Most of these banks are based in the leading capitalist countries such as the United States, Britain, Europe Union member-states, Japan and Australia. Their historic role in regard to the struggle of the South African workers and farmers has been in contravention to the interests of the masses of people.

The ruling ANC, who President Zuma still leads, issued a statement in response to the reports surrounding the financial entities, saying the party:

“takes an extremely dim view of the activities of the listed banks. These acts of corruption have crudely exposed the ethical crisis in the South African banking sector. It is further an indication of how the markets are and can be manipulated by dominant oligopolies to cripple its functioning to suit their nefarious agendas.”

Quartz reporting on this says:

“As South Africans worriedly watched the rand rise and dip against the dollar, more than a dozen banks illegally profited from the volatility, according to local antitrust agency, Competition Commission. It says it found evidence 17 banks were colluding on the rand to dollar exchange rate. The commission’s two-year investigation found that the banks were involved in price fixing and market allocation regarding the South African rand and the US dollar since April 2015.” (Feb. 17)

Another response to the Competition Commission findings came from the Young Communist League of South Africa (YCLSA) which questioned the capacity of the political system to adequately tackle the implications of these crimes. YCLSA noted that it was necessary for the economic system to be transformed to a socialist-orientation so that these firms can be brought under the control of the state.

Molaodi WaSekake, national spokesperson for the YCLSA, said:

“While the Commission has done sterling work, without the political will of the political leadership to tamper with the capitalist mode of production that privileges a few we will only scratch the surface of the rot while we need to unearth and deal with it once and for all. This becomes worse when political leaders who are supposed to service the people are share-holders of such monopoly capital industries, including commercial banks, thereby creating a dependent comprador bourgeoisie which is the direct enemy of national development and people’s empowerment.” (Press statement from Feb. 16)

Sekake suggests as a possible economic radical reform that:

“What could be one of the far-reaching solutions to the crisis at hand is the creation of a state bank that will be the custodian of the national accounts [and monies]. Commensurate policies [should] be put in place to govern the movement of money in and out of the country. In other words, the capacity to control capital flows through progressive foreign exchange rate policy approaches.”

The Role of Wall Street, Washington and London

Since the advent of the Great Recession of 2007-2008, international financial institutions have been exposed as the culprits largely responsible for the economic downturn. In the U.S., predatory lending activity in the areas of housing, insurance and municipal finance resulted in the foreclosures of millions of homes and a precipitous decline in metropolitan and rural areas across the country.

The world system was on the verge of collapse in the final quarter of 2008, requiring a massive bailout of the banks, insurance companies and automotive firms. Trillions of dollars and euros have been advanced to these institutions from government coffers in the western industrialized states as well as central banks throughout Europe and North America.

At the same time, those responsible for these violations have not been pursued aggressively through the leveling of monetary sanctions, the curtailing of bank behavior, the prosecution of high-ranking executives within these firms and the payment of reparations to the victims of such practices.  In the U.S. only a small number of lower-level functionaries have been indicted, tried and imprisoned. These firms have been allowed to absorb failed companies absent of any basic restructuring of their operations.

A Financial Times article on July 27, 2012 revealed that the London Inter-bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) had been manipulated since 1991. These activities by leading financial firms impacted the global system through regulating the underpinnings of $350 trillion in derivatives.

UBS trader Thomas Alexander William Hayes has been the sole individual prosecuted and convicted in connection with the Libor matter. In Britain, six bankers accused over Libor rate fixing were cleared of charges in early 2016.

These developments in South Africa and internationally illustrates that the economic system of capitalism is controlled by an ever shrinking group of financial interests who operate as a matter of policy in contravention to the majority of people not only within the western industrialized states notwithstanding throughout the world. As the African Union member-states face escalating economic difficulties a re-emergent debt crisis in looming.

This burgeoning phenomenon of declining currency values and lack of credit availability portends much for the ability to strengthen both state and non-state structures in Africa. Escalating rates of poverty and lack of national and regional economic capacity will inevitably foster even greater dependency on the West and its transnational institutions.

The agrichemicals industry wallows like an overblown hog in a cesspool of corruption. With its snout firmly embedded in the trough of corporate profit to the detriment of all else, it is most likely responsible for more death and disease than the combined efforts of the tobacco companies ever were. It indulges in criminality that hides behind corporate public relations, media misrepresentations and the subversion of respectable-sounding agencies which masquerade as public institutions.

Of course, as any genuinely informed person would know that, as numerous high-level reports have suggested, organic farming and agroecology could form the mainstay of agriculture if they were accorded sufficient attention and investment. Unfortunately, big agribusiness players, armed with their chemicals or GMOs seek to marginalise effective solutions which threaten their markets and interests.

Armed with a compulsion to dominate and to regard themselves as conqueror and owner of nature, they require more of the same: allegiance to neoliberal fundamentalism and an unsustainable model of farming that is so damaging to soil that we could have at most just 60 years of farming left if we don’t abandon it.

Since the end of the Second World War, we have had to endure our fields and food being poisoned in the manner Rachel Carson highlighted decades ago. These companies sell health-and environment-damaging products,  co-opt scientists, control public institutions and ensure farmers are kept on a chemical treadmill. From CEOs and scientists to public officials and media/PR spin doctors, specific individuals can be identified and at some stage should be hauled into court for what amounts to ‘crimes against humanity’.

In his 2014 book, ‘Poison Spring: The Secret History of Pollution and the US EPA’, E G Vallianatos, who worked for the EPA for 25 years, says:

“It is simply not possible to understand why the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] behaves the way it does without appreciating the enormous power of American’s industrial farmers and their allies in the chemical pesticide industries, which currently do about $40 billion per in year business. For decades, industry lobbyists have preached the gospel of unregulated capitalism and Americans have bought it. Today, it seems the entire government is at the service of the private interests of America’s corporate class.”

New UN Report

As recently reported in The Guardian, a new report delivered to the UN Human Rights Council says pesticides have catastrophic impacts on the environment, human health and society as a whole, including an estimated 200,000 deaths a year from acute poisoning. The report’s authors say:

“It is time to create a global process to transition toward safer and healthier food and agricultural production.”

Authored by Hilal Elver, special rapporteur on the right to food, and Baskut Tuncak, special rapporteur on toxics, the report states,

“Chronic exposure to pesticides has been linked to cancer, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, hormone disruption, developmental disorders and sterility.”

Although the pesticide industry argues that its products are vital for protecting crops and ensuring sufficient food supplies, Elver says “It is a myth.”

Elver adds that using more pesticides is nothing to do with getting rid of hunger. She argues that, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), we are able to feed nine billion people today. Production is definitely increasing, but she says that the problem is poverty, inequality and distribution.

Moreover, Elver says many of the pesticides are used on commodity crops, such as palm oil and soy, not the food needed by the world’s hungry people. She argues that the corporations are not dealing with world hunger, they are dealing with more agricultural activity on large scales.

The new report says:

“While scientific research confirms the adverse effects of pesticides, proving a definitive link between exposure and human diseases or conditions or harm to the ecosystem presents a considerable challenge. This challenge has been exacerbated by a systematic denial, fuelled by the pesticide and agro-industry, of the magnitude of the damage inflicted by these chemicals, and aggressive, unethical marketing tactics.”

Elver says:

“The power of the corporations over governments and over the scientific community is extremely important. If you want to deal with pesticides, you have to deal with the companies.”

The report recommends a move towards a global treaty to govern the use of pesticides and a shift to sustainable practice based on natural methods of suppressing pests and crop rotation and organically produced food.

Dr Rosemary Mason’s new open letter

The report comes at a timely point. Campaigner Dr Rosemary Mason has just written an  ‘Open Letter to the Global Pesticide Regulatory Authorities and the UK and US Media‘. To make her case, Dr Mason draws on that report as well as new findings and revelations that have emerged thus far in 2017.

Over the past few years, in her numerous documents, Mason has described the devastating effects of agrochemicals and has singled out certain individuals who should be standing in the dock to answer for their roles they have played in poisoning the environment and damaging public health. She has supplied strong evidence to highlight how agrochemicals are killing us and how public institutions and governments collude with the industry to frame legislation and polices

Early in her letter, Mason reminds her intended readership that The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague is extending its remit to include ecocide. The ICC announced in September 2016 that it would prioritise crimes that result in the “destruction of the environment”, “exploitation of natural resources” and the “illegal dispossession” of land. Environmental destruction and land-grabs could possibly lead to governments and individuals being prosecuted for crimes against humanity by the international criminal court.

Over the years, Mason has written a great deal on glyphosate (active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup) and has described the massive environmental and health problems associated with its use. Conflicts of interest within public agencies and scientific fraud, which Mason has described many times before, have resulted in glyphosate entering and remaining on the market. A day or two after Mason wrote her letter, The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) announced its decision in favour of re-licensing glyphosate, which may not come as much of a surprise to many given the conflicts of interest that may have swayed the decision in favour of industry interests.

Aside from the cocktail of various other biocides that end up in our bodies and in the environment, Mason has documented at length the destructive consequences of glyphosate in Wales, where she resides, as well as elsewhere, from the US, and the EU to Argentina. It is killing us as well as birds, insects and plants, thus destrying the ecosystem. She has also produced a great deal of evidence to indicate how glyphosate has ruined her nature reserve. Yet, despite her ongoing extensively researched and referenced open letters to key officials and agencies, she notes that corporate profit comes before human health and the environment and it is a case of ‘business as usual.’

In her letter, Mason quotes Katherine Paul from the Organic Consumers Association, who in the piece ‘Monsanto isn’t feeding the world, it is killing our children’ says:

“… the already large and convincing body of evidence, accumulated over more than half a century, that agricultural pesticides and other toxic chemicals are poisoning us. Both reports issue scathing indictments of US and global regulatory systems that collude with chemical companies to hide the truth from the public, while they fill their coffers with ill-gotten profits.”

Paul is referring to a new WHO report (and companion report) which argues exposure to pollution kills millions of children.

Events catching up with Monsanto

As far as Monsanto is concerned, events seem to be catching up with the company. According to Mason, Monsanto is trying to conceal evidence of close relationships with the US EPA and glyphosate causing cancer. She describes how Monsanto filed a lawsuit in January 2016 against California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment in an attempt to block the agency’s stated intent to list glyphosate as a possible human carcinogen. Monsanto wrote:

“… Monsanto would be required to provide a warning on the labels to consumers that the chemical is a recognized carcinogen. Monsanto says this is a violation of their First Amendment rights and, according to the complaint, “would cause irreparable damage to Monsanto and the public and negatively affect the reputation of Monsanto for making safe and reliable herbicides would be potentially a loss of sales and force the company to spend large sums of money to re-label their products.”

Reputation and corporate profit trump all else.

Mason writes about US Right To Know (US RTK) suing US EPA for documents on glyphosate. She quotes journalist Carey Gillam:

“The litigation against Monsanto has been filed by people from around the United States who allege that exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of cancer that originates in the lymphatic system and has been on the rise in recent decades…  The transcript of a recent court hearing reveals that Judge Vince Chhabria, the federal judge who is overseeing a combination of more than 55 lawsuits filed against Monsanto in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, warned Monsanto that many documents it is turning over in discovery will not be kept sealed despite the company’s pleas for privacy. He threatened to impose sanctions if Monsanto persists in “overbroad” efforts to keep relevant documents out of public view.”

In 2015, Monsanto Vice President Robb T Fraley asked on Twitter why people doubted science. Perhaps he should read Carol Van Strum. Mason refers to Van Strum who wrote a piece in 2015 about the US EPA’s failure to regulate biocides. Van Strum states:

“Within the first decade of the EPA’s existence, it became obvious that nearly all the “safety” tests supporting pesticide registrations were faked, with either fraudulent or nonexistent data. The massive lab fraud uncovered at Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories (IBT) revealed that 99 percent of long-term studies (for cancer, birth defects, mutagenicity, reproductive damage etc.) supporting some 483 pesticide registrations were invalid. For 25 years, in what US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials called “the most massive scientific fraud ever committed in the United States, and perhaps the world,” all major chemical and pharmaceutical companies had paid IBT to produce the test data they needed to register their products. All but forgotten now, the IBT fraud shook the chemical and pharmaceutical industries and regulatory agencies around the world. In 1983, a six-month-long criminal trial resulted in the convictions of three IBT officials. The trial revealed a vast, lucrative business of deceptive safety testing.”

Van Strum goes on to note that almost all of the products tested by IBT, including 2,4-D, glyphosate, atrazine and many of the 66 products banned on California red-legged frog habitat, are still on the market today. IBT, it turned out, was but the tip of a huge iceberg. Subsequent audits of 82 other testing laboratories found that more than half – 47 labs – had serious “deficiencies,” including some 22 labs that had destroyed all lab reports and raw data, making audits impossible and conclusions unsupported.

Maybe Fraley should also start sifting through Mason’s numerous documents pertaining to scientific fraud and the capturing and subverting of public bodies by Monsanto and others that belong to his sector.

Monsanto and the corporate media in the dock

The verdict of the International Monsanto Tribunal will be announced on 18 April, 2017. Mason states that the goal of the Monsanto Tribunal is to evaluate whether Monsanto’s activities are complying with international law. Through the case of Monsanto, the Tribunal considers an example of a multinational corporation whose behaviour ignores the damages its decisions cause to health, environment and scientific independence. The aim of the Tribunal is to give a legal opinion on the environmental and health damage caused Monsanto. This process will use existing international law but also contribute to the international debate to include the crime of ecocide into international criminal law. It will also give people all over the world a well-documented legal file to be used in lawsuits against Monsanto and similar chemical companies.

Mason’s letter is 42-pages long and covers a good deal of ground that she has previously highlighted. However, by writing an open letter whose intended readership includes the US and UK media, she wants the corporate media to stop colluding with the agrochemicals sector and to cease from conveying a misleading narrative about illness and disease. That narrative places the onus on individual responsibility for spiraling rates of illness and disease. Mason wants the media to report honestly about the role of the agrochemicals sector and its intimate relationship with governments, official bodies and health agencies.

Monday’s discussion on Australia’s Q&A program, an open forum supposedly designed to bring voices to an open stage of feted experts and pundits, turned on a few confusing points on free speech. The discussion demonstrated a sharp divorce from those engaged in the artistic sphere, and those engaged politically.

This artificial distinction, and consequential segregation in Australia, is a typical one, a separation borne from a poor understanding about the history of free speech. For one, it assumes a neat incision between the political and the artistic, ignoring the obvious point about the role of art as political, not to mention politically motivated.

Much of this came through in the link between satire, cartoon depictions and politics advanced by the late Bill Leak.  A discussion about a person’s legacy over decades of work became focused on one cartoon in particular, featuring a negligent, not to mention absent minded aboriginal father, beer in hand, gazing at his child whose name he could not remember. All on the panel roundly condemned it as “inappropriate” and “racist”, a sad feature of his “later” work.

The limited conversation gave Canadian singer and panelist Martha Wainwright a moment of smugness, suggesting that Canada had, miraculously, solved its own First Nations’ dilemmas and instituted a regime that would not have allowed Leak “to have gotten away with it.” A member in the audience had to be ejected after cries of “Bill Leak was a racist!” made their way to the panel.

What did stand out was the panel’s anemic view about free speech.  Children’s story teller Mem Fox, for instance, had a markedly insipid perspective by assuming that bandying out speech had something to do with being polite, a skin-crawlingly limited notion of boredom at an unchallenged table. Having been detained at a US airport on entering the country for having misunderstood which visa covered her circumstances of entry into the country, decency was her weapon.

“We are fighting for the right to be insulting and offensive.  This is most odd.”  Considering the anti-clerical doctrines and secular stances that characterised the European Enlightenment had every bit to do with penetrative insult as it did with political debate, Fox’s view is the odd one out, a true humdinger.

Suggesting that political and artistic debate is somehow a cosy gathering of courtesy and idle gossip at the vicarage tea party, Fox was incredulous. (Having been ignorant of US visa regulations, she showed even more ignorance about the history of free speech.)  “Why would people want to be insulting and offensive?  What is good in that?  What good did hate ever do anybody?  What country did hate make an improvement in?”

Hate, targeted, informed, and pure, overthrew murderous, starving tyrannies, saw the beheading of corrupt, parasitic monarchs, and the drafting of revelatory constitutions, of which the US model remains, arguably, unmatched.  This species of fury and focused indignation was, it could be easily said, hate with a sharp, discernible cause – that against the Hanoverians in one sense; that of the French revolution against feudalism and its monarchical backers.  The list how such ideas win out is endless.

The safety valve many Australian public figures keep using to combat uncomfortable ideas is a smothering paternalism.  Paternalism protects the insecure, a soft feathered crutch of comfort against the itch of knowledge.  Australians, Edenic, afraid, even terrified in their isolation, love father despite occasional feminist reflexes, and wish he would never go away, for fear of thinking beyond areas of comfort.

“I think if you have a platform as he did,” claimed Indigenous actress and singer Ursula Yovich on Leak, “you do have to have some kind of responsibility with what you put out there. I’m all for free speech.”

Except the sort of speech that is obviously discomforting, needling and even hurtful.  Her background, for instance, rich, with a Serbian father, has less traction than her other half.  Politically appropriate thinking requires certain ideas that exclude others: I am indigenous, and therefore, untouchable in debate.

What Monday’s conversation tended to ignore were other concerns that have tended to hollow out, if not entirely sabotage, the notion of free speech in the Australian context.  The issue of what might amount to discussing a “special intelligence operation” and its existence, comes to mind. The chilling effect of the so-called super-injunction, a legal device that prevents discussion, not merely of the legal case it concerns but the very fact of its existence, is another.

As Katherine Gelber has previously explained, “While the 18C debate [on racial discrimination] has raged, important new restrictions on freedom of speech have been introduced in Australia.  These have flown much under the radar.”

Like wounded babes in the wounds, these creatures in swaddling clothes went back into the Adelaide evening happy that they had articulated views less than mature, and generally incomplete. Instead of showing artists as brave and formidable, they suggested a view of them as meek and ill-informed. It was not one of the better advertisements for art, and even suggested that dull, machine-directed politicians might be the better creatures for this sort of program.

As usual, matters were left to David Marr, long a scribe of reflection and poise, to suggest the problems with the Australian approach to free speech.  Regarding Leak, he was “free to draw and the Australian free to publish – cartoons attacking black people and Muslims.  But surely it is not news to a newspaper that citizens have free speech too.” All in a muddle, down under.

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

The Indonesian government must address the human rights violations in Long Isun, Indonesia – a global gathering has declared.

Delegates from Africa, Asia and Latin America heard first-hand testimonies of the growing harm facing forest communities around the world. From Indonesia, many cases demonstrated that Government plans and policies favoured the interests of large companies to the detriment of unprotected communities.

They have called on the Government to protect the rights of the communities.

Among the stories shared was the situation facing indigenous people from Long Isun, in Long Pahangai, Mahakam Ulu – in East Kalimantan on the island of Borneo. There, customary land has been seized by the timber company PT. Kemakmuran Berkah Timber (KBT) without prior consultation or consent from the community that lives and survives off the land.

In a recent report (p14 & 22) by international NGO Rainforest Alliance, KBT was said to have failed to protect rare, threatened and endangered species, provided no off-site locations for the disposals of its chemical and damaged soils and water resources. The company was also found to be using Delamethrin in its operations in the Upper Mahakam, a chemical which is extremely toxic to fish even in low concentration.

Speaking to the delegates, Pak Hanyang, from the Dayak Bahau community living in Long Isun, said: “Behind the beauty of the forest lies great sadness, if there is no forest left how will can we expect our children and grandchildren to live? The Dayak Bahau need the forest to survive, we are nothing without the forest.”

The impacts of KBT’s activities have devastated the community. Hufat Biseh, a hunter, said: “The river Meraseh is now dirty. We cannot fish there anymore. Wild boar and deer populations have moved deeper and deeper into the forest fearing the noise caused by KBT’s activities, so it is harder and harder for us to hunt.”

He added that the fish populations had almost disappeared in parts of the river close to the company’s operations.

The community explained that they were worried not only about the pollution of water sources and the physical destruction of their hunting grounds, but the impact it had had on their society, with some members lured by the promise of ‘fees’ and the first pick of newly-harvested hardwoods (ulin).

“Before the company came Naha Aruq and Long Isun were one. Now we cannot speak to some of brothers and sisters in Naha Aruq because they are in bed with the company,” said Inui Yaq.“It has split our community, it has split our family.”

Naha Aruq’s close ties to the new regency government – the Wakil Bupati/Vice District Head originates from the village and its several business interests in the area means the community is more open to the company’s favours.

On hearing the situation, the delegation issued the Pekanbaru Declaration. This expresses concern about KBT’s negative impacts on indigenous rights and raises the alarm at the continued activities despite community resistance, and also calls on the Government of Indonesia to take concrete action to:

• Revoke the executive order (The SK Bupati Kutai Barat Decree No.136.143/K.917/2011 dated 4th November 2011) which has led to border disputes with neighbouring Naha Aruq and allowed the PT KBT to enter Long Isun ancestral land without their consent.
• Remove the customary land of the village of Long Isun from all company concessions.
• Restore Long Isun’s customary boundaries in accordance to the 1966 map agreed between the indigenous communities of the Upper Mahakam.

Indigenous peoples of Long Isun have managed their own lands and forests for generations; it is their birth right to be able to live peacefully on their ancestral land. The 24 Indonesian-based NGOs hope the declaration will spur the Indonesian Government, East Kalimantan and the District of Mahakam Hulu officials, and the national human rights commission to take urgent action to address the gross violations and atrocities that are being committed by KBT.

The Rights of Forest Peoples meeting was held from 6-10 February in Pakanbaru, Indonesia.

KBT is a subsidiary of the Roda Mas Group.

For more information contact: 

Dico Luckyharto – [email protected]
Skype: dico.fpp

The Indonesian government must address the human rights violations in Long Isun, Indonesia – a global gathering has declared.

Delegates from Africa, Asia and Latin America heard first-hand testimonies of the growing harm facing forest communities around the world. From Indonesia, many cases demonstrated that Government plans and policies favoured the interests of large companies to the detriment of unprotected communities.

They have called on the Government to protect the rights of the communities.

Among the stories shared was the situation facing indigenous people from Long Isun, in Long Pahangai, Mahakam Ulu – in East Kalimantan on the island of Borneo. There, customary land has been seized by the timber company PT. Kemakmuran Berkah Timber (KBT) without prior consultation or consent from the community that lives and survives off the land.

In a recent report (p14 & 22) by international NGO Rainforest Alliance, KBT was said to have failed to protect rare, threatened and endangered species, provided no off-site locations for the disposals of its chemical and damaged soils and water resources. The company was also found to be using Delamethrin in its operations in the Upper Mahakam, a chemical which is extremely toxic to fish even in low concentration.

Speaking to the delegates, Pak Hanyang, from the Dayak Bahau community living in Long Isun, said: “Behind the beauty of the forest lies great sadness, if there is no forest left how will can we expect our children and grandchildren to live? The Dayak Bahau need the forest to survive, we are nothing without the forest.”

The impacts of KBT’s activities have devastated the community. Hufat Biseh, a hunter, said: “The river Meraseh is now dirty. We cannot fish there anymore. Wild boar and deer populations have moved deeper and deeper into the forest fearing the noise caused by KBT’s activities, so it is harder and harder for us to hunt.”

He added that the fish populations had almost disappeared in parts of the river close to the company’s operations.

The community explained that they were worried not only about the pollution of water sources and the physical destruction of their hunting grounds, but the impact it had had on their society, with some members lured by the promise of ‘fees’ and the first pick of newly-harvested hardwoods (ulin).

“Before the company came Naha Aruq and Long Isun were one. Now we cannot speak to some of brothers and sisters in Naha Aruq because they are in bed with the company,” said Inui Yaq.“It has split our community, it has split our family.”

Naha Aruq’s close ties to the new regency government – the Wakil Bupati/Vice District Head originates from the village and its several business interests in the area means the community is more open to the company’s favours.

On hearing the situation, the delegation issued the Pekanbaru Declaration. This expresses concern about KBT’s negative impacts on indigenous rights and raises the alarm at the continued activities despite community resistance, and also calls on the Government of Indonesia to take concrete action to:

• Revoke the executive order (The SK Bupati Kutai Barat Decree No.136.143/K.917/2011 dated 4th November 2011) which has led to border disputes with neighbouring Naha Aruq and allowed the PT KBT to enter Long Isun ancestral land without their consent.
• Remove the customary land of the village of Long Isun from all company concessions.
• Restore Long Isun’s customary boundaries in accordance to the 1966 map agreed between the indigenous communities of the Upper Mahakam.

Indigenous peoples of Long Isun have managed their own lands and forests for generations; it is their birth right to be able to live peacefully on their ancestral land. The 24 Indonesian-based NGOs hope the declaration will spur the Indonesian Government, East Kalimantan and the District of Mahakam Hulu officials, and the national human rights commission to take urgent action to address the gross violations and atrocities that are being committed by KBT.

The Rights of Forest Peoples meeting was held from 6-10 February in Pakanbaru, Indonesia.

KBT is a subsidiary of the Roda Mas Group.

For more information contact: 

Dico Luckyharto – [email protected]
Skype: dico.fpp

The Kagan family, America’s neoconservative aristocracy, has reemerged having recovered from the letdown over not gaining its expected influence from the election of Hillary Clinton and from its loss of official power at the start of the Trump presidency.

Back pontificating on prominent op-ed pages, the Family Kagan now is pushing for an expanded U.S. military invasion of Syria and baiting Republicans for not joining more enthusiastically in the anti-Russian witch hunt over Moscow’s alleged help in electing Donald Trump.

In a Washington Post op-ed on March 7, Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century and a key architect of the Iraq War, jabbed at Republicans for serving as “Russia’s accomplices after the fact” by not investigating more aggressively.

Then, Frederick Kagan, director of the Critical Threats Project at the neocon American Enterprise Institute, and his wife, Kimberly Kagan, president of her own think tank, Institute for the Study of War, touted the idea of a bigger U.S. invasion of Syria in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on March 15.

Yet, as much standing as the Kagans retain in Official Washington’s world of think tanks and op-ed placements, they remain mostly outside the new Trump-era power centers looking in, although they seem to have detected a door being forced open.

Still, a year ago, their prospects looked much brighter. They could pick from a large field of neocon-oriented Republican presidential contenders or – like Robert Kagan – they could support the establishment Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, whose “liberal interventionism” matched closely with neoconservatism, differing only slightly in the rationalizations used for justifying wars and more wars.

There was also hope that a President Hillary Clinton would recognize how sympatico the liberal hawks and the neocons were by promoting Robert Kagan’s neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, from Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs to Secretary of State.

Then, there would have been a powerful momentum for both increasing the U.S. military intervention in Syria and escalating the New Cold War with Russia, putting “regime change” back on the agenda for those two countries. So, early last year, the possibilities seemed endless for the Family Kagan to flex their muscles and make lots of money.

A Family Business

As I noted two years ago in an article entitled “A Family Business of Perpetual War”: “Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats.

“This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks.

“Not only does the broader community of neoconservatives stand to benefit but so do other members of the Kagan clan, including Robert’s brother Frederick at the American Enterprise Institute and his wife Kimberly, who runs her own shop called the Institute for the Study of War.”

But things didn’t quite turn out as the Kagans had drawn them up. The neocon Republicans stumbled through the GOP primaries losing out to Donald Trump and then – after Hillary Clinton muscled aside Sen. Bernie Sanders to claim the Democratic nomination – she fumbled away the general election to Trump.

After his surprising victory, Trump – for all his many shortcomings – recognized that the neocons were not his friends and mostly left them out in the cold. Nuland not only lost her politically appointed job as Assistant Secretary but resigned from the Foreign Service, too.

With Trump in the White House, Official Washington’s neocon-dominated foreign policy establishment was down but far from out. The neocons were tossed a lifeline by Democrats and liberals who detested Trump so much that they were happy to pick up Nuland’s fallen banner of the New Cold War with Russia. As part of a dubious scheme to drive Trump from office, Democrats and liberals hyped evidence-free allegations that Russia had colluded with Trump’s team to rig the U.S. election.

New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman spoke for many of this group when he compared Russia’s alleged “meddling” to Japan’s bombing of Pearl Harbor and Al Qaeda’s 9/11 terror attacks.

On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” show, Friedman demanded that the Russia hacking allegations be treated as a casus belli: “That was a 9/11 scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor scale event.” Both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 led to wars.

So, with many liberals blinded by their hatred of Trump, the path was open for neocons to reassert themselves.

Baiting Republicans

Robert Kagan took to the high-profile op-ed page of The Washington Post to bait key Republicans, such as Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who was pictured above the Post article and its headline, “Running interference for Russia.”

Kagan wrote:

“It would have been impossible to imagine a year ago that the Republican Party’s leaders would be effectively serving as enablers of Russian interference in this country’s political system. Yet, astonishingly, that is the role the Republican Party is playing.”

Kagan then reprised Official Washington’s groupthink that accepted without skepticism the claims from President Obama’s outgoing intelligence chiefs that Russia had “hacked” Democratic emails and released them via WikiLeaks to embarrass the Clinton campaign.

Though Obama’s intelligence officials offered no verifiable evidence to support the claims – and WikiLeaks denied getting the two batches of emails from the Russians – the allegations were widely accepted across Official Washington as grounds for discrediting Trump and possibly seeking his removal from office.

Ignoring the political conflict of interest for Obama’s appointees, Kagan judged that “given the significance of this particular finding [about Russian meddling], the evidence must be compelling” and justified “a serious, wide-ranging and open investigation.”

But Kagan also must have recognized the potential for the neocons to claw their way back to power behind the smokescreen of a New Cold War with Russia.

He declared:

“The most important question concerns Russia’s ability to manipulate U.S. elections. That is not a political issue. It is a national security issue. If the Russian government did interfere in the United States’ electoral processes last year, then it has the capacity to do so in every election going forward. This is a powerful and dangerous weapon, more than warships or tanks or bombers.

“Neither Russia nor any potential adversary has the power to damage the U.S. political system with weapons of war. But by creating doubts about the validity, integrity and reliability of U.S. elections, it can shake that system to its foundations.”

A Different Reality

As alarmist as Kagan’s op-ed was, the reality was far different. Even if the Russians did hack the Democratic emails and somehow slipped the information to WikiLeaks – an unsubstantiated and disputed contention – those two rounds of email disclosures were not that significant to the election’s outcome.

Hillary Clinton blamed her surprise defeat on FBI Director James Comey briefly reopening the investigation into her use of a private email server while serving as Secretary of State.

Further, by all accounts, the WikiLeaks-released emails were real and revealed wrongdoing by leading Democrats, such as the Democratic National Committee’s tilting of the primaries against Sen. Bernie Sanders and in favor of Clinton. The emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta disclosed the contents of Clinton’s paid speeches to Wall Street, which she was trying to hide from voters, as well as some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation.

In other words, the WikiLeaks’ releases helped inform American voters about abuses to the U.S. democratic process. The emails were not “disinformation” or “fake news.” They were real news.

A similar disclosure occurred both before the election and this week when someone leaked details about Trump’s tax returns, which are protected by law. However, except for the Trump camp, almost no one thought that this illegal act of releasing a citizen’s tax returns was somehow a threat to American democracy.

The general feeling was that Americans have a right to know such details about someone seeking the White House. I agree, but doesn’t it equally follow that we had a right to know about the DNC abusing its power to grease the skids for Clinton’s nomination, about the contents of Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street bankers, and about foreign governments seeking pay-to-play influence by contributing to the Clinton Foundation?

Yet, because Obama’s political appointees in the U.S. intelligence community “assess” that Russia was the source of the WikiLeaks emails, the assault on U.S. democracy is a reason for World War III.

More Loose Talk

But Kagan was not satisfied with unsubstantiated accusations regarding Russia undermining U.S. democracy. He asserted as “fact” – although again without presenting evidence – that Russia is “interfering in the coming elections in France and Germany, and it has already interfered in Italy’s recent referendum and in numerous other elections across Europe. Russia is deploying this weapon against as many democracies as it can to sap public confidence in democratic institutions.”

There’s been a lot of handwringing in Official Washington and across the Mainstream Media about the “post-truth” era, but these supposed avatars for truth are as guilty as anyone, acting as if constantly repeating a fact-free claim is the same as proving it.

But it’s clear what Kagan and other neocons have in mind, an escalation of hostilities with Russia and a substantial increase in spending on U.S. military hardware and on Western propaganda to “counter” what is deemed “Russian propaganda.”

Kagan recognizes that he already has many key Democrats and liberals on his side. So he is taking aim at Republicans to force them to join in the full-throated Russia-bashing, writing:

“But it is the Republicans who are covering up. The party’s current leader, the president, questions the intelligence community’s findings, motives and integrity. Republican leaders in Congress have opposed the creation of any special investigating committee, either inside or outside Congress. They have insisted that inquiries be conducted by the two intelligence committees.

“Yet the Republican chairman of the committee in the House has indicated that he sees no great urgency to the investigation and has even questioned the seriousness and validity of the accusations. The Republican chairman of the committee in the Senate has approached the task grudgingly.

“The result is that the investigations seem destined to move slowly, produce little information and provide even less to the public. It is hard not to conclude that this is precisely the intent of the Republican Party’s leadership, both in the White House and Congress. …

“When Republicans stand in the way of thorough, open and immediate investigations, they become Russia’s accomplices after the fact.”

Lying with the Neocons

Many Democrats and liberals may find it encouraging that a leading neocon who helped pave the road to war in Iraq is now by their side in running down Republicans for not enthusiastically joining the latest Russian witch hunt. But they also might pause to ask themselves how they let their hatred of Trump get them into an alliance with the neocons.

On Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, Robert Kagan’s brother Frederick and his wife Kimberly dropped the other shoe, laying out the neocons’ long-held dream of a full-scale U.S. invasion of Syria, a project that was put on hold in 2004 because of U.S. military reversals in Iraq.

But the neocons have long lusted for “regime change” in Syria and were not satisfied with Obama’s arming of anti-government rebels and the limited infiltration of U.S. Special Forces into northern Syria to assist in the retaking of the Islamic State’s “capital” of Raqqa.

In the Journal op-ed, Frederick and Kimberly Kagan call for opening a new military front in southeastern Syria:

“American military forces will be necessary. But the U.S. can recruit new Sunni Arab partners by fighting alongside them in their land. The goal in the beginning must be against ISIS because it controls the last areas in Syria where the U.S. can reasonably hope to find Sunni allies not yet under the influence of al Qaeda. But the aim after evicting ISIS must be to raise a Sunni Arab army that can ultimately defeat al Qaeda and help negotiate a settlement of the war.

“The U.S. will have to pressure the Assad regime, Iran and Russia to end the conflict on terms that the Sunni Arabs will accept. That will be easier to do with the independence and leverage of a secure base inside Syria. … President Trump should break through the flawed logic and poor planning that he inherited from his predecessor. He can transform this struggle, but only by transforming America’s approach to it.”

A New Scheme on Syria

In other words, the neocons are back to their clever word games and their strategic maneuverings to entice the U.S. military into a “regime change” project in Syria.

The neocons thought they had almost pulled off that goal by pinning a mysterious sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013, on the Syrian government and mousetrapping Obama into launching a major U.S. air assault on the Syrian military.

But Russian President Vladimir Putin stepped in to arrange for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to surrender all his chemical weapons even as Assad continued to deny any role in the sarin attack.

Putin’s interference in thwarting the neocons’ dream of a Syrian “regime war” moved Putin to the top of their enemies’ list. Soon key neocons, such as National Endowment for Democracy president Carl Gershman, were taking aim at Ukraine, which Gershman deemed “the biggest prize” and a stepping stone toward eventually ousting Putin in Moscow.

It fell to Assistant Secretary Victoria “Toria” Nuland to oversee the “regime change” in Ukraine. She was caught on an unsecured phone line in late January or early February 2014 discussing with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt how “to glue” or “to midwife” a change in Ukraine’s elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych.

Several weeks later, neo-Nazi and ultranationalist street fighters spearheaded a violent assault on government buildings forcing Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives, with the U.S. government quickly hailing the coup regime as “legitimate.”

But the Ukraine putsch led to the secession of Crimea and a bloody civil war in eastern Ukraine with ethnic Russians, events that the State Department and the mainstream Western media deemed “Russian aggression” or a “Russian invasion.”

So, by the last years of the Obama administration, the stage was set for the neocons and the Family Kagan to lead the next stage of the strategy of cornering Russia and instituting a “regime change” in Syria.

All that was needed was for Hillary Clinton to be elected president. But these best-laid plans surprisingly went astray. Despite his overall unfitness for the presidency, Trump defeated Clinton, a bitter disappointment for the neocons and their liberal interventionist sidekicks.

Yet, the so-called “#Resistance” to Trump’s presidency and President Obama’s unprecedented use of his intelligence agencies to paint Trump as a Russian “Manchurian candidate” gave new hope to the neocons and their agenda.

It has taken them a few months to reorganize and regroup but they now see hope in pressuring Trump so hard regarding Russia that he will have little choice but to buy into their belligerent schemes.

As often is the case, the Family Kagan has charted the course of action – batter Republicans into joining the all-out Russia-bashing and then persuade a softened Trump to launch a full-scale invasion of Syria. In this endeavor, the Kagans have Democrats and liberals as the foot soldiers.

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

We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals…. And we will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it. — President Donald Trump

Donald Trump’s $1 trillion infrastructure plan is not an infrastructure plan and it won’t put $1 trillion of fiscal stimulus into the economy.

It’s basically a scheme for handing over public assets to private corporations that will extract maximum profits via user fees and tolls. Because the plan is essentially a boondoggle, it will not lift the economy out of the doldrums, increase activity or boost growth.  Quite the contrary. When the details of how the program is going to be implemented are announced,  public confidence in the Trump administration is going to wither and stock prices are going to plunge.   This scenario cannot be avoided because the penny-pinching conservatives in the House and Senate have already said that they won’t support any plan that is not “revenue neutral” which means that any real $1 trillion spending package is a dead letter.  Thus, it’s only a matter of time before the Trump’s plan is exposed as a fraud and the sh** hits the fan.

Here are more of the details from an article at Slate:

Under Trump’s plan…the federal government would offer tax credits to private investors interested in funding large infrastructure projects, who would put down some of their own money up front, then borrow the rest on the private bond markets. They would eventually earn their profits on the back end from usage fees, such as highway and bridge tolls (if they built a highway or bridge) or higher water rates (if they fixed up some water mains). So instead of paying for their new roads at tax time, Americans would pay for them during their daily commute. And of course, all these private developers would earn a nice return at the end of the day. (“Donald Trump’s Plan to Privatize America’s Roads and Bridges”, Slate)

Normally, fiscal stimulus is financed by increasing the budget deficits, but Maestro Trump has something else up his sleeve.  He wants the big construction companies and private equity firms to stump up the seed money and start the work with the understanding that they’ll be able to impose user fees and tolls on roads and bridges when the work is completed.  For every dollar that corporations spend on rebuilding US infrastructure, they’ll get a dollar back via tax credits, which means that they’ll end up controlling valuable, revenue-generating assets for nothing. The whole thing is a flagrant ripoff that stinks to high heaven.   The corporations rake in hefty profits on sweetheart deals, while the American people get bupkis. Welcome to Trumpworld.  Here’s more background from Trump’s campaign website:

American Energy and  Infrastructure Act Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over ten years. It is revenue neutral. (Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter”)

In practical terms, ‘revenue neutral’ means that every dollar of new spending has to be matched by cuts to other government programs.  So, if there are hidden costs to Trump’s plan, then they’ll have to be paid for by slashing funds for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps etc. But, keep in mind, these other programs are much more effective sources of stimulus since the money goes directly to the people who spend it immediately and help grow the economy. Trump’s infrastructure plan doesn’t work like that. A lot of the money will go towards management fees and operational costs leaving fewer dollars to trickle down to low-paid construction workers whose personal consumption drives the economy. Less money for workers means less spending, less activity and weaker growth.  Here’s more on the topic from the Washington Post:

Trump’s plan is not really an infrastructure plan. It’s a tax-cut plan for utility-industry and construction-sector investors, and a massive corporate welfare plan for contractors. The Trump plan doesn’t directly fund new roads, bridges, water systems or airports…. Instead, Trump’s plan provides tax breaks to private-sector investors who back profitable construction projects. … There’s no requirement that the tax breaks be used for … expanded construction efforts; they could all go just to fatten the pockets of investors in previously planned projects…

Second, as a result of the above, Trump’s plan isn’t really a jobs plan, either. Because the plan subsidizes investors, not projects; because it funds tax breaks, not bridges; because there’s no requirement that the projects be otherwise unfunded, there is simply no guarantee that the plan will produce any net new hiring. …

Buried inside the plan will be provisions to weaken prevailing wage protections on construction projects, undermining unions and ultimately eroding workers’ earnings. Environmental rules are almost certain to be gutted in the name of accelerating projects.

(Trump’s big infrastructure plan? It’s a trap. Washington Post)

Let’s summarize:  “Trump’s plan” is “massive corporate welfare plan for contractors” and the “tax breaks”…”could all go just to fatten the pockets of investors in previously planned projects.”

Check.

“Trump’s plan isn’t really a jobs plan, either”…. (and) “there is simply no guarantee that the plan will produce any net new hiring.”

Check.

Trump’s plan will probably “weaken prevailing wage protections… undermining unions and ultimately eroding workers’ earnings.”

Check.

What part of this plan looks like it will have a positive impact on the economy?

None. If Trump was serious about raising GDP to 4 percent, (another one of his promises) he’d increase Social Security payments, beef up the food stamps program, or hire more government workers.  Any one of these would trigger an immediate uptick in activity spurring more growth and a stronger economy.  And while America’s ramshackle bridges and roads may be in dire need of a facelift,  infrastructure is actually a poor way to inject fiscal stimulus which can be more easily distributed  by simply hiring government agents to stand on streetcorners and hand out 100 dollar bills to passersby. That might not fill the pothole-strewn streets in downtown Duluth, but it would sure as hell would light a fire under GDP.

So what’s the gameplan here? What’s Trump really up to? If his infrastructure plan isn’t going to work, then what’s the real objective?

The objective is to allow wealthy corporations to buy public assets at firesale prices so they can turn them into profit-generating enterprises. That’s it in a nutshell. That’s why the emphasis is on “unconventional financing programs”, “public-private partnerships”, and “Build America Bonds” instead of plain-old fiscal stimulus, jobs programs and deficit spending. Trump is signaling to his pirate friends in Corporate America that he’ll use his power as executive to find new outlets for profitable investment so they have some place to stick their mountain of money.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with rebuilding America’s dilapidated infrastructure or even revving up GDP. That’s just public relations bunkum. What’s really going on is a massive looting operation organized and executed under the watchful eye of Donald Trump, Robber Baron-in-Chief.

And Infrastructure is just the tip of the iceberg. Once these kleptomaniacs hit their stride, they’re going to cut through Washington like locusts through a corn field. Bet on it.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

The tiny East African nation of Rwanda has played a unique and prominent role in U.S. political ideation since the 1994 massacres known as the Rwandan Genocide. The West’s so-called “failure to intervene in Rwanda” — and the Holocaust — became arguments for violating the national sovereignty of nations in the Global South to protect people from their own governments.

The 1994 bloodbath in Rwanda also became an argument for the suppression or even criminalization of speech. No one makes these arguments more fiercely and absolutely than Rwandan President Paul Kagame.

Kagame is now campaigning for his third formal term in office, though he has in fact ruled Rwanda since overthrowing its government with the covert assistance of the U.S. and U.K. in 1994, at the end of a four-year war. That four-year war began when Kagame’s army invaded Rwanda from Uganda.

Kagame claims to have inspired Rwandans to rise from the ashes to build an economic miracle and example for all Africa, and no one reinforces these claims more than Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. In a new book, however, economist David Himbara says that Kagame’s economic miracle is in fact an economic mirage. I spoke to David Himbara.

Ann Garrison: David Himbara, why do you call Kagame’s so-called economic miracle a mirage?

David Himbara: Kagame has grossly exaggerated his social and economic accomplishments of the past 23 years. He says he has built an African economic lion — the Singapore of Africa. In reality Rwanda remains the poorest country in East Africa, except for Burundi. Its per capita income stands at $697.3 versus Kenya’s of $1,376.7; Uganda, $705; and Tanzania at $879. Burundi is poorer than Rwanda with per capita of $277. Rwanda receives $1 billion a year in foreign aid, which is half of its annual budget of $2 billion. This is hardly a spectacular success.

AG: And you held a unique position in Kagame’s administration that enabled you to observe the so-called economic miracle, no?

DH: I was the president’s principal private secretary for two years and head of strategy and policy, Office of the President, for four years. In the latter category, we made some good reforms in the first two years, but the last two years were frustrating.

Kagame was more obsessed with the looks of the capital city of Kigali than building national systems to improve lives. He routinely manipulated statistics to exaggerate social and economic performance.

AG: Rwanda will be staging another election this year on Aug. 4. Since Kagame has in effect ruled since 1994, this will be his fourth term, though he’s calling it his third, after having the Rwandan Constitution changed to make that acceptable.

In 2010, he awarded himself 93 percent of the vote, an improbable number in any real pluralist democracy, but none of the Western donors who provide half of Rwanda’s budget withheld their support, as they have with neighboring Burundi, where President Pierre Nkurunziza won a third term with 64 percent in 2015. Kagame will no doubt claim to win another improbable mandate this year, but do you think there’s any chance that the Western donors providing half of Rwanda’s budget will finally turn away?

DH: The U.S. is the largest bilateral aid donor to Rwanda, while Britain is the second largest. American aid supports agriculture and health, while U.K. money goes into education.

A smaller portion of U.S. aid supports Rwandan troops who serve as peacekeepers. I doubt either of these two countries would cease supporting Rwanda. They have invested too much into Kagame to abandon him — unless he does something extraordinarily foolish like invading Congo again.

AG: In your book, you write that you fled Rwanda after Kagame asked you to misreport economic statistics. Could you give us the specifics of that?

DH: A confrontation convinced me to leave Rwanda. I questioned the annual economic growth of 11 percent in 2009 during the global financial crisis. Kagame became aggressive and abusive. I decided to leave Rwanda at the earliest opportunity, which was January 2010.

There are many examples of statistical exaggeration in Kagame’s Rwanda. He says for example that Rwanda has achieved universal healthcare coverage, but there are less than 700 doctors in Rwanda and there are 12 million people.

In any event, when I moved to South Africa in 2010, it soon became apparent that I was not safe there either. That was the year that Kagame’s former army chief of staff was almost assassinated in South Africa, where he was living in exile. Soon after that, the former intelligence chief – also in exile in South Africa – was assassinated. Kagame had turned South Africa into a hunting ground; that is what convinced me to move to Canada.

AG: Why do you think Bill Clinton and Tony Blair seem to be as committed to these misrepresentations as Kagame himself?

DH: These two former leaders support Kagame no matter what. The two have foundations in Rwanda.

The Americans and British also feel guilty because they stopped the U.N. from organizing an intervention in the Rwandan Genocide. Clinton and Blair seem to have overcompensated by becoming Kagame’s ambassadors even when he does nasty things. When Kagame’s proxy militia overran Goma in D.R. Congo in 2012, Blair in particular stood by his man.

AG: The United States and Britain never seem to acknowledge the human catastrophe caused by Kagame’s repeated invasions and plunder of the Democratic Republic of the Congo despite abundant documentation. Why do you think that is?

DH: Kagame has outlasted three American presidents – Clinton, Bush, and Obama – and now we will see if he outlasts Trump. Each of the first three American presidents had his reason for maintaining the status quo. Clinton simply looked the other way when Kagame invaded the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1996 and 1998.

Clinton was driven by guilt for preventing a UN intervention during the genocide. Kagame took advantage of this by his adventure and plunder of Congo.

“Kagame routinely manipulated statistics to exaggerate social and economic performance.”

President George W. Bush supported Kagame for different reasons – peacemaking operations. The American military establishment helped build Rwanda into a peacekeeping force in such places as Darfur, Sudan, South Sudan and Haiti. Meanwhile in Britain, the same pattern held, under both the Labor and Conservative governments.

The Obama presidency was different from previous American and British administrations. When Kagame’s militia invaded the capital town of eastern DR Congo, Goma, Obama cut military aid to Rwanda — an action that other donors soon followed.

Donors either cut or suspended aid to Rwanda. The U.N. sanctioned a robust force comprised of South African and Tanzanian forces that defeated Kagame’s militia. That is how Kagame met his defeat in Congo.

AG: Is there anything else you’d like to say?

DH: Regarding Kagame’s economic performance, we have to give him his dues. Here is a man who mastered the “big lie” philosophy. As the infamous big lie reasoning goes, if you keep repeating a falsehood over and over again, people will sooner or later believe it.

And so Kagame relentlessly went on a global stage and repeatedly lied that he had built an economic powerhouse. He had a motive. He believed that if he convinced his international supporters that he was creating prosperity in Rwanda, they would tolerate his human rights abuses.

In other words, Kagame sold them a trade-off; he told them that Rwandan people are more interested in food and jobs than democracy and human rights. There was one problem though — Kagame delivered neither development nor democracy.

David Himbara holds a Ph.D. in political economy from Queen’s University in Kingston, Canada. He is the author of “Kenyan Capitalists, the State and Development” and “Kagame’s Economic Mirage.” In March 2017, he was awarded the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize.

Ann Garrison lives in Berkeley, California and writes for the San Francisco Bay View, Black Agenda Report, Black Star News, Counterpunch, Global Research, and Pambazuka News, and reports for Pacifica Radio. She can be reached at [email protected]. In March 2014 she was awarded the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize.

The COI is an imperial tool, formed in September 2011 to wrongfully blame Syria for human rights abuses, downplaying atrocities committed by US-supported terrorists.

It lacks credibility, Syria’s UN envoy Bashar al-Jaafari earlier, saying it’s “deliberately blowing things out of proportion when displaying its findings, also fully disregarding or downplaying core issues.”

There are blood-curdling scenes that flagrantly contravene the Syrians’ dignity and human rights regarding the crimes of the armed terrorist groups… [They]  rang(e) … cutting throats, mutilating bodies, beheadings on sectarian and confessional grounds, throwing bodies from rooftops to committing hundreds of suicide bombings using car bombs in populated areas, recruiting children, abducting and slaughtering clergymen, assassinating scholars in mosques, issuing instigative fatwas on ‘sexual jihad,’ killing children on the charges of infidelity, robbing factories and transporting them to Turkey.”

COI reports largely ignore these horrors, focusing attention on vilifying Assad, wrongfully blaming his forces for atrocities committed by US-supported terrorists.

Its latest report is as biased as earlier ones – despicable fake news about the battle for Aleppo, saying:

(P)ro-government forces encircled eastern Aleppo city in late July and trapped civilians without adequate food or medical supplies. Between July and December 2016, Syrian and Russian forces carried out daily air strikes, claiming hundreds of lives and reducing hospitals, schools and markets to rubble. Syrian forces also used chlorine bombs in residential areas, resulting in hundreds of civilian casualties.

Fact: COI failed to explain that US-supported al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) and other terrorists captured Aleppo in 2013 – trapping its residents, terrorizing them, torturing or killing anyone caught trying to flee.

Fact: Syria and Russia alone supplied area residents with humanitarian aid – nothing from America, nothing from EU or regional countries.

Fact: Russian and Syrian warplanes targeted terrorists alone, taking great pains to avoid civilian casualties – polar opposite US terror-bombing, massacring civilians indiscriminately in all its war theaters, destroying vital infrastructure, hospitals, schools and other non-military related sites.

Fact: Russia halted bombing Aleppo in October 2016. Syrian warplanes avoided civilian areas. Its forces used no chlorine or other chemical weapons as falsely claimed. Nor were they responsible for “hundreds of civilian casualties.”

COI reported Western Aleppo shelling by “armed groups” failed to identify them as US-supported al-Nusra terrorists – their weapons and munitions supplied by Washington, NATO and regional rogue states.

COI:

“In a particularly egregious attack, Syrian air forces targeted a humanitarian aid convoy in Aleppo countryside, killing more than a dozen aid workers and destroying vital supplies for civilians in need. The convoy had been authorized by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, which was aware of its location at the time of the attack.”

The attack led to the suspension of aid convoys throughout the Syrian Arab Republic, depriving civilians from access to essential goods.

Fact: Syria had nothing to do with the attack, nor Russia. It was carried out by US-supported terrorists on the ground. Clear evidence proved it.

COI:

“As pro-Government forces recaptured eastern Aleppo city in December, some executed hors de combat fighters and perceived armed group supporters. Hundreds of men and boys were separated from their families and forcibly conscripted by the Syrian army. The fate of others remains unknown.”

Fact: Utter nonsense! Al-Nusra fighters were given safe passage from the city for surrendering their heavy weapons, allowed to keep small arms, transported by government-supplied buses to destinations of their choice. They weren’t killed, separated from families or forcibly conscripted.

The COI report is despicable pro-Western fake news. Syria’s UN envoy to Geneva, Hussam Eddin Ala, blasted it during a Human Rights Council session in the Swiss city, calling it biased, grossly inaccurate, lacking credibility.

Aleppo was liberated as part of a campaign to preserve and protect Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity. Hard truths contradict COI’s propaganda.

Its report ignored how America, NATO, Israel and other regional rogue states aid terrorist groups in Syria and elsewhere.

Ala said “(w)e feel no surprise that the Commission has heard nothing about the Turkish attacks against people of al-Bab city in Aleppo or the Turkish air bombardment which caused dozens of casualties.”

He explained COI’s report was timed to undermine Astana and Geneva peace talks – likely ordered by Washington.

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Graeme MacQueen, a university professor in Canada, calls attention to the American left’s inability to exercise immagination with regard to the reports of the Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission. A collection of individuals and publications, somehow regarded as leftwing, has proven to be active agents for the conspiratorial state against true dissent.

Here is the link to Graeme MacQueen’s article published by Truth and Shadows and posted on Global Research.

The United States no longer has a leftwing, and neither does Europe, Greece least of all, a country whose “leftwing” government has agreed that Greece’s creditors can loot and plunder the Greek people and the public assets of Greece in behalf of the One Percent. The British Labour Party is as rightwing as the Conservatives, and the French socialist party is more rightwing and much more acceptant of American overlordship than General Charles DeGaul.

In Germany the electorate has put in place as Chancellor of Germany a US puppet who represents Washington, not the German people. And she will continue to represent Washington, even if it means war with Russia.

The leftwing, once a force that attempted to hold governments accountable, has merged with the American Empire. The American “left” has now joined with the military/security complex to deep-six the prospect of detente with Russia. See, for example:,

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/14/trump-and-russia-the-shortest-reset-ever/

The American leftwing has joined with the neocons, the presstitute media, and the military/security complex in a common agreement that anyone who favors better relations with Russia is a Russian agent or a dupe of Vladimir Putin. And if you know enough to doubt the Warren Commission and 9/11 Commission reports, you are a conspiracy kook and are put on Harvard’s list of purveyors of “fake news.” Everyone who does not agree with the Establishment’s line is “fake news.” And this is in a “democracy with free speech.” What a joke America has become!

In other words, the “left” has accepted the neoconservative line that those who advocate peace with Russia, other than on US imposed terms, are traitors to America, including the President of the United States. Harvard University now has a PropOrNot type of list of suspect websites. All who favor normal relations with Russia are on the list.

We have reached the point that even for Harvard University,no dissent from hating Russia is possible. This leaves war as the only option.

Are you ready to die for the military/security complex’s enormous budget?

That is all you will be dying for.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order. 

Today’s thermonuclear weapons are monstrously more powerful than the 15 kiloton Little Boy and 21 Kiloton Fat Man nukes used to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

An article by nuclear experts Hans Kristensen and Matthew McKinsie, together with ballistic missiles expert Theodore Postol explained the enhanced power of US submarine-launched ballistic missiles “with more than three times the number of warheads needed to destroy the entire fleet of Russian land-based missiles in their silos.”

Super-fuzing makes these weapons super-powerful, the authors saying “even the most accurate ballistic missile warheads might not detonate close enough to targets hardened against nuclear attack to destroy them.”

Super-fuzing lets them destroy them “by detonating above and around” them instead of too far away to be effective.

The technology lets nuclear armed US submarines be hugely more lethal than years earlier. They’re all equipped with super-fuzed warheads.

Increased US nuclear strike capability “has serious implications for strategic stability and perceptions of US nuclear strategy and intentions,” the authors explained.

Russia understands it gives Washington a more feasible first-strike capability, forcing it to take appropriate countermeasures.

Super-fuzing “kill capability” poses a greater risk that nuclear weapons by either country could be used in response to a feared attack, even when one hasn’t occurred, certainly not by Russia preemptively, in self-defense only.

America can monitor missile launches from space. Russia’s early warning radar is ground-based, giving it 15 minutes warning time compared to Washington’s 30 minutes – “creat(ing) a deeply destabilizing and dangerous strategic nuclear situation,” the authors stressed.

With US hostility toward Russia unchanged under Trump, the danger of nuclear war is as great as any time during the Cold War.

Super-fuzed warheads triple their lethality. It lets US submarines perform “a wider range of missions than was the case before” super-fuzing.

It’s officially called the arming, fuzing and firing (AF&F) system. It’s a potential doomsday weapon if enough of them are detonated.

America has enough of these weapons to destroy Russia’s silo-based ICBMs and have many remaining for other missions, including Russia’s non-hardened mobile nuclear capability – devastating, if launched, with potentially catastrophic consequences far beyond Russia.

America vastly enhanced the killing power of its nuclear arsenal, with greater first-strike capability than Russia, leaving it dangerously vulnerable.

“We cannot foresee a situation in which a competent and properly informed US president would order a surprise first strike against Russia or China,” the authors explained.

But our conclusion makes the increased sea-based offensive and defensive capabilities we have described seem all the more bizarre as a strategy for reducing the chances of nuclear war with either Russia or China.

Putin’s remarks to journalists last June at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum indicate how he weighs the danger of America’s threat to Russia, saying:

No matter what we said to our American partners (to curb the arms race), they refused to cooperate with us. They rejected our offers, and continue to do their own thing.

… They rejected everything we had to offer…The Iranian threat does not exist, but missile defense systems are continuing to be positioned…

That means we were right when we said that they are lying to us.

Their reasons were not genuine, in reference to the ‘Iranian nuclear threat.’

(People in Western nations) do not feel a sense of the impending danger. This is what worries me.

A missile defense system is one element of the whole system of offensive military potential.

It works as part of a whole that includes offensive missile launchers.

One complex blocks, the other launches high precision weapons. The third blocks a potential nuclear strike, and the fourth sends out its own nuclear weapon in response.

This is all designed to be part of one system. I don’t know how this is all going to end.

What I do know is that we will need to defend ourselves.

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

On March 7th, U.S. President Trump said of the House Republicans’ proposed healthcare legislation: “I am proud to support the replacement plan released by the House of Representatives.” (He meant replacement of Obamacare.) That’s the Paul Ryan plan, the plan which Ryan, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, said his staff had been working on for years, and which he presented to the public on that same day, in a roll-out that was coordinated between the Republican White House and the House leadership (which likewise is Republican).

Though the White House isn’t using the term “Trumpcare” to refer to the new plan — and neither did President Obama call his plan “Obamacare” until after it became passed into law — it has been endorsed by Trump, and it will become called “Trumpcare” (not Ryancare, just as Obama’s plan is not now called “Baucuscare”) if it becomes law.

However, a Public Poilicy Polling poll issued on March 15th (a scientific sample of 808 registered voters during March 10th to 12th) found that this proposed plan is not very popular. Voters were asked “Do you support or oppose the proposal House Republicans made this week, known as the American Health Care Act?” 24% said “Support”; 49% said “Oppose”; 27% said “Not sure.”

Respondents were also asked in this same poll “Do you support or oppose the Affordable Care Act?” (that’s Obamacare); and 47% said “Support”; 39% said “Oppose; 14% said “Not sure.”

So, the ratio of Americans who support Trumpcare, as compared to those who support Obamacare, is thus 24%/47%: 51% as many support Trumpcare as support Obcamacare. Or, in other words, 1.96 times more — nearly twice — support Obamacare, than support Trumpcare (which would replace it).

Furthermore, the ratio of Americans who say they “Support” Trumpcare, 24%, is only 49% as high as is the ratio of Americans who say they “Oppose” it (47%).

This poll, therefore, indicates that Trumpcare is very unpopular.

Public Policy Polling is rated B+, by 538.

A Survey Monkey poll issued on March 14th found that “the Republican replacement bill starts out under water, with far more opposition (55 percent) than support (42 percent), and with twice as many Americans saying they are strongly opposed (38 percent) than strongly supportive (18 percent).” That poll included “2,423 adults” who were sampled March 10-13 in a novel but perhaps scientific way. Survey Monkey is C- rated by 538.

A Politico and Morning Consult poll issued on March 15th and sampling 1,983 registered voters during March 9th to 13th, found that 47% approved of Obamacare and 48% disapproved of it. It also found that 46% approve of “a proposed health care bill in Congress called the American Health Care Act that would that repeal and replace 2010 Affordable Care Act, sometimes referred to as Obamacare” and 35% disapproved of it. However, when that poll also asked “Do you approve or disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as President?” 52% approved and only 43% disapproved, but that is by far higher job-approval for Trump than any of the 16 polls that are recorded at Polling Report has found; it is 4% higher that the highest previous rating, which was the 48% job-approval shown in a Fox poll back in February, and most polls are considerably lower than that; so, the sample in this poll might be too poor (extraordinarily weighted with supporters of Trump’s job-performance) to consider. The Politico and Morning Consult polling operation is not yet rated by 538.

The crucial Congressional Budget Office analysis and report regarding the newly proposed U.S. healthcare plan was published on March 13th, which was after all of these polls had been done, and its findings were extremely negative. Therefore, future polling will almost certainly be showing more disapproval and less approval of this new plan than the three polls that are summarized above show.

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

When the U.S. was confronted with an insurgency in Iraq it did not find fault with own behavior but identified Syria and Iran as the culprits. It decided to attack them too. As Seymour Hersh reported in 2007:

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Four years later the U.S. used the Sunni militants it created to first attack Libya and then Syria. With U.S. support the militants to destroyed the independent Libyan state under Ghaddafi. The country is now in total chaos. In Syria the militants, with clandestine support from the U.S. and its allies, waged a six year long war to overthrow the government. Many of them joined the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, the Takfiri offsprings of the U.S. program and Saudi money that went (somewhat) rogue. These groups did not limit, as the U.S. wished, their attacks to U.S. enemies but committed several larger scale attacks against U.S. allied countries. Now the groups themselves are enemies.

The project of creating a controllable “Sunni Arab force” to destroy Syria had failed. The Pentagon made another attempts, spending tens of millions of dollars, to train a new Sunni Arab force in Syria to attack the Syrian government as well as the Takfiris. As soon as these new groups entered into Syria they joined the Takfifirs and handed over the weapons the U.S. army had given them.

The U.S. is now engaging with Russia and local Kurdish forces in Syria to destroy the Takfiri groups on the ground. The Kurds are of various religions and denominations with a mostly secular outlook. That plan made some progress though an actual attack on Raqqa, the current center of the Islamic State, is still weeks off. The Syrian government is winning its part of the fight in the west of the country.

But that is not enough for the U.S. neoconservatives. Their task is to further Zionist plans by creating more chaos in the Middle East. Their partner and money source is the Sunnni-Wahhabi Saudi Arabia. Having successfully arranged the destruction of Iraq, various failed “surges” as well as the attack on Syria, they can not condone that the Syrian government survives the war.

Thus they set out to create a new (the third now) Sunni Arab force to continue what their original war plan prescribed.

Frederick and Kimberly Kagan, luminaries of the neoconservative family, initiate their new campaign on the neoconned opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal: A New Strategy Against ISIS and al Qaeda – The U.S. has been relying too heavily on Shiites and Kurds. It needs to cultivate Sunni Arab partners.

The Kagan family, other well known members are Robert Kagan and Victoria Nuland, are also main instigators of the war on Iraq. Here they are in 2008 strolling (heavily guarded) through the occupied Basra, Iraq amusing themselves of the destruction they created.

The op-ed is a shorter version of a “study” written by the “think tank” the Kagan family runs to collect money.

It says in short: The U.S. shall shun the Kurds and not cooperate with Russian, Syrian or Iranian forces. It shall create another Sunni Arab proxy insurgency in Syria to fight ISIS and al-Qaeda and also the Syrian government. The first step towards that is already fiction:

The US and acceptable partners seize and secure a base in southeastern Syria, such as Abu Kamal, and create a de facto safe zone. They then recruit, train, equip, and partner with local Sunni Arab anti-ISIS forces to conduct an offensive against ISIS. This independent Sunni Arab force forms the basis of a movement to destroy ISIS and al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria over many years. Building a Sunni Arab anti-ISIS partner must be the rate-determining step in the advance along the Euphrates River Valley (ERV). American forces must fight alongside their partners to reduce the trust deficit between the US and potential Sunni allies. Potential partners must not support Salafi-jihadists, Iranian proxies, or Kurdish separatism.

The U.S. has already tried this since 2006 by clandestine means. Those forces morphed into al-Qaeda/ISIS. The Pentagon then tried the same concept by military means. That proxy force ran over to the enemy as soon as it could. Now a third try shall be made?

The fictitious plot continues:

Next Phases

• The US launches clearing operations along the Euphrates River Valley toward Raqqa, using US forces and the new Sunni Arab partner at Abu Kamal, and in Iraq’s Anbar Province.
• The US brokers a peace deal between Turkey and the Syrian-Kurdish “People’s Defense Forces” (YPG), focused on the contact line in Aleppo Province.
• The US implements a no-fly zone in Dera’a Province, demonstrating US commitment to addressing the grievances of populations under jihadist control and facilitating a local cessation of hostilities with Russia and between pro-Assad and US-backed anti-Assad forces. The US must also help partner forces in Dera’a destroy ISIS and al Qaeda, which would help facilitate a negotiated settlement of the Syrian war. The US should execute this step after the first phase and coincident with clearing operations in southeastern Syria.
• The US should try to stitch together the new force with existing US-backed fighters to create a single partner that can secure terrain from jihadists, defend against pro-Assad attacks, and uphold a settlement against the Assad regime.

These follow-on operations set conditions that favor broader US interests in Syria, but they do not achieve those interests. Subsequent phases will be necessary and will require a significant counter-Iranian component in Iraq and Syria.

I ca not imagine how much Kool-aid one must drink to come up with so much nonsense.

Let us start with those imaginary tribes in south-east Syria. The south-eastern desert of Syria is empty with little resources (besides some oil) and few people. These are rather small groups where the tribal leaders no longer have much say. The tribal members mostly live in the cities. They are members of the Syrian army or of its enemies. Some of the tribal members had joined ISIS, other fought it and were badly hurt with hundreds of casualties on their side. Most of these tribes lived quite well with the Syrian government and would be happy if it would return and control their area. Most of them have no sectarian grievances with Damascus. They have no inventive or wish to fight the Syrian state.

The Turkish president Erdogan is currently trying to hire the very same tribes to fight the Syrian Kurds. He will fail with that too.

The Kagans want their new grand force to also fight al-Qaeda. But al-Qaeda is in north-west Syria (and still supported by Turkey.) The Kagans emphasize the use of local forces. How are south-eastern desert tribes “local” to the people in Idleb?

The real aim of the Kagans is of course in the last parts of their plan which I highlighted. They want to use these “Sunni Arab tribes” to make another attempt of destroying the Syrian state to then attack the Iranian “bridge” to Hizbullah in Lebanon.

Fortunately the Kagans are at least six month behind the realities on the ground in Syria. The Pentagon will laugh at any “Sunni Arab tribes” ideas. The U.S. military will try to take Raqqa from ISIS with the help of the Kurds and in coordination with Syrian government forces. The Syrian government forces will also destroy al-Qaeda in Idleb.

The chance that Trump will pick up on these neocon plans is practically zero. But who knows? The people who pay the Kagans also spend lots of money to “lobby” (i.e. bribe) the Washington establishment. They certainly hope that there is still a chance to get their ideas wormed into the minds of the White House.

Something’s happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear.

This GRTV production by James Corbett was first released in January 2012 at the height of Obama’s first term in office.

In the light of the recent media disinformation campaign in relation to Syria, not to mention the ‘fake news’ and “Russia hacking” campaign directed against the independent-alternative media, we bring this carefully researched video-documentary report to the attention of GR readers. 

M. Ch. Global Research, March 16, 2017

*       *       *

As the drums of war begin to beat once again in Iran, Syria, the South China Sea, and other potential hotspots and flashpoints around the globe, concerned citizens are asking how a world so sick of bloodshed and a population so tired of conflict could be led to this spot once again.

To understand this seeming paradox, we must first understand the centuries-long history of how media has been used to whip the nation into wartime frenzy, dehumanize the supposed enemies, and even to manipulate the public into believing in causes for war that, decades later, were admitted to be completely fictitious.

As the US and Iranian governments escalate tensions in the already volatile Straits of Hormuz, and China and Russia begin openly questioning Washington’s interference in their internal politics, the world remains on a knife-edge of military tension. Far from being a dispassionate observer of these developments, however, the media has in fact been central to increasing those tensions and preparing the public to expect a military confrontation. But as the online media rises to displace the traditional forms by which the public forms its understanding of the world, many are now beginning to see first hand how the media lies the public into war.…

Like this video? Visit our YouTube channel and click the “Subscribe” link to get the latest videos from Global Research!

The term “yellow journalism” was coined to describe the type of sensationalistic, scandal-driven, and often erroneous style of reporting popularized by newspapers like William Randolph Hearst’s New York Journal. In one of the most egregious examples of this phenomenon, Hearst’s papers widely trumpeted the sinking of the Maine as the work of the Spanish. Whipped into an anti-Spanish frenzy by a daily torrent of stories depicting Spanish forces’ alleged torture and rape of Cubans, and pushed over the edge by the Maine incident, the public welcomed the beginning of the US-Spanish war. Although it is now widely believed that the explosion on the Maine was due to a fire in one of its coal bunkers, the initial lurid reports of Spanish involvement stuck and the nation was led into war.

In many ways, the phrase infamously attributed to Hearst in reply to his illustrator “You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war,” apocryphal as the story may be, nevertheless perfectly encodes the method by which the public would be led to war time and again through the decades.

The US was drawn into World War I by the sinking of the Lusitania, a British ocean liner carrying American passengers that was torpedoed by German U-boats off the coast of Ireland, killing over 1,000 of its passengers. What the public was not informed about at the time, of course, was that just one week before the incident, then-First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill had written to the President of the Board of Trade that it was “most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hopes especially of embroiling the United States with Germany.” Nor did reports of the attack announce that the ship was carrying rifle ammunition and other military supplies. Instead, reports once again emphasized that the attack was an out-of-the-blue strike by a maniacal enemy, and the public was led into the war.

The US involvement in World War II was likewise the result of deliberate disinformation. Although the Honolulu Advertiser had even predicted the attack on Pearl Harbor days in advance, the Japanese Naval codes had already been decipheredby that time, and that even Henry Stimson, the US Secretary of War, had noted in his diary the week before that he had discussed in a meeting with Roosevelt “how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves,” the public were still led to believe that the Pearl Harbor attack had been completely unforeseen. Just last month, a newly-declassified memo emerged showing that FDR had been warned of an impending Japanese attack on Hawaii just three days before the events at Pearl Harbor, yet the history books still portray Pearl Harbor as an example of a surprise attack.

In August 1964, the public was told that the North Vietnamese had attacked a US Destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin on two separate occasions. The attacks were portrayed as a clear example of “communist aggression” and a resolution was soon passed in Congress authorizing President Johnson to begin deploying US forces in Vietnam. In 2005, an internal NSA study was released concluding that the second attack in fact never took place. In effect, 60000 American servicemen and as many as three million Vietnamese, let alone as many as 500,000 Cambodians and Laotians, lost their lives because of an incident that did not occur anywhere but in the imagination of the Johnson administration and the pages of the American media.

In 1991, the world was introduced to the emotional story of Nayirah, a Kuwaiti girl who testified about the atrocities committed by Iraqi forces in Kuwait.

What the world was never told was that the incident had in fact been the work of a public relations firm, Hill and Knowltown, and the girl had actually been the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador. Once again, the public was whipped into a frenzy of hatred for the Hussein regime, not for the documented atrocities that it had actually committed on segments of its own population with weapons supplied to them by the United States itself, but on the basis of an imaginary story told to the public via their televisions, orchestrated by a pr firm.

In the lead-up to the war on Iraq, the American media infamously took the lead in framing the debate about the Iraqi government’s weapons of mass destruction NOT as a question of whether or not they even existed, but as a question of where they had been hidden and what should be done to disarm them. The New York Times led the way with Judith Miller‘s now infamous reporting on the Iraqi WMD story, now known to have been based on false information from untrustworthy sources, but the rest of the media fell into line with the NBC Nightly News asking “what precise threat Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction pose to America”, and Time debating whether Hussein was “making a good-faith effort to disarm Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” Reports about chemical weapons stashes were reported on before they were confirmed, although headlines boldly asserted their existence as indisputable fact. We now know that in fact the stockpiles did not exist, and the administration premeditatedly lied the country into yet another war, but the most intense opposition the Bush administration ever received over this documented war crime was some polite correction on the Sunday political talk show circuit.

Remarkably, the public at large has seemingly learned nothing from all of these documented historical manipulations. If anything, the media has become even bolder in its attempts to manipulate the public’s perceptions, perhaps emboldened by the fact that so few in the audience seem willing to question the picture that is being painted for them on the evening news.

Later that year, CNN aired footage of a bombed out Tskhinvali in South Ossetia, falsely labeling it as footage of Gori, which they said had been attacked by the Russians.

In 2009, the BBC showed a cropped image of a rally in Iran which they claimed was a crowd of protesters who assembled to show their opposition to the Iranian government. An uncropped version of the same photograph displayed on the LA Times’ website, however, revealed that the photo in fact came from a rally in support of Ahmedinejad.

In August of 2011, the BBC ran footage of what they claimed was a celebration in Tripoli’s Green Square. When sharp-eyed viewers noticed that the flags in the footage were in fact Indian flags, the BBC was forced to admit that they had “accidentally” broadcast footage from India instead of Tripoli.

Also that month, CNN reported on a story from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights claiming that eight infants in incubators had died in a hospital in Hama when Syrian authorities cut off power in the area. Some news sites evencarried pictures of the infants. The images were later admitted to have been taken in Egypt and no evidence has ever emerged to back up the accusations.

As breathtaking as all of these lies, manipulations and so-called “mistakes” are, they in and of themselves don’t represent the only functions of the media for the war machine. Now, the US government is taking the lead in becoming more and more directly involved with the shaping of the media message on war propaganda, and the general public is becoming even more ensnared in a false picture of the world through the Pentagon’s own lens.

In 2005, the Bush White House admitted to producing videos that were designed to look like news reports from legitimate independent journalists, and then feeding those reports to media outlets as prepackaged material ready to air on the evening news. When the Government Accountability Office ruled that these fake news reports in fact constituted illegal covert propaganda, the White House simply issued a memo declaring the practice to be legal.

In April 2008, the New York Times revealed a secret US Department of Defense program that was launched in 2002 and involved using retired military officers to implant Pentagon talking points in the media. The officers were presented as “independent analysts” on talk shows and news programs, although they had been specially briefed beforehand by the Pentagon. In December of 2011, the DoD’s own Inspector General released a report concluding that the program was in perfect compliance with government policies and regulations.

Earlier this year, it was revealed the the US government had contracted with HBGary Federal to develop software that create fake social media accounts in order to steer public opinion and promote propaganda on popular websites. The federal contract for the software sourced back to the MacDill Air Force Base in Florida.

As the vehicle through which information from the outside world is captured, sorted, edited and transmitted into our homes, the mass media has the huge responsibility of shaping and informing our understanding of events to which we don’t have first-hand access. This is an awesome responsibility in even the most ideal conditions, with diligent reporters guided by trustworthy editors doing their level best to report the most important news in the most straightforward way.

But in a media landscape where a handful of companies own virtually all of the print, radio and television media in each nation, the only recourse the public has is to turn away from the mainstream media altogether. And that is precisely what is happening.

As study after study and report after report has shown, the death of the old media has accelerated in recent years, with more and more people abandoning newspapers and now even television as their main source of news. Instead, the public is increasingly turning toward online sources for their news and information, something that is necessarily worrying for the war machine itself, a system that can only truly flourish when the propaganda arm is held under monopolistic control.

But as citizens turn away from the New York Times and toward independent websites, many run and maintained by citizen journalists and amateur editors, the system that has consolidated its control over the minds of the public for generations seems to finally be showing signs that it may not be invincible.

Surely this is not to say that online media is impervious to the defects that have made the traditional media so unreliable. Quite the contrary. But the difference is that online, there is still for the time being relative freedom of choice at the individual level. While internet freedom exists, individual readers and viewers don’t have to take the word of any website or pundit or commentator on any issue. They can check the source documentation themselves, except, perhaps not coincidentally, on the websites of the traditional media bastions, which tend not to link source material and documentation in their articles.

Hence the SOPA Act, Protect IP, the US government’s attempts to seize websites at the domain name level, and all of the other concerted attacks we have seen on internet freedoms in recent years.

Because ultimately, an informed and engaged public is far less likely to go along with wars waged for power and profit. And as the public becomes better informed about the very issues that the media has tried to lie to them about for so long, they realize that the answer to all of the mainstream media’s war cheerleading and blatant manipulation is perhaps simpler than we ever suspected: All we have to do is turn them off.

Tune into Global Research TV for the latest video updates from Global Research!

A while ago, Matt Tabbi in Rolling Stone warned: Why the Russia Story Is a Minefield for Democrats and the Media:

If we engage in Times-style gilding of every lily the leakers throw our way, and in doing so build up a fever of expectations for a bombshell reveal, but there turns out to be no conspiracy – Trump will be pre-inoculated against all criticism for the foreseeable future.

Sanity is finally winning over. After raising all kinds of shambolic rumors about “Russian interference” the “western” intelligence agencies are walking back their previous outrageous claims:

• Former DNI James Clapper admits (vid) that he has zero evidence for any Trump-Russia collusion;
• The British Foreign Secretary now says there is “no evidence” of any Russian interference with British democracy;
• The German secret services have no proof (in German) for any Russian disinformation campaign.

There is no evidence for any Russian interference in the U.S., or any other, election. No evidence has been show, despite many claims, that Russia or its proxies hacked John Podesta‘s emails or the DNC or collaborated with Wikileaks.

Even the Democrats now concede that the whole mountain of bullshit their anti-Trump and anti-Russian campaign created stinks to high heaven:

[S]ome Democrats on the Intelligence Committee now quietly admit, after several briefings and preliminary inquiries, they don’t expect to find evidence of active, informed collusion between the Trump campaign and known Russian intelligence operatives, though investigators have only just begun reviewing raw intelligence. Among the Intelligence Committee’s rank and file, there’s a tangible frustration over what one official called “wildly inflated” expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation.

Ardent Russia critics like Masha Geesen and former ambassador Michael McFaul now warn of irreparable damage the irrational anti-Russian campaign may cause. A New York Times opinion piece points out that the reignited anti-Russian attitude goes back to the 19th century and was as wrong then as it is now. Claims that meetings between the incoming Trump administration and the Russian ambassador were nefarious are hard to hold up when members of the Clinton campaign also met him. Trump’s National Security Advisor Flynn was accused of colluding with Russia when in fact he was paid by Turkey to lobby for Erdogan.

The disinformation campaign against Russia is falling apart for lack of any evidence. The media who ardently supported it have lost trust. As they obviously lied about Russia how much truth are they telling on other issues?

Tabbi’s warning was late. The damage is done. “Western” relations with Russia have been hurt. But also hurt are the reputations of the media and of the Democratic party. Trump though has been justified with his rejection of that campaign. He now is, as Tabbi predicted, “pre-inoculated” against other accusations – at least with his followers and those sitting on the fence. Trump has now the space to develop his original grand strategic idea of seeking amiable relations with Russia before getting embroiled in any other international dispute. Those relations are now developing on the ground in Syria where cooperation between Russian and U.S. troops intensifies:

Moscow, Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis added, has “kept us abreast of their operations” in Manbij, ..

Signs are that there is way more of that then the Pentagon admits. There have been several meetings at the highest levels of Russian and U.S. military and whoever commands U.S. forces in Syria will surely have a direct line to the Russian ground commander to coordinate their moves.

The Democrats failed in their anti-Trump, anti-Russia campaign.

Ever since having utterly destroyed a smug mainstream journalist at a UN Summit over corporate media’s claims that they had sources inside East Aleppo, hospital bombings, and other “atrocities” committed by the Assad government, Eva Bartlett has been the subject of a corporate media smear campaign.

Corporate media outlets and their NGO talking heads have maligned her as a “Russian agent,” a “Syrian agent,” and, probably the most ridiculous of all, even a racist (meaning white supremacist). This last one, of course, is a hallmark of the more NGO-funded or mentally handicapped SJW contingency, the usual suspects who compulsively make this accusation. The argument is that saying the alleged “revolution” of bearded jihadist freaks was funded and orchestrated by the West is to deny that Arabs have the ability to orchestrate their own subhuman revolution of savagery. (Yawn.)

Still, this is quite a resume for a Canadian woman writing for alternative media outlets who can afford to pay very little for contributors (if at all) and traveling to places like Gaza and Syria on a shoestring budget in often rather unpleasant conditions. With Russia taking over the world and all, it’s surprising they couldn’t at least find better travel arrangements for one of their agents (or at least a .com domain! After all, the Russian hacking ability knows no limits, right?). It’s also odd that a white supremacist would find her life’s calling defending the rights of brown people against Western, largely white, nations. But I digress . . .

The assertions made against her are so baseless and incredibly imbecilic that they do not warrant refutations, especially since her detractors will simply invent another attack when the current one no longer works. Today, a racist Russian/Syrian agent. Tomorrow an anti-white capitalist pig, perhaps. Only time will tell.

But, despite the smear campaign, none of the corporate NGO attackers ever address a single claim she makes. Instead, they go right to accusations, over-talking, and name-calling. If her statements were so bogus, they would be easy to refute, right? Still, there is no debate, only catcalls. The reason for this approach is simply because each time one of the mainstream media drones or an NGO fanatic engages her in an actual debate, they end up getting their asses handed to them on internationally broadcast programs.

Regardless, Eva continues her campaign to end in the imperialist war in Syria and, in the meantime, continues to expose the hypocrisy and treachery of Western media outlets.

In a recent interview with Global Research, Eva was asked to recount some of her experiences traveling in Syria. During the first few minutes of the interview, she managed to reveal to the world how mainstream media outlets like the BBC and New York Times were exposed to the reality of the situation in Syria yet absolutely refused to report what they saw. Instead, they reported a lie; i.e. the establishment line that Assad is “killing his own people” and that terrorist atrocities were simply unable to be given definitive attribution. At best, they qualified their reports with fantastical claims by pro-terrorist websites and organizations like the SOHR so heavily that the report itself seemed to “debunk” the actual truth of the matter.

Bartlett stated,

On a personal level, for example, in April, 2014, there was a mortar, at least one mortar which struck a school in Old Damascus. The school is called al-Menar and if I recall one child was killed and over sixty were injured. And I went to a hospital called the French Hospital with some others on this peace delegation I was in Syria with and we wanted to see who were the injured children, you know, to document them, share their stories, or at least share the fact that a school had been shelled by a militant in Jobar or East Damascus. And while we were there, we ran into Lyse Doucet of the BBC. And she saw the same children. She could have asked the questions and deduced that the mortar indeed came from the militant area but her later report said something to the effect of “we don’t know where it came from.” That’s one instance.

In November of last year, I was in Aleppo on my third of four visits to Aleppo and on November 3, there was a rain of GRAD missiles and gas canister bombs and explosive bullets and mortars onto civilian areas of Aleppo. By the end of the day, eighteen people had been killed and over 200 had been injured. And the journalists that I was with, from the New York Times, BBC, and other venues or other sites . . . we were at the Rasi hospital which is one of the main hospitals in Aleppo and we saw some of the injured coming into the hospital and we saw some of the corpses of those killed in these attacks coming to the morgue around the corner from the hospital. And in the piece the New York Times journalist later wrote – I don’t remember verbatim what she said – but it was implying that this kind of attack was unusual, where we’d been told, and anybody who researches even a little bit about Aleppo would know, we’ve been told that, on a daily basis, or near daily basis, the people of Aleppo were being attacked by mortars, gas canister bombs, etc. But, in her report, she couldn’t simply state what she had seen, she had to imply that this was somewhat unusual and she had to qualify it with an unsubstantiated report by the Syrian Observatory For Human Rights which is based in the U.K, and their allegation that some sort of attack had occurred by Syria or Russia the same day.

. . . .

The Western media will, in course, accuse the Syrian military and the government of massacres, of crimes against humanity, and, you know, they are both distorting the reality and ignoring the truth on the ground which is that the civilians in Syria have been suffering for years since this Western-instigated so-called revolution started in 2011. And Western media that reports on civilian deaths . . . civilian deaths do occur when the army is fighting terrorists. It’s a war. Civilian deaths will occur. But what the media ignores is the context. It ignores who funded these terrorists. It ignores the fact that Turkey and Israel have been attacking Syria and that this whole situation wouldn’t have occurred if the West, primarily Washington and its allies, hadn’t manufactured this notion of a revolution, hadn’t sent arms to the so-called rebels, hadn’t distorted the reality on the ground, hadn’t funded the so-called opposition.

Indeed, the West’s involvement in Syria by its very nature puts the blood of every individual killed in that conflict squarely on the hands of the Western nations that engineered the crisis to begin with. Without the West, there would have been no “revolution,” no moderate cannibals, and no armed conflict whatsoever.

But it is important to point out here that what Eva Bartlett witnessed was Western journalists who were clearly exposed to the same facts and incidents as herself to but who returned to their writing desks to report the opposite or, at the very least, something so skewed and misrepresented that it might as well have been a bald-faced lie.

Others who have traveled to Syria have also found that their Western counterparts were reporting stories vastly different from their actual experiences.

So while the mainstream media maligns Eva Bartlett as a Russian agent, the truth of the matter is that the corporate outlets are agents of disinformation and propaganda as more and more Americans are beginning to learn by the day.

Despite having witnessed certain events on the ground, the reports of the New York Times and the BBC are coming back saying something entirely different. I suppose after helping lead an entire nation into a war based on fraudulent claims of “weapons of mass destruction,” you might as well commit and continue the lie.

For those who have been following the Syrian crisis from the beginning, this is not a surprise. But as the corporate outlets continue to promote propaganda lines so far from reality, it necessitates greater and greater lies to cover up the initial treachery, thus devolving into catcalls of insults and suspicion such as claims of “Russian espionage,” “racism,” or other trendy buzz terms.

However, since the corporate press and certain elements within the U.S. government are so obsessed with Russia, they would be wise to pay attention to the Russian proverb: “With lies you may go ahead in the world, but you can never go back.”

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of eight books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference It Makes: 36 Reasons Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome. Turbeville has published over 700 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

The Arabic language al-Hadath news website reported that several US military helicopters landed on kilometer 10 of Deir Ezzur-Hasaka road and evacuated a number of ISIL commanders from the region.

“After the helicopter landed, several US marines took 10 ISIL commanders on board and left the region,” the report said.

“Abu Dajane Fransawi has most likely been among the top ISIL commanders taken away by the US marines,” it added.

Abu Dajaneh was ISIL’s man in charge of the terrorist group’s financial affairs in Forat (Euphrates) oilfield.

Local sources disclosed in January that the US-led coalition’s helicopters carried out an unprecedented heliborne operation in areas West of Deir Ezzur city to relocate ISIL’s foreign fighters from the region.

Arab media outlets said that the US troops have carried out another heliborne operation to evacuate 10 more ISIL commanders from the Eastern province of Deir Ezzur.

The sources said that 6 helicopters were present in the operations, including two that carried a number of soldiers and Arabic translators in a region near al-Kebr station.

The source said the US troops left the helicopters and staged a raid on the terrorists at a water pump station, killing a number of them. “Then they took several ISIL terrorists captive, in an action that more seemed like a theatrical move”.

“It looked like a drill and our suspicions grew when we came to realize that they only took captive those ISIL members who were foreigners,” he added.

Other sources said that “the coalition forces that could speak Arabic with the accent of the Persian Gulf states took with them some of the non-Syrian members of the ISIL”.

The South Sudan civil war, which erupted in December 2013, is assuming an increasingly genocidal character, according to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). In the course of the war, both the US-backed government led by the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) and President Salva Kiir, and SPLA opposition faction led by Vice President Riek Machar, have carried out atrocities against civilians.

On February 7, UN experts officially began registering “warning signs for ethnic cleansing” and “indicators for genocide.” The situation is characterized by “massive insecurity” and “large-scale polarization of communities,” the UN found.

The SPLA regime has organized a “scorched earth” campaign and is carrying out “population engineering” through forced relocation of ethnic minorities. Kiir and other top SPLA officials have directly ordered mass killing and property seizures against civilian communities. SPLA members frequently abuse civilians at military checkpoints and during warrantless searches of residential areas.

Barely six years after its secession from the Sudan, a development hailed by Western bourgeois public opinion as a victory for “democracy” and “the self-determination of nations,” South Sudan is experiencing levels of chaos and social breakdown which bring to mind the worst catastrophes of the 20th century.

Three years of civil war have produced widespread famine and a massive refugee crisis. Some 1.5 million South Sudanese have already become refugees, and 2 million have been displaced internally as a result of the war. Some 700,000 are in refugee camps across the border in Uganda. One million South Sudanese are at risk of starving in the coming year.

The crisis in South Sudan is an advanced manifestation of the unviability and breakdown of the nation-state system across Africa and worldwide. The pressure of world imperialism against the oppressed countries finds its sharpest expression in the weakest nations.

South Sudan’s political structure, controlled by a coalition of generals and aspiring dictators cobbled together with US cash and weapons, ruled for only two years before breaking in two. Between 2012-2013, the Kiir leadership pursued policies aimed at driving the Machar faction out of the government. In an effort to tighten his grip over the South Sudanese government, President Kiir ordered the firing of hundreds of military and political officials and reorganized the top committees of the state so as to entrench his own supporters in power. In December 2013, gunfire broke out during meetings of the SPLM’s National Liberation Council amid circumstances that remain unclear. President Kiir seized on the clashes to accuse Machar of planning a coup, and expel him and his supporters from the government.

The state of war between the SPLA factions has since served, to a large extent, as a pretext for the expropriation and murder of ethnic minorities and civilians generally. The UN found that: “Civilians have been deliberately and systematically targeted on the basis of their ethnicity by armed forces and groups, including SPLA and SPLM/A in Opposition, and also by groups aligned with them. Individuals have been targeted for killing, arbitrary arrest and detention, sexual violence, sexual slavery and forced marriage. Communities have been subjected to scorched-earth policies that result in the destruction of their homes and means of livelihood. Many of the attacks have been carried out by SPLA soldiers and the militias affiliated with them. Armed groups attack villages, burn homes, kill and rape.”

“Tens of thousands of civilians have been killed in horrific attacks, often targeted on the basis of their ethnicity or perceived allegiances,” the UN found.

For all this savagery, the SPLA is merely a local enforcer of the policies and economic interests of the American ruling class. The men organizing the killing from Juba were placed in power as part of a geopolitical operation aimed at opening Sudan’s oil resources to exploitation by American firms. Washington has sought for decades to exploit long-standing conflicts between the Sudan’s northern and southern elites as a means of projecting power against the central Sudanese government in Khartoum, whose ties to China and the Soviet Union threatened to block American companies from accessing Sudan’s oil fields.

Founded in 1983, the SPLA became a favored proxy army of US imperialism, developing close ties with the US political elite and rising, during the 2005-2011 transition process, to assume control of the newly-formed South Sudanese state. The signature black cowboy hat of President Salva Kiir, without which he never appears in public, was a gift from none other than US President George W. Bush, given to Kiir at the White House in July 2006.

While in power, the Kiir and the SPLA have employed ethno-nationalism as an ideological cover for its self-serving collaboration with imperialism. Advertising themselves as leaders of a “liberation” movement, the SPLA’s cadres could be more accurately described as networks of US-backed warlords. They view the South Sudanese state as nothing more than a means of expanding their property and privileges. Despite being expelled from the Juba government, Machar’s opposition forces continue to manage significant business interests and maintain ties to foreign government and corporations. Machar’s militias remain armed and continue to occupy territory and move about the country largely at will. In a telling detail reported by the Sentry, the families of Kiir and Machar, who pose as mortal enemies in public view, live just miles apart in luxurious mansions near Nairobi.

New Kiirs and Machars are being cultivated by American imperialism in countless countries. The historic processes that pushed the United States to support the break-up of the Sudan are active on every continent. They are essentially the same tendencies of development that have defined world politics for 100 years: the domination of finance capital and the economic rivalry between the major nations produces an endless chain of regional wars, military dictators and ethnic slaughters.

The removal of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) from the geopolitical landscape has, since 1991, cleared the way for 25 years of relentless economic and military warfare against the former colonial countries. A quarter century of unobstructed capitalist world-rule has produced nothing less then the liquidation of entire sections of world society. Tens of millions are living as homeless refugees, with no social or political rights, as a consequences of the wars and counterrevolutionary economic policies of the world’s capitalist governments.

Last Friday, UN humanitarian leader Stephen O’Brien described the international humanitarian situation as “worse then any time since 1945.” Spreading famine and disease are threatening the lives of 20 million people living in Yemen, South Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria, O’Brien said.

More South Sudans are being prepared. In every part of the world, the economic and political objectives of the US ruling elite demand not peaceful development and the raising of living standards, but ever greater levels of destruction and robbery. During the epoch of imperialism, as Leon Trotsky wrote, the capitalist organization of world economy becomes its opposite, that is, “barbarous disorganization and chaos.” In lines that could easily have been written yesterday, as an explanation of the broader historical process that has led to the catastrophe in South Sudan, Trotsky wrote:

“The future development of world economy on the capitalistic basis means a ceaseless struggle for new and ever new fields of capitalist exploitation, which must be obtained from one and the same source, the earth. The economic rivalry under the banner of militarism is accompanied by robbery and destruction which violate the elementary principles of human economy.”

The fate of South Sudan, like that of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia, shows the future that capitalism and imperialist war have in store for humanity unless stopped by the mobilization of the African and international working class in revolutionary struggle.

The West’s response to the deadly twin bomb attacks in Damascus on Saturday continues to shock even the most hardened cynics.

In what can only be described as an act of extremely good timing, Washington managed to distance itself from the group that claimed responsibility for the bombings just hours before the attack was carried out. Reuters then proceeded to portray the suicide bombers and the terrorist organization they belonged to as misunderstood “hardline rebels” fighting Assad’s “tyrannical rule”.

Now there’s this:

Russia was forced to recall its draft statement of the United Nations Security Council condemning the March 11 terror attack in Damascus because a number of Western countries tried to change the document’s essence, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Monday

This is a very diplomatic way of saying that Washington and its client states thought that the draft statement was unfair to suicide bombers.

Here’s a statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry that will probably harm your blood pressure:

 It is regrettable that the Security Council does not always find a common denominator on the Syrian issue. For example, the biased position held by a number of its Western members prevented it from reaching a consensus on a Russia-proposed draft press statement denouncing the bloody terrorist attack in Damascus on March 11, which claimed 70 lives, according to the latest reports. Implementing their well-known political directives, they attempted to unjustifiably modify the thrust of the document by including provisions reading as accusations of the Syrian authorities and justification of the terrorists’ actions. In consequence, we had to withdraw the draft. Moreover, during the debate on the text, our Western colleagues made it clear that they had a “different [operating] standard” with regard to Syria, which did not imply an unqualified denunciation of terrorism. The consequences of this approach may prove most unfortunate. At the same time, we believe it is crucial that the crime in Damascus was resolutely condemned by the UN Secretary-General.

Yes, the U.S. and its client states wanted to “modify the thrust of the document” by providing “justification of the terrorists’ actions”, because the West has a “different [operating] standard” with regard to Syria which “does not imply an unqualified denunciation of terrorism”.

When does Al Nusra get to join the Security Council? They’ll fit right in.

While Republicans on the Right and the Far Right wrangle over whether to repeal the Obamacare Affordable Care Act, or just revise it, the Ryan proposal does both. How can that be? Revise and yet repeal?

The repeal is every dollar and cent that the Obamacare Act taxed the rich and their corporations. The rest, the non-funding features is what’s being revised.

Only in the past 24 hours is the corporate press even discussing the tax increases under the ACA now being totally repealed by the Ryan-Trump bill. That’s because they can no longer ignore it, since it was reported today by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). But they knew the details weeks ago. So did the Democrats in Congress. Yet they said nothing. How much in taxes were being cut for the wealthiest individuals and their corporations are we talking about? Over $590 billion over the decade.

About a fourth of the total cost of the ACA, was paid by tax cuts on wealthy households that was repealed. That included a repeal of the 3.8% tax on earned income of the wealthy. Another repeal of the tax on net investment income by the same. Both are gone by the end of this year.

Add to that the following business tax cuts also now totally repealed: the tax on prescription drug makers that provided $25 billion in annual revenue. The $145 billion repeal of the annual fee on Insurance companies. And the $20 billion on medical device makers. That’s another $190 billion tax cuts for businesses. But there’s still more tax repeal. The employer mandate is also repealed. If companies didn’t provide their own employer health insurance, they too had to pay into the system. The CBO report estimates the mandates—employer and individual (also repealed) amounted to $156 million in 2017 alone. That’s inflation adjusted. So the market price is at least 5% higher, for a total of around $165 million. The mix in the employer-individual contribution from the mandates, let’s assume, is 50-50. So the corporate tax cut is at least $82.5 million from the repeal of the employer mandate.

Added all up, the total reductions for businesses and the wealthy, according to the CBO’s own estimate, is $592 billion, “mostly by reducing tax revenues”.

What we have in exchange for the $592 billion tax cuts on the rich is a de facto tax hike on the 10 million plus consumers who bought plans on the exchanges, in the form of the elimination of the subsidies that had been provided to help them purchase plans. Subsidy repeal is just a tax hike by another name. How much ‘savings’ per the CBO from the repeal of all premium subsidies and assistance under the ACA? CBO estimates $673 billion.

So the Ryan-Trump Taxman taketh $673 billion from the 10 million consumers who bought plans and he giveth $592 billion to the wealthy and their corporations who, heavens knows, need it more than the rest of us. After all, their corporate profits only tripled since 2010 and the wealthy captured only 95% of all the national income gains since 2010, according to studies by the University of California, Berkeley economists (based on IRS data). And the rest of us have done so much better! (By the way, here’s another business-health care trivia item: companies that provide employer health insurance get to write off their contribution costs. Their workers don’t get to write off their share deducted from their wages, but the companies do. Their tax cut savings amounts to $260 billion a year). Employers already providing health plans were supposed to pay an excise tax on their plans, but even the Obama administration put that one off, so the Ryan-Trumpcare delay of that excise tax hike until 2026 is not really a new tax cut or part of the $592 billion.

As the slick marketers on the online sales channels say, ‘But wait, there’s more. There’s a two for one offer!’ The double whammy offer in the Ryan-Trumpcare plan is an additional whopping $880 billion cut in Medicaid spending by the government. Another 10 million of those citizens most in need of health care services—composed mostly of the elderly, the disabled, and single mothers heads of households—will be now thrown under the Trumpcare bus as virtually the entire change in Medicaid will be, yes, repealed.

The ‘Multiplier Effect’ Is Bad News for Ryan-Trumpcare

So how does the $673 billion in subsidy assistance spending cuts and $880 billion in Medicaid spending cuts, plus $592 billion in wealthy-corporate tax cuts, and the new spending of $303 billion, impact the US economy in net terms? It will be a big negative hit on economic growth as measured in Gross Domestic Product terms. Here’s why.

There’s this thing called the ‘multiplier effect’ in calculating GDP. It’s not a theory. It’s an empirical observation. A fact. A dollar in spending gets spent several times over and the total at the end of the year adds up to more than a dollar added to GDP. Spending on lower and middle income groups results in a bigger ‘multiplier’. Spending on the wealthier a smaller. They save more than the net change in income they receive than do lower income households. Furthermore, empirical observation shows that tax cuts of any kind (business, investor, or consumer) have less a ‘multiplier’ effect than do spending, and tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations even less an effect than consumer tax cuts. Ok. That’s all ‘economics 101’ but it’s true.

The Ryan-Trumpcare plan gives the wealthy and their corporations $582 billion in tax cuts. Will they spend all that? No. Their ‘multiplier’ is about 0.4 according to best estimates. Give the rich a tax cut, in other words, and they’ll spend 40% of it. That 40% means they will spend in the US economy about $230 billion over the course of the decade, or $23 billion a year on average due to their tax cuts. (They may spend more offshore, of course, especially the corporations, but offshore spending adds nothing to US economy and GDP growth).

Unlike the wealthy and corporations, the average consumer has a multiplier of at least 2.0, and the poor on Medicaid higher than that. But let’s conservatively estimate the government spending multiplier for consumers on the $673 billion spending for insurance subsidies and the $880 billion in Medicaid spending is only 2.0. That means a contribution to GDP of $1.55 trillion ($673 billion plus $880 billion) is times two, or $3 trillion total over the decade. That’s $300 billion a year contribution to GDP. But that subsidies and Medicaid spending is now repealed so it’s a reduction of $3 trillion, or $300 billion a year.

In net terms, we therefore get $23 billion a year in wealthy-corporate added contribution to GDP due to their tax cuts and $300 billion a year reduction in GDP due to the repeal of the subsidies and Medicaid. That’s a net reduction of about $275 billion a year from GDP, which occurs in 2018 and every year thereafter (on average) until 2026.

Based on the US current $20 trillion annual GDP, $275 billion annual net reduction is a little over 1% of the total GDP growth, which according to official government estimates is about 2% annually. The annual reduction in GDP from the Trumpcare proposal is likely around .2%, including ‘knock on’ effects, reducing annual GDP to around 1.8%.

And what are the further ‘knock on’ effects to consider as well?

Premium and Price Inflation

The Ryan-Trumpcare proposal will almost certainly result in higher premiums and higher out of pocket costs for healthcare services. The higher inflation will reduce consumer household disposable income. That will leave households less income to spend on other items. Since the inflation in health care spending adds nothing to ‘real’ GDP, there’s no gain in GDP from that. But the reductions in household other items, in order to afford paying for the higher cost health insurance, will reduce ‘real’ GDP. So the net inflationary effect is significantly negative, depending on how much health insurance premiums (and deductibles, co-pays, etc.) actually rise.

Ryan and Republicans claim that premiums are already rising rapidly under Obamacare, which is true, especially the past year. But that is likely to continue. The Health Insurance companies have been ‘gaming’ the system and the Obama administration did little to stop them. They will continue to do so in the transition to Ryan-Trumpcare and under it going forward as well.

The Ryan-Trumpcare proposal allows insurance companies to hike premiums for older customers up to five times more than premiums charged to younger customers. That’s up from three times under Obama. Trumpcare also now allows insurers to offer ‘barebones’ plans, with lower premiums but with hardly any coverage whatsoever. This trend was a growing problem under Obamacare, as consumers were signing up for super-high deductible plans ($3 to $5,000 per year) just to be able to afford the lower premiums. They were essentially ‘disaster-only’, called “leaners”, super-stripped down health care plans. The new ‘barebones’ policies will cover even less. This less and less coverage for the same (and sometimes higher) premium is in effect a price hike. Less for the same price is a de facto price hike in premiums. The Trumpcare plan also now permits insurers to charge a 30% surcharge for consumers who drop and then re-enroll. It assumes that premiums will decline, according to the CBO, after 2020. Sure, after 30 years of constant health insurance premium hikes, sometimes double digit, now the insurance companies four years from now will start reducing premiums! If anyone believes that, there’s a bridge on sale in Brooklyn they might look into.

What About the US Budget and Deficits?

The Ryan-Trumpcare proposal takes $673 billion and $880 billion out of spending by government and households (not counting ‘knock on’ negative effects on household consumption) and another $592 billion out in tax cuts for the wealthy and their corporations. That’s a $2.145 trillion hit to the US budget over the next decade. The Trumpcare advocates claim the wealthy-investor-corporate tax cuts will stimulate the economy and therefore tax revenues. But the 0.4 multiplier effect suggests only a fraction of that will positively affect the economy and tax revenue growth.

The Trumpcare advocates also claim their plan proposes to give tax credits costing $361 billion to consumers to buy insurance. But that starts only in 2020, so it’s really only $180 billion averaged over the decade. They further point out that another $80 billion in spending will occur in a grant for New Patient State Stability Fund to the States to spend, plus another $43 billion in government spending to hospitals to cover Medicare costs. So that’s about a total of $303 billion new spending to offset the $1.553 trillion spending cuts.

So there’s hundreds of billions in net loss from the tax cuts and the net spending. That means massive increases in the US Budget deficit, and consequent rise in US debt, now more than $20 trillion. The CBO summarizes the net deficit growth of only $336 billion. That is ridiculously low.

It should be noted that this net deficit, driven by tax cuts for the wealthy and their corporations, will be quickly followed by another, more massive general corporate tax cut now working its way through Congress as well. That one is estimated to cost more than $6 trillion over the coming decade. It and the Trumpcare tax cuts are in addition.

And both Trumpcare and the daddy of all tax cuts coming follows on more than $10 trillion in business-investor-wealthy tax cuts that have already occurred under George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

No wonder the wealthiest 1% households captured 95% of all income gains since 2009? And if Ryan-Trump have their way, they’ll get to keep at least that much for another decade. America is addicted to tax cuts for the rich, perpetual wars around the world, and the destruction of decent employment and what’s left of any social safety net for the rest. The current political circus in Washington is just the latest iteration of the policy shift to the wealthy and their corporations at the expense of the rest. There’s more yet to come. And it will be even worse.

Dr. Jack Rasmus is author of the forthcoming book, ‘Central Bankers on the Ropes’, by Clarity Press, June 2017, and the recent 2016 publications, also by Clarity, ‘Looting Greece: A New Financial Imperialism Emerges’, and ‘Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy’. He blogs at jackrasmus.com, where reviews are available.

Author’s Note

At this juncture in our history, information emanating from Wikileaks constitute an invaluable  source  of information regarding the workings of US intelligence and the so-called “Deep State”.

Public opinion has acknowledged the central role of Wikileaks in the battle against mainstream media disinformation (NYT, WaPo) and the insidious role of US intelligence regarding the “Russia hacking” allegations.

While Wikileaks is now categorized – alongside more than 200 alternative-independent media- as “fake news”, the fundamental question is Who is behind Wikileaks?  Who is protecting wikileaks?  What interests are being served? 

This article originally published in December 2010 examines not only the origins of Wikileaks, it also reveals its contradictory relationship to the Western economic elites and the corporate media including the New York Times. 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research,  March 16, 2017

*       *      *

“World bankers, by pulling a few simple levers that control the flow of money, can make or break entire economies. By controlling press releases of economic strategies that shape national trends, the power elite are able to not only tighten their stranglehold on this nation’s economic structure, but can extend that control world wide. Those possessing such power would logically want to remain in the background, invisible to the average citizen.” (Aldous Huxley)

Wikleaks is upheld as a breakthrough in the battle against media disinformation and the lies of the US government.

Unquestionably, the released documents constitute an important and valuable data bank. The documents have been used by critical researchers since the outset of the Wikileaks project. Wikileaks earlier revelations have focussed on US war crimes in Afghanistan (July 2010) as well as issues pertaining to civil liberties and the “militarization of the Homeland” (see Tom Burghardt, Militarizing the “Homeland” in Response to the Economic and Political Crisis, Global Research, October 11, 2008)

In October 2010, WikiLeaks was reported to have released some 400,000 classified Iraq war documents, covering events from 2004 to 2009 (Tom Burghardt, The WikiLeaks Release: U.S. Complicity and Cover-Up of Iraq Torture Exposed, Global Research, October 24, 2010). These revelations contained in the Wikileaks Iraq War Logs provide “further evidence of the Pentagon’s role in the systematic torture of Iraqi citizens by the U.S.-installed post-Saddam regime.” (Ibid)

Progressive organizations have praised the Wikileaks endeavor. Our own website Global Research has provided extensive coverage of the Wikileaks project.

The leaks are heralded as an immeasurable victory against corporate media censorship.

But there is more than meets the eye.

Even prior to the launching of the project, the mainstream media had contacted Wikileaks.

There are also reports from published email exchanges (unconfirmed) that Wikileaks had, at the outset of the project in January 2007, contacted and sought the advice of Freedom House. This included an invitation to Freedom House (FH) to participate in the Wikileaks advisory board:

“We are looking for one or two initial advisory board member from FH who may advise on the following:

1. the needs of FH as consumer of leaks exposing business and political corruption
2. the needs for sources of leaks as experienced by FH
3. FH recommendations for other advisory board members
4. general advice on funding, coallition [sic] building and decentralised operations and political framing”

(Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007).

There is no evidence of FH followup support to the Wikileaks project. Freedom House is a Washington based “watchdog organization that supports the expansion of freedom around the world”. It is chaired by William H. Taft IV who was legal adviser to the State Department under G. W. Bush and Deputy Secretary of Defense under the Reagan administration.

Wikileaks had also entered into negotiations with several corporate foundations with a view to securing funding. (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007):

The linchpin of WikiLeaks’s financial network is Germany’s Wau Holland Foundation. … “We’re registered as a library in Australia, we’re registered as a foundation in France, we’re registered as a newspaper in Sweden,” Mr. Assange said. WikiLeaks has two tax-exempt charitable organizations in the U.S., known as 501C3s, that “act as a front” for the website, he said. He declined to give their names, saying they could “lose some of their grant money because of political sensitivities.”

Mr. Assange said WikiLeaks gets about half its money from modest donations processed by its website, and the other half from “personal contacts,” including “people with some millions who approach us….” (WikiLeaks Keeps Funding Secret, WSJ.com, August 23, 2010)

Acquiring covert funding from intelligence agencies was, according to the email exchanges, also contemplated. (See Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007)

At the outset in early 2007, Wikileaks acknowledged that the project had been

“founded by Chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa…. [Its advisory board]  includes representatives from expat Russian and Tibetan refugee communities, reporters, a former US intelligence analyst and cryptographers.” (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007).

Wikileaks formulated its mandate on its website as follows:

“[Wikileaks will be] an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interests are oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations,” CBC News – Website wants to take whistleblowing online, January 11, 2007, emphasis added).

This mandate was confirmed by Julian Assange in a June 2010 interview in The New Yorker:

“Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations. (quoted in  WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange : The New Yorker, June 7, 2010, emphasis added)

Assange also intimated that “exposing secrets” “could potentially bring down many administrations that rely on concealing reality—including the US administration.” (Ibid)

From the outset, Wikileaks’ geopolitical focus on “oppressive regimes” in Eurasia and the Middle East was “appealing” to America’s elites, i.e. it seemingly matched stated US foreign policy objectives. Moreover, the composition of the Wikileaks team (which included Chinese dissidents), not to mention the methodology of “exposing secrets” of foreign governments, were in tune with the practices of US covert operations geared towards triggering “regime change” and fostering “color revolutions” in different parts of the World.

The Role of the Corporate Media: The Central Role of the New York Times

Wikileaks is not a typical alternative media initiative. The New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel are directly involved in the editing and selection of leaked documents. The London Economist has also played an important role.

While the project and its editor Julian Assange reveal a commitment and concern for truth in media, the recent Wikileaks releases of embassy cables have been carefully “redacted” by the mainstream media in liaison with the US government. (See Interview with David E. Sanger, Fresh Air, PBS, December 8, 2010)

This collaboration between Wikileaks and selected mainstream media is not fortuitous; it was part of an agreement between several major US and European newspapers and Wikileaks’ editor Julian Assange.

The important question is who controls and oversees the selection, distribution and editing of released documents to the broader public?

What US foreign policy objectives are being served through this redacting process?

Is Wikileaks part of an awakening of public opinion, of a battle against the lies and fabrications which appear daily in the print media and on network TV?

If so, how can this battle against media disinformation be waged with the participation and collaboration of the corporate architects of media disinformation?

Wikileaks has enlisted the architects of media disinformation to fight media disinformation: An incongruous and self-defeating procedure.

America’s corporate media and more specifically The New York Times are an integral part of the economic establishment, with links to Wall Street, the Washington think tanks and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Moreover, the US corporate media has developed a longstanding relationship to the US intelligence apparatus, going back to “Operation Mocking Bird”, an initiative of the CIA’s Office of Special Projects (OSP), established in the early 1950s.

Even before the Wikileaks project got off the ground, the mainstream media was implicated. A role was defined and agreed upon for the corporate media not only in the release, but also in the selection and editing of the leaks. In a bitter irony, the “professional media”, to use Julian Assange’s words in an interview with The Economist, have been partners in the Wikileaks project from the outset.

Moreover, key journalists with links to the US foreign policy-national security intelligence establishment have worked closely with Wikileaks, in the distribution and dissemination of the leaked documents.

In a bitter irony, Wikileaks partner The New York Times, which has consistently promoted media disinformation is now being accused of conspiracy. For what? For revealing the truth? Or for manipulating the truth? In the words of Senator Joseph L. Lieberman:

“I certainly believe that WikiLleaks has violated the Espionage Act, but then what about the news organizations — including The Times — that accepted it and distributed it?” Mr. Lieberman said, adding: “To me, The New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship, and whether they have committed a crime, I think that bears a very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department.” (WikiLeaks Prosecution Studied by Justice Department – NYTimes.com, December 7, 2010)

This “redacting” role of The New York Times is candidly acknowledged by David E Sanger, Chief Washington correspondent of the NYT:

“[W]e went through [the cables] so carefully to try to redact material that we thought could be damaging to individuals or undercut ongoing operations. And we even took the very unusual step of showing the 100 cables or so that we were writing from to the U.S. government and asking them if they had additional redactions to suggest.” (See PBS Interview; The Redacting and Selection of Wikileaks documents by the Corporate Media, PBS interview on “Fresh Air” with Terry Gross: December 8, 2010, emphasis added).

Yet Sanger also says later in the interview:

 “It is the responsibility of American journalism, back to the founding of this country, to get out and try to grapple with the hardest issues of the day and to do it independently of the government.” (ibid)

“Do it independently of the government” while at the same time “asking them [the US government] if they had additional redactions to suggest”?

David  E. Sanger cannot be described as a model independent journalist. He is member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Aspen Institute’s Strategy Group which regroups the likes of Madeleine K. Albright, Condoleeza Rice, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former CIA head John Deutch, the president of the World Bank, Robert. B. Zoellick and Philip Zelikow, former executive director of the 9/11 Commission, among other prominent establishment figures. (See also F. William Engdahl, Wikileaks: A Big Dangerous US Government Con Job,  Global Research, December 10, 2010).

It is worth noting that several American journalists, members of the Council on Foreign Relations have interviewed Wikileaks, including Time Magazine’s Richard Stengel (November 30, 2010) and The New Yorker’s Raffi Khatchadurian. (WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange : The New Yorker, June 11, 2007)

Historically, The New York Times has served the interests of the Rockefeller family in the context of a longstanding relationship. The current New York Times chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, son of Arthur Ochs Sulzberger and grandson of Arthur Hays Sulzberger who served as a Trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation. Ethan Bronner, deputy foreign editor of The New York Times as well as Thomas Friedman among others are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (Membership Roster – Council on Foreign Relations)

In turn, the Rockefellers have an important stake as shareholders of several US corporate media.

The Embassy and State Department Cables

It should come as no surprise that David E. Sanger and his colleagues at the NYT centered their attention on a highly “selective” dissemination of the Wikileaks cables, focussing on areas which would support US foreign policy interests: Iran’s nuclear program, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan’s support of Al Qaeda, China’s relations with North Korea, etc. These releases were then used as source material in NYT articles and commentary.

The Embassy and State Department cables released by Wikileaks were redacted and filtered. They were used for propaganda purposes. They do not constitute a complete and continuous set of memoranda.

From a selected list of cables, the leaks are being used to justify a foreign policy agenda. A case in point is Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program, which is the object of numerous State Department memos, as well as Saudi Arabia’s support of Islamic terrorism.

Iran’s Nuclear Program

The leaked cables are used to feed the disinformation campaign concerning Iran’s Weapons of Mass Destruction. While the leaked cables are heralded as “evidence” that Iran constitutes a threat, the lies and fabrications of the corporate media concerning Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program are not mentioned, nor is there any mention of them in the leaked cables.

The leaks, once they are funnelled into the corporate news chain, edited and redacted by the New York Times, indelibly serve the broader interests of US foreign policy, including US-NATO-Israel war preparations directed against Iran.

With regard to “leaked intelligence” and the coverage of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program, David E. Sanger has played a crucial role. In November 2005, The New York Times published a report co-authored by David E. Sanger and William J. Broad entitled “Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran’s Nuclear Aims”.

The article refers to mysterious documents on a stolen Iranian laptop computer which included  “a series of drawings of a missile re-entry vehicle” which allegedly could accommodate an Iranian produced nuclear weapon:

“In mid-July, senior American intelligence officials called the leaders of the international atomic inspection agency to the top of a skyscraper overlooking the Danube in Vienna and unveiled the contents of what they said was a stolen Iranian laptop computer.

The Americans flashed on a screen and spread over a conference table selections from more than a thousand pages of Iranian computer simulations and accounts of experiments, saying they showed a long effort to design a nuclear warhead, according to a half-dozen European and American participants in the meeting.

The documents, the Americans acknowledged from the start, do not prove that Iran has an atomic bomb. They presented them as the strongest evidence yet that, despite Iran’s insistence that its nuclear program is peaceful, the country is trying to develop a compact warhead to fit atop its Shahab missile, which can reach Israel and other countries in the Middle East.”(William J. Broad and David E. Sanger Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran’s Nuclear Aims – New York Times, November 13, 2005, emphasis added)

These “secret documents” were subsequently submitted by the US State Department to the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA, with a view to demonstrating that Iran was developing a nuclear weapons program. They were also used as a pretext to enforce the economic sanctions regime directed against Iran, adopted by the UN Security Council.

While their authenticity has been questioned, a recent article by investigative reporter Gareth Porter confirms unequivocally that the mysterious laptop documents are fake. (See Gareth Porter, Exclusive Report: Evidence of Iran Nuclear Weapons Program May Be Fraudulent, Global Research, November 18, 2010).

The drawings contained in the documents leaked by William J. Broad and David E. Sanger do not pertain to the Shahab missile but to an obsolete North Korean missile system which was decommissioned by Iran in the mid-1990s. The drawings presented by US State Department officials pertained to the “Wrong Missile Warhead”:

In July 2005, … Robert Joseph, US undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, made a formal presentation on the purported Iranian nuclear weapons program documents to the agency’s leading officials in Vienna. Joseph flashed excerpts from the documents on the screen, giving special attention to the series of technical drawings or “schematics” showing 18 different ways of fitting an unidentified payload into the re-entry vehicle or “warhead” of Iran’s medium-range ballistic missile, the Shahab-3. When IAEA analysts were allowed to study the documents, however, they discovered that those schematics were based on a re-entry vehicle that the analysts knew had already been abandoned by the Iranian military in favor of a new, improved design. The warhead shown in the schematics had the familiar “dunce cap” shape of the original North Korean No Dong missile, which Iran had acquired in the mid-1990s. … The laptop documents had depicted the wrong re-entry vehicle being redesigned. … (Gareth Porter, op cit, emphasis added)

David E, Sanger, who worked diligently with Wikileaks under the banner of truth and transparency was also instrumental in the New York Times “leak” of what Gareth Porter describes as fake intelligence. (Ibid)

While this issue of fake intelligence received virtually no media coverage, it invalidates outright Washington’s assertions regarding Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons. It also questions the legitimacy of the UN Security Council Sancions regime directed against Iran.

Moreover, in a bitter irony, the selective redacting of the Wikileaks embassy cables by the NYT has usefully served not only to dismiss the central issue of fake intelligence but also to reinforce, through media disinformation, Washington’s claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. A case in point is a November 2010 article co-authored by David E. Sanger, which quotes the Wikileaks cables as a source:

“Iran obtained 19 of the missiles from North Korea, according to a [Wikileaks] cable dated Feb. 24 of this year…. (WikiLeaks Archive — Iran Armed by North Korea – NYTimes.com, November 28, 2010).

These missiles are said to have the “capacity to strike at capitals in Western Europe or easily reach Moscow, and American officials warned that their advanced propulsion could speed Iran’s development of intercontinental ballistic missiles.” (Ibid, emphasis added).

Wikileaks, Iran and the Arab World

The released wikileaks cables have also being used to create divisions between Iran on the one hand and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States on the other:

“After WikiLeaks claimed that certain Arab states are concerned about Iran’s nuclear program and have urged the U.S. to take [military] action to contain Iran, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took advantage of the issue and said that the released cables showed U.S. concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program are shared by the international community.” Tehran Times : WikiLeaks promoting Iranophobia, December 5, 2010)

The Western media has jumped on this opportunity and has quoted the State Department memoranda released by Wikleaks with a view to upholding Iran as a threat to global security as well as fostering divisions between Iran and the Arab world.

“The Global War on Terrorism”

The leaks quoted by the Western media reveal the support of the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia to several Islamic terrorist organizations, a fact which is known and amply documented.

What the reports fail to mention, however, which is crucial in an understanding of the “Global War on Terrorism”, is that US intelligence historically has channelled its support to terrorist organizations via Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. (See Michel Chossudovsky, America’s “War on Terrorism”, Global Research, Montreal, 2005). These are US sponsored covert intelligence operations using Saudi and Pakistani intelligence as intermediaries.

In this regard, the use of the Wikleaks documents by the media tends to sustain the illusion that the CIA has nothing to do with the terror network and that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are “providing the lion’s share of funding” to Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba, among others, when in fact this financing is undertaken in liaison and consultation with their US intelligence counterparts:

“The information came to light in the latest round of documents released Sunday by Wikileaks. In their communiques to the State Department, U.S. embassies in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states describe a situation in which wealthy private donors, often openly, lavishly support the same groups against whom Saudi Arabia claims to be fighting.” ( Wikileaks: Saudis, Gulf States Big Funders of Terror Groups – Defense/Middle East – Israel News – Israel National News)

Similarly, with regard to Pakistan:

The cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to a number of news organizations, make it clear that underneath public reassurances lie deep clashes [between the U.S. and Pakistan] over strategic goals on issues like Pakistan’s support for the Afghan Taliban and tolerance of Al Qaeda,…” (Wary Dance With Pakistan in Nuclear World, The New York Times December 1, 2010)

Reports of this nature serve to provide legitimacy to US drone attacks against alleged terrorist targets inside Pakistan.

The corporate media’s use and interpretation of the Wikileaks cables serves to uphold two related myths:

1) Iran has nuclear weapons program and constitutes a threat to global security.

2) Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are state sponsors of Al Qaeda. They are financing Islamic terrorist organizations which are intent upon attacking the US and its NATO allies.

The CIA and the Corporate Media

The CIA’s relationship to the US media is amply documented. The New York Times continues to entertain a close relationship not only with US intelligence, but also with the Pentagon and more recently with the Department of Homeland Security.

“Operation Mocking Bird” was an initiative of the CIA’s Office of Special Projects (OSP), established in the early 1950s. Its objective was to exert influence on both the US as well as the foreign media. From the 1950s, members of the US media were routinely enlisted by the CIA.

The inner workings of the CIA’s relationship to the US media are described in Carl Bernstein’s 1977 article in Rolling Stone entitled The CIA and the Media:

“[M]ore than 400 American journalists who [had] secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. [1950-1977]Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. … Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners,… Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work….;

Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune. (The CIA and the Media by Carl Bernstein)

Bernstein suggests, in this regard, that

“the CIA’s use of the American news media has been much more extensive than Agency officials have acknowledged publicly or in closed sessions with members of Congress” (Ibid).

In recent years, the CIA’s relationship to the media has become increasingly complex and sophisticated. We are dealing with a mammoth propaganda network involving a number of agencies of government.

Media disinformation has become institutionalized. The lies and fabrications have become increasingly blatant when compared to the 1970s. The US media has become the mouthpiece of US foreign policy. Disinformation is routinely “planted” by CIA operatives in the newsroom of major dailies, magazines and TV channels:

“A relatively few well-connected correspondents provide the scoops, that get the coverage in the relatively few mainstream news sources, where the parameters of debate are set and the “official reality” is consecrated for the bottom feeders in the news chain.”(Chaim Kupferberg, The Propaganda Preparation of 9/11, Global Research, September 19, 2002).

Since 2001, the US media has assumed a new role in sustaining the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) and camouflaging US sponsored war crimes. In the wake of 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld created the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or “Office of Disinformation” as it was labeled by its critics:

“The Department of Defense said they needed to do this, and they were going to actually plant stories that were false in foreign countries — as an effort to influence public opinion across the world.'” (Interview with Steve Adubato, Fox News, 26 December 2002, see also Michel Chossudovsky, War Propaganda, Global Research, January 3, 2003).

Today’s corporate media is an instrument of war propaganda, which begs the question:  why would the NYT all of a sudden promote transparency and truth in media, by assisting Wikileaks in “spreading the word”; and that people around the World would not pause for one moment and question the basis of this incongruous relationship.

On the surface, nothing proves that Wikileaks is a CIA covert operation. However, given the corporate media’s cohesive and structured relationship to US intelligence, not to mention the links of individual journalists to the military-national security establishment, the issue of a CIA sponsored PsyOp must necessarily be addressed.

Wikileaks Social and Corporate Entourage

Wikileaks and The Economist have also entered into what seems to be a contradictory relationship. Wikileaks founder and editor Julian Assange was granted in 2008 The Economist’s New Media Award.

The Economist has a close relationship to Britain’s financial elites. It is an establishment news outlet, which has, on balance, supported Britain’s involvement in the Iraq war. The Economist’s Editor-in-Chief, John Micklethwait was a participant in the June 2010 Bilderberg conference.

The Economist also bears the stamp of the Rothschild family. Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild was chairman of The Economist from 1972 to 1989. His wife Lynn Forester de Rothschild currently sits on The Economist’s board. The Rothschild family also has a sizeable shareholder interest in The Economist. Former Editor of The Economist (1974-86), Andrew Stephen Bower Knight is currently Chairman of the J. Rothschild Capital Management Fund. He is also reported to have been member of the Steering Group (1986) of the Bilderberg.

The Role of the Frontline Club

In 2010, the London based Frontline Club served as de facto U.K “headquarters” for Wikileaks. The Frontline Club is an initiative of Henry Vaughan Lockhart Smith, a former British Grenadier Guards captain. According to NATO, Vaughan Smith became an “independant video journalist […] who always hated war, but remained […] soldier-friendly”. (Across the Wire, New media: Weapons of mass communication, NATO Review, February 2008)

Upon his release from bail, Julian Assange was provided refuge at Vaughan Smith’s Ellingham Manor in Norfolk.

The Frontline Club is an establishment media outfit. Vaughan Smith writes for the NATO Review. (See NATO Web TV Channel and NATO Nations: Accurate, Reliable and Convenient). His relationship to NATO goes back to 1998 when he worked as a video journalist in Kosovo. In 2010, he was “embedded with a platoon from the British Grenadier Guards” during Operation Moshtarak in Afghanistan’s Helmand Province. (PBS NewsHour, February 19, 2010). According to the New York Times, The Frontline Club “has received financing for its events from the Open Society Institute”. (In London, a Haven and a Forum for War Reporters – New York Times, 28 August 2006)

The broader question is why would Julian Assange receive the support from Britain’s foremost establishment news outfits which have consistently been involved in media disinformation?

Are we not dealing with a case of “manufactured dissent”, whereby the process of supporting and rewarding Wikileaks for its endeavors, becomes a means of controlling and manipulating the Wikileaks project, while at the same time embedding it into the mainstream media.

It is also worth mentioning another important link. Julian Assange’s lawyer Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent (FSI), a major London elite law firm, happens to be the legal adviser to the Rothschild Waddesdon Trust. While this in itself does prove anything, it should nonetheless be examined in the broader context of Wikileaks’ social and corporate entourage: the NYT, the CFR, The Economist, Time Magazine, Forbes, Finers Stephens Innocent (FSI), Vaughan Smith and the Frontline Club, etc.

Manufacturing Dissent

Wikileaks has the essential features of a process of “manufactured dissent”. It seeks to expose government lies. It has released important information on US war crimes. But once the project becomes embedded in the mould of mainstream journalism, it is used as an instrument of media disinformation:

“It is in the interest of the corporate elites to accept dissent and protest as a feature of the system inasmuch as they do not threaten the established social order. The purpose is not to repress dissent, but, on the contrary, to shape and mould the protest movement, to set the outer limits of dissent. To maintain their legitimacy, the economic elites favor limited and controlled forms of opposition…  To be effective, however, the process of “manufacturing dissent” must be carefully regulated and monitored by those who are the object of the protest movement ” (See Michel Chossudovsky,  “Manufacturing Dissent”: the Anti-globalization Movement is Funded by the Corporate Elites, September 2010)

What this examination of the Wikileaks project also suggests is that the mechanics of New World Order propaganda, particularly with regard to its military agenda, has become increasingly sophisticated.

It no longer relies on the outright suppression of the facts regarding US-NATO war crimes. Nor does it require that the reputation of government officials at the highest levels, including the Secretary of State, be protected. New World Order politicians are in a sense “disposable”. They can be replaced. What must be protected and sustained are the interests of the economic elites, which control the political apparatus from behind the scenes.

In the case of Wikileaks, the facts are contained in a data bank; many of those facts, particularly those pertaining to foreign governments serve US foreign policy interests. Other facts tend, on the other hand to discredit the US administration. With regard to financial information, the release of data pertaining to a particular bank instigated via Wikileaks by a rival financial institution, could potentially be used to trigger the collapse or bankrutpcy of the targeted financial institution.

All the Wiki-facts are selectively redacted, they are then “analyzed” and interpreted by a media which serves the economic elites.

While the numerous pieces of information contained in the Wikileaks data bank are accessible, the broader public will not normally take the trouble to consult and scan through the Wikileaks data bank. The public will read the redacted selections and interpretations presented in major news outlets.

A partial and biased picture is presented. The redacted version is accepted by public opinion because it is based on what is heralded as a “reliable source”, when in fact what is presented in the pages of major newspapers and on network TV is a carefully crafted and convoluted distortion of the truth.

Limited forms of critical debate and “transparency” are tolerated while also enforcing broad public acceptance of the basic premises of US foreign policy, including its “Global War on Terrorism”. With regard to a large segment of the US antiwar movement, this strategy seems to have succeeded: “We are against war but we support the ‘war on terrorism'”.

What this means is that truth in media can only be reached by dismantling the propaganda apparatus, –i.e. breaking the legitimacy of the corporate media which sustains the broad interests of the economic elites as well America’s global military design.

In turn, we must ensure that the campaign against Wikileaks in the U.S., using the 1917 Espionage Act, will not be utilized as a means to wage a campaign to control the internet. In this regard, we should also stand firm in preventing the prosecution of Julian Assange in the US.

O torpedo lançado através do “New York Times” – acusando Moscou de violar o Tratado sobre forças nucleares de alcance intermediário (INF, na sigla em inglês) – atingiu o objetivo: o de tornar ainda mais tensa a relação entre os Estados Unidos e a Rússia, retardando ou impedindo a abertura da negociação anunciada por Trump na campanha eleitoral.

O torpedo leva a assinatura de Obama, que em julho de 2014 (logo após o golpe da Praça Maidan e a subsequente crise com a Rússia) acusava Putin de haver testado um míssil nuclear de cruzeiro, denominado SSC-X-8, violando o Tratado INF de 1987 que proíbe a instalação de mísseis com base em terra e alcance de 500 a 5500 km.

Segundo o que declaram funcionários anônimos da inteligência dos EUA, dois batalhões russos já se encontram armados, cada um dotado de quatro lançadores móveis e 24 mísseis com ogivas nucleares. Antes de deixar no ano passado seu cargo de Comandante supremo aliado na Europa, o general Breedlove advertia que a instalação desse novo míssil russo “não pode ficar sem resposta”.

Porém, ele silenciava sobre o fato de que a Otan tem instaladas na Europa contra a Rússia cerca de 700 ogivas nucleares estadunidenses, francesas e britânicas, quase todas prontas para lançamento 24 horas por dia. E tal como se estende ao Leste até dentro da ex-Urss, a Otan aproximou cada vez mais as suas forças nucleares da Rússia.

No quadro de tal estratégia se insere a decisão, tomada pela administração Obama, de substituir as 180 bombas nucleares B-61 – instaladas na Itália (50 em Aviano e 20 a Ghedi-Torre), Alemanha, Bélgica, Holanda e Turquia – pelas B61-12: novas armas nucleares, cada uma com quatro opções de potência selecionável segundo o objetivo a golpear, capazes de penetrar no terreno para destruir o bunker dos centros de comando. Um programa de 10 bilhões de dólares, para o qual cada B61-12 custará mais do que a peso de ouro.

Ao mesmo tempo, os EUA realizaram na Romênia a primeira bateria de mísseis terrestres da “defesa antimísseis”, que será seguida por outra na Polônia, composta por mísseis Aegis, instalados a bordo de quatro navios de guerra dos Estados Unidos ancorados no Mediterrâneo e no Mar Negro. É o chamado “escudo” cuja função é na realidade ofensiva: se chegassem a realizá-lo, os EUA e a Otan teriam a Rússia sob a ameaça de um first strike (primeiro ataque) nuclear, confiando na capacidade do “escudo” de neutralizar a represália.

Além disso, o sistema de lançamento vertical MK 41 da Lockheed Martin, instalado nos navios baseados na Romênia, está em condições de lançar, segundo a técnica específica fornecida pela própria fabricante, “mísseis para todas as missões”, inclusive as de “ataque contra alvos terrestres com mísseis de cruzeiro Tomahawk”, que também podem ser armados com ogivas nucleares. Moscou advertiu que essas baterias, estando em condições de lançar também mísseis nucleares, constituem uma violação do Tratado INF.

O que a União Europeia (UE) faz em tal situação? Enquanto proclama o seu empenho pelo desarmamento nuclear, está concebendo nos seus círculos políticos aquilo que o “New York Times” define como “uma ideia antes impensável: um programa de armamentos nucleares da UE”. Segundo tais planos, o arsenal nuclear francês seria “reprogramado para proteger o resto da Europa e posto sob um comando europeu comum”, que o financiaria através de um fundo comum. Isto ocorreria “se a Europa não pudesse mais contar com a proteção americana”.

Em outras palavras: Se Trump, entrando em acordo com Putin, não instalasse mais os B61-12 na Europa, pensamos que a UE prosseguiria o  confronto nuclear com a Rússia.

Manlio Dinucci 

Artigo em italiano :

Il grande gioco nucleare in Europa

Publicado em Il Manifesto, 14 de Março de 2017

Tradução do italiano por José Reinaldo Carvalho para Resistência

Manlio Dinucci é jornalista e geógrafo.

Nightmarish Trumpcare. It Benefits the Super-rich at the Expense of Affordable Healthcare

By Stephen Lendman, March 15 2017

According to the Economic Policy Institute, “99% of Americans…win if the GOP health plan fails.” It benefits business and super-rich elites at the expense of affordable healthcare for everyone – a fundamental human right.

The Republican Healthcare Bill Is Very Free-Market, Libertarian

By Eric Zuesse, March 15 2017

Another way of putting this is: it would considerably decrease the requirements that are placed upon health care insurers and providers. It would be as close to extreme free-market health care as can be achieved except for a system in which anyone can legally sell anything and call it “health insurance” or call it “medical care.” In other words, it would be more like anarchy in these fields.

“Trumpcare” Dead on Arrival: Can We Please Now Try Single Payer?

By Ellen Brown, March 15 2017

The new American Health Care Act has been unveiled, and critics are calling it more flawed even than the Obamacare it was meant to replace. Dubbed “Ryancare” or “Trumpcare” (over the objection of White House staff), the Republican health care bill is under attack from left and right, with even conservative leaders calling it “Obamacare Lite”, “bad policy”, a “warmed-over substitute,” and “dead on arrival.”

North Korea: The Grand Deception Revealed. The People of the DPRK Want Peace

By Christopher Black, March 15 2017

In 2003 I had, along with some American lawyers, members of the National Lawyers Guild, the good fortune to be able to travel to North Korea, that is the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, in order to experience first hand that nation, its socialist system and its people. The joint report issued on our return was titled “The Grand Deception Revealed.” That title was chosen because we discovered that the negative western propaganda myth about North Korea is a grand deception designed to blind the peoples of the world to the accomplishments of the Korean people in the north who have successfully created their own circumstances, their own independent socio-economic system, based on socialist principles, free of the domination of the western powers.

The Banking Secret, Which Makes the Fatcats Richer, While Destroying the Real Economy

By Washington’s Blog, March 15 2017

Who creates money? Most people assume that money is created by governments … or perhaps central banks. In reality – as noted by the Bank of England, Britain’s central bank – 97% of all money in circulation is created by private banks. But how do private banks create money? We’ve all been taught that banks first take in deposits, and then they loan out those deposits to folks who want to borrow. But this is a myth … The Bank of England the German central bank have explained that loans are extended before deposits exist … and that the loans create deposits.

The Canadian plan also helps Canadians live longer and healthier than Americans. . . . We need, as a nation, to reexamine the single-payer plan, as many individual states are doing.  — Donald Trump, The America We Deserve (2000)

The new American Health Care Act has been unveiled, and critics are calling it more flawed even than the Obamacare it was meant to replace. Dubbed “Ryancare” or “Trumpcare” (over the objection of White House staff), the Republican health care bill is under attack from left and right, with even conservative leaders calling it “Obamacare Lite”, “bad policy”, a “warmed-over substitute,” and “dead on arrival.”

The problem for both administrations is that they have been trying to fund a bloated, inefficient, and overpriced medical system with scarce taxpayer funds, without capping its costs. US healthcare costs in 2016 averaged $10,345 per person, for a total of $3.35 trillion dollars, a full 18 percent of the entire economy, twice as much as in other industrialized countries.

Ross Perot, who ran for president in 1992, had the right idea: he said all we have to do is to look at other countries that have better health care at lower cost and copy them.

So which industrialized countries do it better than the US? The answer is, all of them. They all not only provide healthcare for the entire population at about half the cost, but they get better health outcomes than in the US. Their citizens have longer lifespans, fewer infant mortalities and less chronic disease.

President Trump, who is all about getting the most bang for the buck, should love that.

Hard to Argue with Success

The secret to the success of these more efficient systems is that they control medical costs. According to T. R. Reid in The Healing of America, they follow one of three models: the “Bismarck model” established in Germany, in which health providers and insurers are private but insurers are not allowed to make a profit; the “Beveridge model” adopted in Britain, where most healthcare providers work as government employees and the government acts as the single payer for all health services; and the Canadian model, a single-payer system in which the healthcare providers are mostly private.

A single government payer can negotiate much lower drug prices – about half what we pay in the US – and lower hospital prices. Single-payer is also much easier to administer. Cutting out the paperwork can save 30 percent on the cost of insurance. According to a May 2016 post by Physicians for a National Health Program:

Per capita, the U.S. spends three times as much for health care as the U.K., whose taxpayer-funded National Health Service provides health care to citizens without additional charges or co-pays. In 2013, U.S. taxpayers footed the bill for 64.3 percent of U.S. health care — about $1.9 trillion. Yet in the U.S. nearly 30 million of our citizens still lack any form of insurance coverage.

The for-profit U.S. health care system is corrupt, dysfunctional and deadly. In Canada, only 1.5 percent of health care costs are devoted to administration of its single-payer system. In the U.S., 31 percent of health care expenditures flow to the private insurance industry. Americans pay far more for prescription drugs. Last year, CNN reported, Americans paid nearly 10 times as much for prescription Nexium as it cost in the Netherlands.

Single payer, or Medicare for All, is the system proposed in 2016 by Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders. It is also the system endorsed by Donald Trump in his book The America We Deserve. Mr. Trump confirmed his admiration for that approach in January 2015, when he said on David Letterman:

A friend of mine was in Scotland recently. He got very, very sick. They took him by ambulance and he was there for four days. He was really in trouble, and they released him and he said, ‘Where do I pay?’ And they said, ‘There’s no charge.’ Not only that, he said it was like great doctors, great care. I mean we could have a great system in this country.

Contrary to the claims of its opponents, the single-payer plan of Bernie Sanders would not have been unaffordable. Rather, according to research by University of Massachusetts Amherst Professor Gerald Friedman, it would have generated substantial savings for the government:

Under the single-payer system envisioned by “The Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act” (H.R. 676), the U.S. could save $592 billion – $476 billion by eliminating administrative waste associated with the private insurance industry and $116 billion by reducing drug prices . . . .

According to OECD health data, in 2013 the British were getting their healthcare for $3,364 per capita annually; the Germans for $4,920; the French for $4,361; and the Japanese for $3,713. The tab for Americans was $9,086, at least double the others. With single-payer at the OECD average of $3,661 and a population of 322 million, we should be able to cover all our healthcare for under $1.2 trillion annually – well under half what we are paying now.

The Problem Is Not Just the High Cost of Insurance

That is true in theory; but governments at all levels in the US already spend $1.6 trillion for healthcare, which goes mainly to Medicare and Medicaid and covers only 17 percent of the population. Where is the discrepancy?

For one thing, Medicare and Medicaid are more expensive than they need to be, because the US government has been prevented from negotiating drug and hospital costs. In January, a bill put forth by Sen. Sanders to allow the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada was voted down. Sanders is now planning to introduce a bill to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, for which he is hoping for the support of the president. Trump indicated throughout his presidential campaign that he would support negotiating drug prices; and in January, he said that the pharmaceutical industry is “getting away with murder” because of what it charges the government. As observed by Ronnie Cummins, International Director of the Organic Consumers Association, in February 2017:

. . . [B]ig pharmaceutical companies, for-profit hospitals and health insurers are allowed to jack up their profit margins at will. . . . Simply giving everyone access to Big Pharma’s overpriced drugs, and corporate hospitals’ profit-at-any-cost tests and treatment, will result in little more than soaring healthcare costs, with uninsured and insured alike remaining sick or becoming even sicker.

Besides the unnecessarily high cost of drugs, the US medical system is prone to over-diagnosing and over-treating. The Congressional Budget Office says that up to 30 percent of the health care in the US is unnecessary. We use more medical technology then in other countries, including more expensive diagnostic equipment. The equipment must be used in order to recoup its costs. Unnecessary testing and treatment can create new health problems, requiring yet more treatment, further driving up medical bills.

Drug companies are driven by profit, and their market is sickness – a market they have little incentive to shrink. There is not much profit to be extracted from quick, effective cures. The money is in the drugs that have to be taken for 30 years, killing us slowly. And they are killing us. Pharmaceutical drugs taken as prescribed are the fourth leading cause of US deaths, after heart disease, cancer and stroke.  

The US is the only industrialized country besides New Zealand that allows drug companies to advertise pharmaceuticals. Big Pharma spends more on lobbying than any other US industry, and it spends more than $5 billion a year on advertising. Lured by drug advertising, Americans are popping pills they don’t need, with side effects that are creating problems where none existed before. Americans compose only 5 percent of the world’s population, yet we consume fully 50 percent of Big Pharma’s drugs and 80 percent of the world’s pain pills. We not only take more drugs (measured in grams of active ingredient) than people in most other countries, but we have the highest use of new prescription drugs, which have a 1 in 5 chance of causing serious adverse reactions after they have been approved.

The US death toll from prescription drugs taken as prescribed is now 128,000 per year. As Jon Rappaport observes, with those results Big Pharma should be under criminal investigation. But the legal drug industry has grown too powerful for that. According to Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, writing in 2002:

The combined profits for the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 ($35.9 billion) were more than the profits for all the other 490 businesses put together ($33.7 billion). Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has [become] a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, [using] its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself.

It’s Just Good Business

US healthcare costs are projected to grow at 6 percent a year over the next decade. The result could be to bankrupt not only millions of consumers but the entire federal government.

Obamacare has not worked, and Ryancare is not likely to work. As demonstrated in many other industrialized countries, single-payer delivers better health care at half the cost that Americans are paying now.

Winston Churchill is said to have quipped, “You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they have tried everything else.” We need to try a thrifty version of Medicare for all, with negotiated prices for drugs, hospitals and diagnostic equipment.

Ellen Brown is the founder of the Public Banking Institute and a Research Fellow at the Democracy Collaborative. She is the author of a dozen books including the best-selling Web of Debt, on how the power to create money was usurped by a private banking cartel; and The Public Bank Solution, on how the people can reclaim that power through a network of publicly-owned banks. She has written over 300 articles, posted at EllenBrown.com; and co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money with Ellen Brown.”

The Republican House proposed healthcare legislation is a substantially more free-market approach to health care than exists in any industrialized nation. It would greatly reduce regulation of health care in America, and also considerably increase the choices that consumers would have in their health care.

Another way of putting this is: it would considerably decrease the requirements that are placed upon health care insurers and providers. It would be as close to extreme free-market health care as can be achieved except for a system in which anyone can legally sell anything and call it “health insurance” or call it “medical care.” In other words, it would be more like anarchy in these fields.

A typical and extremely important passage in the bill’s text is:

It has attracted money and the implementation of programs, another standard diversionary tactic common in many societies.  It is all touted as a good bit of social engineering, a form of anger management by other means.  The basis of that problematic term “deradicalisation” entails the erroneous idea that telling a person something should not be done politically is necessarily going to be effective.

The subjective analogue on deradicalisation with Hamlet is apparent: “for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”  So, the teachers, pedagogues, social workers and lecturers have sought to persuade those young incipient jihadis that somehow, finding numerous virgins at the end of the tunnel of martyrdom is a bad idea.  Best be a model citizen, seeking a dull job and treating politics, essentially, as a politician’s business.  A country’s leaders can simply go on with their meddlesome ways, creating mischief overseas while proclaiming the virtues of stability at home.

The idea of deradicalisation starts off on a misstep, a malformed idea. It assumes that a person is going to turn rotten and rush off to the Middle East at any given moment unless the instructor nips such ambitions in the bud with appropriate ideals and suitable options. It also assumes that ideas, however developed or reasoned, can be cordoned, quarantined and varied.

Nor are the scholar squirrels and analysts entirely clear about what the initial stage – radicalisation – actually means.  (The same goes for the term terrorism, a multi-headed beast of multi-headed meanings.)  Criminologist Kris Christmann has advanced no less than eight separate models on the process of deradicalisation while placing his finger on ten theoretical models.

A gaze through the literature is bewildering, whether one soddens ones feet in Taarnby’s eight-stage recruitment process, wades through Wiktorowicz’s al-Muhajiroun model, or slugs through McCauley and Moskalenko’s twelve mechanisms of political radicalisation.  Variety, in this world, is not the spice of the life so much as a muddle in the middle.

Little wonder then that Christmann’s report for the British Youth Justice Board Preventing Religious Radicalisation and Violent Extremism suggests, citing previous studies, that general scholarship on this is “impressionistic, superficial and often pretentious, venting far reaching generalisations on the basis of episodic evidence”.[1]

It also assumes that a person is only permitted to think in a certain, pleasing way: the orthodoxy of the state, the wisdom of the technocrats and politicians who supposedly operate on a Platonic plane of high reason.

This, essentially, amounts to a form of cerebral amputation, a reverse brainwashing supposedly designed to respond, as a targeted sonic boom, to the brainwashing methods of the madrassa. It is a political strategy designed to neuter the potentially radical subject, while also instilling a dull, mute conformity. It is, in short, reactive, pre-emptive, and unimaginative.

While this should not be taken as a hearty endorsement of the gun toting antics of an Islamic State recruit, the state obsession with curtailing a youth’s understanding of political or religious destiny (in Islam, there is no functional difference on this point) is doomed to fail.  All states insist on their brand of radicalisation, whatever the popular ideology of the day.

The attempt by such countries as the United States, Britain, France, and Australia to claim clarity above the radical politics of the Middle East also suggests a remarkable confusion.  Deradicalisation programs are themselves facing an impossible end: attempting to convince youths that they not take up arms against a state that itself is engaged in war in Muslim countries, or that their adventurist spirit must somehow be channelled.

Added to this is the parallel legal world that has grown up in response to terrorism, known more broadly as the counter-terrorist response.  As Irfan Yusuf noted in 2016, there were 64 separate pieces of counter-terrorism legislation and measures introduced onto the law books between 2001 and 2014 in Australia alone.[2]

The icing on this system, in turn, is the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program.  Be it in legislation or in the CVE program confusion reigns over what constitutes an actual terrorist act, and what constitutes radicalisation itself.

In Syria, an epicentre of the radicalism debate, radical groups do battle against a form of secular violence; secular violence, through the Assad regime in Syria, is reasserted as a defender against radicalisation. It would be far more fitting to say that war is of its own accord the great agent of radicalisation, the fulcrum behind inspiring others to join it like moths to a flickering flame.

The general burden of proof for deradicalising youth tends to fail at the conceptual level. What it has led to is a sprawling set of programs with false assumptions. The obvious question, though one that is persistently ignored, is how a teenager with a spotless police record might still wish to seek glory in a distant land behind a gun.

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

Notes

[1] http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/16198/

[2] http://www.smh.com.au/comment/deradicalisation-programs-do-they-work-20160426-gofgi3.html

Una descripción del hombre económico puro, se la debemos (1915) al estudioso inglés Gerhard von Shulze-Gaevenitz: Es una persona que trabaja por el lucro y no para disfrutar del beneficio de su trabajo. Para un tipo tal, la felicidad consiste en atesorar dinero, en la acumulación de riquezas. En lugar de coleccionar estampillas o monedas antiguas, colecciona billetes de mil dólares.

En verdad, acota por su parte el politólogo Roberto Michels, muchos encuentran en la ocupación remunerativa, la satisfacción que había esperado. Por el contrario, para muchos otros Cresos, el dinero, que empieza siendo un esclavo encadenado y obediente, se transforma en un amo absoluto, que los explota y los abruma. Obtener riqueza se convierte en una manía, una idea fija, una obsesión, una pesadilla que demanda imperiosamente el sacrificio de todo lo valioso…

Personaje de historieta, es Rico Mac Pato: Se gratifica echándose clavados en una alberca rebosante de dólares.

Estampa sociológica real, o grotesca  de comics, la tentación actual es quedarse con entre 21 mil o 50 mil millones de dólares. Sería la suma fluctuante del proyecto del magnate Donald Trump, de construir el muro fronterizo Estados Unidos-México.

Frente a una potencial crisis humanitaria

Es el conflicto de la condición humana, de la que escribió Andrè Malraux: Más de 12 millones de personas de diversas nacionalidades están en peligro de ser expulsadas de los Estados Unidos, expuestas a la desintegración familiar y a un destino territorial y laboral incierto. Una potencial crisis humanitaria.

En esa masa laborante en los Estados Unidos amenazada, se hallan más de seis millones de mexicanos. Para su defensa, el gobierno mexicano ha convocado a la unidad nacional.

En esa tesitura, México ha recibido innumerables expresiones de solidaridad.

Al acecho de esa tragedia, aparecen los nuevos Cresos. “Chacales”, dicho con más propiedad.

Dos corporativos “mexicanos” en la polla

Recientemente, el diario californiano Los Ángeles Times publicó que 600 empresas trasnacionales se han inscrito en un registro previo, interesadas en construir el mentado muro.

Para conocer sus propuestas de presupuesto, el gobierno de los Estados Unidos, hará una preselección el 20 de marzo. En mayo se harían las primeras licitaciones: Mucho hormigón para barreras de nueve metros de alto, mínimo.

Mucho antes de que se abriera formalmente ese proceso, al menos dos corporativos “mexicanos” declararon su interés por participar en la subasta de los contratos: Cementos Mexicanos (Cemex) y Cementos Chihuahua. ¿De solidaridad con nuestros compatriotas se ha hablado?

Dice el citado Michels que los Cresos abandonan hasta a sus esposas para perseguir el becerro de oro: Permanecen atados a sus escritorios de sus oficinas durante toda la vida o, disparatados e inquietos como el proverbial judío errante, corren por los pasillos de la Bolsa de Valores: No conocerán la paz hasta que abandonen este mundo.

¿Qué hacen los gobiernos de los países donde tienen sus matrices los corporativos que, gustosos, quieren construir el infamante muro de hormigón?

Acaso estén haciendo cuentas fiscales para resarcir sus desvencijadas finanzas públicas. Como diría el mexicanito: Ya no hay moral.

Mouris Salloum George

Mouris Salloum George: Director del Club de Periodistas de México A.C.

Los bancos centrales existen para defender a sus respectivas naciones de los ataques de los especuladores y usureros. No en vano, Meyer Amschel Rothschild, fundador de la banca que lleva su apellido, dijo en noviembre de 1810: “Permitidme fabricar y controlar el dinero de una nación, y ya no me importará quiénes sean sus gobernantes”.

La dinastía de los Rothschild controlaba las finanzas de Europa a finales del siglo XIX y su ambición apuntaba ya hacia la naciente potencia capitalista de los Estados Unidos de América. Por lo tanto, financiaron a los bancos J.P. Morgan y Kuhn, Loeb & Co. También, a la compañía petrolera Standard Oil Co, de John David Rockefeller; a la empresa ferroviaria de Edward Harriman y a las fábricas de acero de Andrew Carnegie[1].

IMAGEN: François Fillon, uno de los candidatos a la presidencia de Francia.

Por primera vez en la historia, la derecha de Francia acudirá a las elecciones presidenciales representada hoy por un político con un expediente judicial abierto: el candidato François Fillon acaba de ser inculpado por presunto desvío de fondos públicos.

La imputación se produjo ayer en la más absoluta discreción, cuando faltan escasos días para que el organismo electoral cierre el plazo de entrega de las candidaturas y sus patrocinios, lo cual ocurrirá este viernes 17 de marzo.

Eso quiere decir que el tiempo de reacción se termina para los conservadores; pasada esta semana, el partido Los Republicanos (LR) no podrá remplazar a Fillon por otro postulante y quedará obligado a acudir a los comicios representado por el ex primer ministro (2007-2012), o por nadie.

Desde la semana pasada, cuando ya se conocía la inminente inculpación, el comité político de LR tomó la arriesgada decisión de apostar por un hombre marcado inevitablemente por el escándalo legal, y sobre todo por el recelo esparcido entre la ciudadanía.

De un endeble pedestal ha caído Fillon, apodado irónicamente como ‘el Señor limpio’, quien se presentaba hace algunos meses como la encarnación misma de la honestidad al tener una carrera política de 30 años sin una sola mancha legal.

Sin embargo, las revelaciones de la prensa francesa trastocaron todo: a inicios de enero se conoció que durante años ‘el Señor limpio’ proporcionó empleos como sus asistentes parlamentarios a su esposa y dos hijos, por lo cual a las cuentas personales de la familia ingresaron cientos de miles de euros procedentes del dinero público.

La sospecha de inmediato se expandió por toda Francia, principalmente porque la esposa del político afirmó durante décadas que nunca estuvo involucrada en la carrera de su marido, e incluso en una entrevista en 2007 descartó rotundamente ser su asistente.

La justicia comenzó a investigar el caso en un proceso que llevó a la actual imputación, pese a lo cual Fillon podrá presentarse a las elecciones, pues la presunción de inocencia prevalece hasta que en un juicio (que debe demorar varios meses) se demuestre lo contrario.

En consecuencia, el candidato derechista estará presente en los comicios presidenciales en abril y mayo, pero analistas y medios de prensa coinciden en algo: la imputación resultará una carga demasiado pesada.

Las posibilidades de victoria de Fillon se han reducido notablemente, como lo muestran las encuestas que lo sitúan en el tercer puesto en la intención de votos y eliminado automáticamente desde la primera vuelta, prevista el 23 de abril.

Si se previera incluso un escenario optimista en el cual el aspirante presidencial ganara las elecciones, muchos se hacen la misma pregunta: ¿cómo podría gobernar un presidente con cuentas pendientes con la justicia?

Esa interrogante, además, adquiere especial significación cuando se profundiza en su programa de gobierno, que incluye medidas duras como aumentar el tiempo de trabajo reglamentado, incrementar a 65 años la edad de jubilación y recortar el gasto público en 100 mil millones de euros.

¿Podría Fillon exigir tales sacrificios a los franceses cuando existe la sospecha de que su patrimonio familiar se benefició con fraudes y manejos turbios del propio dinero público?, demandan rivales políticos y especialistas en los periódicos, la radio y la televisión.

En un escenario de esa naturaleza, el país europeo quedaría al borde de la ingobernabilidad.

Entonces se hace evidente que apostar por Fillon conlleva varios riesgos para la derecha: el de quedar fuera de la segunda vuelta electoral por primera vez en varias décadas; perder los comicios presidenciales; e incluso, en caso de ganar, el no poder gobernar.

Luisa María González

IMAGEN: El secretario de Relaciones Exteriores de Chile, Heraldo Muñoz.

Una inesperada legión de periodistas en Viña del Mar de Japón, China y Brasil, se antoja el termómetro del nerviosismo que predomina en el mundo ante las corrientes proteccionistas contra el libre comercio.

Brasil y Colombia eran tal vez en América Latina los más preocupados por la entrada en vigor del TPP (el Acuerdo Transpacífico de Cooperación Económica), pero ambos quieren saber cómo sigue la historia.

Colombia forma parte de la Alianza del Pacífico y por lo tanto es un socio privilegiado en el Diálogo de Alto Nivel en Iniciativas de Integración en el Asia Pacífico. Desafíos y Oportunidades que se desarrolla en esta ciudad.

Pero Brasil no quiere perder pie ni pisada al asunto, como tampoco China, que no era parte del TPP pero al igual que muchos otros miembros de la comunidad internacional, tiene inquietud por la tendencia marcada por Estados Unidos.

Por ahora el presidente Donald Trump desestimó no sólo el TPP, del cual se salió, sino todos los avances experimentados por el Foro de Cooperación Asia Pacífico (Apec) y mira con displicencia a la Alianza del Pacífico (AP).

Ante este escenario, la amenaza real a México de levantar un muro en la frontera común y el escepticismo de Washington en torno al TLC respecto a México y Canadá, en Viña del Mar se cocina otra historia alternativa.

La AP, bajo el mando de Chile en su presidencia Pro Tempore, quiere acercar posiciones con las naciones de la Cuenca del Pacífico y con esta óptica se da la reunión de dos días que concluye este miércoles.

Junto con México, Colombia, Perú y Chile, se suman en este empeño Canadá, Australia, Malasia, Vietnam, Brunéi, Singapur, Nueva Zelanda y los mencionados Japón, Corea del Sur y China.

A nivel de cancilleres, ministros de Comercio y altos funcionarios, la cita busca nuevas oportunidades de integración y con los países del Pacífico, sin descartar una futura incorporación de Estados Unidos.

Hay espacios que pueden ser aprovechados de manera bilateral por los otros 11 países que conforman el TPP, declaró el ministro de Exteriores de México, Luis Videgaray.

La incertidumbre no dejó cruzado de brazos a los demás actores.

Los países de la Alianza del Pacífico se pronunciaron por ampliar el libre comercio internacional, con un llamado a la integración a bloques como el Mercosur y la APEC.

Frente a las corrientes proteccionistas que inquietan al mundo en la actualidad, queremos enviar un mensaje claro y potente desde Viña del Mar al concierto Asia Pacífico, destacó el canciller chileno, Heraldo Muñoz.

Hemos puesto en marcha un plan para incrementar el comercio interno que es actualmente pequeño; identificar barreras arancelarias; estimular a empresarios a realizar más rondas de negocios y a incrementar el comercio y las inversiones, señaló.

También existe consenso acerca de la integración de capitales, y hemos decidido establecer la figura de país asociado los cuales anunciaremos oportunamente con la idea de proyectar tratados de libre comercio en el corto plazo, acotó.

Muñoz anunció que el 7 de abril, la Alianza del Pacífico se reunirá en Buenos Aires con el Mercosur a nivel ministerial, con el objetivo de profundizar en la idea de la convergencia dentro de la diversidad.

Tenemos un espectro muy amplio, la AP, Mercosur, lo que resta del TPP (el fallido TransPacific Partnership), el foro de Cooperación Asia Pacifico, que permiten creer con optismimo en un futuro del libre comercio, remarcó.

Falta ver si de las palabras a los hechos, los progresos son tangibles.

Fausto Triana

IMAGEN: El secretario de Relaciones Exteriores de Chile, Heraldo Muñoz.

Los países de la Alianza del Pacífico (AP) se pronunciaron hoy por ampliar el libre comercio internacional, con un llamado a la integración a bloques como el Mercosur y la APEC.

Frente a las corrientes proteccionistas que inquietan al mundo en la actualidad, queremos enviar un mensaje claro y potente desde Viña del Mar al concierto Asia Pacífico, destacó el canciller chileno, Heraldo Muñoz.

En representación de Chile en calidad de presidente Pro Témpore de la AP, Muñoz habló de las expectativas del Diálogo de Alto Nivel en Iniciativas de Integración en el Asia Pacífico. Desafíos y Oportunidades en esta ciudad hoy y mañana.

Hemos puesto en marcha un plan para incrementar el comercio interno que es actualmente pequeño; identificar barreras arancelarias; estimular a empresarios a realizar más rondas de negocios y a incrementar el comercio y las inversiones, señaló.

También existe consenso acerca de la integración de capitales, y hemos decidido establecer la figura de país asociado los cuales anunciaremos oportunamente con la idea de proyectar tratados de libre comercio en el corto plazo, acotó.

Muñoz anunció que probablemente el 7 de abril, la Alianza del Pacífico se reunirá en Buenos Aires con el Mercosur a nivel ministerial, con el objetivo de profundizar en la idea de la convergencia dentro de la diversidad.

Tenemos un espectro muy amplio, la AP, Mercosur, lo que resta del TPP (el fallido TransPacific Partnership), el foro de Cooperación Asia Pacifico, que permiten cree con optismimo en un futuro del libre comercio, remarcó.

Acompañaron a Muñoz su homóloga de Colombia María Angela Holguín; los ministros de Comercio, Industria y Turismo, María LaCouture (Colombia); el canciller Ricardo Luna y el titular de Comercio Exterior Eduardo Fereyros, ambos de Perú.

Asimismo, los secretarios de Exteriores y Economía de México, Luis Videgaray e Ildefonso Guajardo, respectivamente.

Ministros y altos funcionarios de China, Corea del Sur, Japón, Canadá, Australia, Nueva Zelanda, Singapur, Malasia, Brunei y Vietnam, toman parte en el encuentro de naciones de la Cuenca del Pacífico en la Ciudad Jardín de Chile.

En las afueras del hotel donde se celebra la cita, decenas de integrantes de la agrupación Chile Mejor sin TPP realizaron una protesta contra la reunión, y según sus voceros fueron detenidos por Carabineros sin explicación alguna.

Fausto Triana

En sus reuniones de hoy y mañana es casi seguro que la Reserva Federal (Fed) decidirá incrementar la tasa de interés. Será un aumento modesto, pues no quiere cometer errores en aras de detener presiones inflacionarias, que siguen siendo débiles. El incremento esperado es de unos 25 puntos base para llevar la tasa líder de corto plazo al rango de 0.75-1.00 por ciento. Es un aumento moderado que va en la línea de la señora Janet Yellen, presidenta de la Fed, quien no quiere ser recordada como la persona que sofocó la recuperación de la economía de Estados Unidos.

Over the weekend we noted chatter that some saw Mike Pence as “the Deep State’s insurance policy,” and now, judging by tweets from Wikileaks’ Julian Assange, that may well be the Clinton/Intelligence Officials plan…

Adding that…

As The Daily Caller notes, Assange’s claims appear to come in response to reports that President Trump authorized the CIA to perform drone strikes on terrorists Monday evening…

As we concluded previously, if Trump doesn’t adopt the Cold War 2.0 approach of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and is forced out of his own administration in the same manner as Flynn, it will become clear why once we learn who would replace him: Mike Pence. No matter what one makes of Trump – or his administration and the policies that have been initiated thus far – the fact remains that Trump won the U.S. election. The people working behind the scenes to oust him are not subject to democratic controls, nor are they working in the best interests of the American public. We are left to ask ourselves exactly how renewing relations with Russia –  a nuclear power –  could possibly endanger American lives. Either way, we are more or less left with two paths ahead of us.

The first path involves Trump giving in and adopting an anti-Russian agenda, as is already apparent in his decision to send more ground troops to Syria alongside Saudi troops, who will intentionally oppose the Syrian regime (a close ally of Russia). The second involves the possibility of another direct coup within the Trump administration, this time one that may ultimately force Trump out of the White House so he can be replaced by Mike Pence, a war hawk who will be more than happy to do the job Hillary Clinton wanted to do.

The US Constitution applies to US citizens, and the amendments known as the Bill of Rights guarantee due process as a protection of US citizens’ civil liberties. That’s the theory but not the practice.

Trump’s travel ban applies to non-US citizens, primarily to refugees from the Bush/Obama bombings of numerous Muslim countries.

Some of these refugees, whose families and countries were destroyed by American troops, could harbor feelings of revenge against Americans. The Ninth Circuit Panel’s injunction against Trump’s executive order gives the Constitution’s protection of US citizens to non-citizens, apparently on the basis of due process and religious discrimination arguments. The panel of judges said that Trump’s executive order “runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.”

So too does bombing numerous Muslim countries over the course of the past 16 years, about which nothing has been done. One would think that, with the Democratic Party’s merger with Identity Politics and with the liberal/progressive/left leaning of the Ninth Circuit, more of a stink would have been raised about bombing Muslims gratuitously than by placing a mere ban on their entry into the US. But it all depends on who does the bombing and who does the ban. Identity Politics requires “America’s First Black President” to be supported at all costs, and Trump, a white male billionaire, to be hated at all costs.

Dear readers, note that the US federal courts roll out the Constitution in order to protect non-citizens from a president’s executive order preventing their entry into the US, but refused to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens from arbitrary indefinite detention and execution without due process.

The fact that constitutional rights no longer apply to citizens, only to non-citizens has evoked no comment from the liberal/progressive/left, from the Democratic Party, from Harvard Law School, from the American Bar Association, or from the Federalist Society. Not from anyone, and for my reward for telling the truth Harvard University Library has published a large list of “False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and Satirical ‘News’ Sources” on which paulcraigroberts.org is included.

http://guides.library.harvard.edu/fake

Harvard’s library does not say where the list came from or why the list is credible. I am on the list for “bias” and “conspiracy.” The “bias” means that I do not accept the Ruling Establishment’s self-serving explanations, and “conspiracy” means that I report on the findings of the 3,000 highrise architects and structural engineers who comprise A&E for 9/11 Truth, the Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and the Scientists for 9/11 Truth, all of whom are far more knowledgeable about 9/11 than the Harvard librarian or the Harvard faculty.

Americans, and apparently Harvard’s library, are unaware that hardly any of the experts who have chosen to speak out about the official 9/11 story, including those First Responders inside the two towers, believe a word of the official story. Harvard’s librarians are apparently so ill-read that they are unfamiliar with books by the 9/11 Commission’s chairman, vice chairman and legal counsel, who wrote that information was witheld from the 9/11 Commission and that the Commission was “set up to fail.” Harvard’s librarian is apparantly unfamiliar with the testimony of demolition experts that the buildings came down as a result of controlled demolition. Harvard’s librarian is apparently ignorant of the panel of scientists headed by a University of Copahagen nano-chemist who reported finding both reacted and unreacted nano-thermite in the dust of the twin towers and who offered their samples for confirmation by other scientists.

Harvard University has no interest in truth. Harvard’s sole interest is to remain a member of the Ruling Establishment. As that requires telling lies, Harvard will tell lies. Lies bring Harvard riches, making Harvard so rich that, as Ron Unz argues, Harvard does not need to charge tuition and does so only out of greed.

Decades ago my University of California, Berkeley, economics professor became Dean of Arts and Sciences at Harvard. My term paper for the course had been published in the prestigeous journal, Classica et Medievalia. Years later when he learned that my book, The Supply-Side Revolution, had passed the peer-review process of Harvard University Press and was slated for publication, he sent for me.

He said that he wanted to have me appointed to the Harvard economics faculty, because the university’s belief in econometrics had proven false and the economics faculty needed a broad-based person such as myself to bring the subject back to life in the real world. I wished him good luck and wondered how a dean this naive had survived at Harvard.

For the dean at Harvard, my work was a strong point. I was the first to explain the Soviet economy both as an organizational system and in terms of the original Marxist asperations. I had reformulated the Pirenne Thesis, and my reformulation had been included into reading texts used in courses in medieval history and urban economics. I had produced new insights into economic policy and had identified regulation as a factor of production.

My macroeconomic contributions had corrected the Keynesian deficiencies and extended the role of relative prices into macroeconomics. This seminal work had passed the peer-review process of Harvard University Press and resulted in the publication of my book, The Supply-Side Revolution, recently republished in the Chinese language in China, but still derided by American ignoramuses as “trickle-down economics.”

Harvard University Press kept The Supply-Side Revolution in print for decades. Despite this fact, even people I highly respect, such as Michael Hudson and Lewis Lapham, have no idea what supply-side economics is about and misrepresent it as some kind of preferment for the rich, which shows the power of the Establishment to control the understanding of even highly intelligent people.

To get back to the story. My appointment to Harvard’s economic faculty was blocked by the economic department’s resistance on the basis that I was too disruptive of the orthodoxy. Me and Michael Hudson.

The orthodoxy has a large investment in human capital in protecting the rights of the one percent to plunder the rest of us. Those academics who support this plunder are the ones who prosper in the American acadamy, just as the presstitutes who lie for a living do in the American media.

So here I am, a peer-reviewed and published Harvard University Press author and peer-reviewed Oxford University Press author, whose books are now available in Chinese (2), Russian, German (3), Czech, Turkish, French, Spanish (2) and Korean, a person who has held the highest security clearances and once had subpoena power over the CIA, who has the French Legion of Honor, who has the US Treasury’s Silver Medal, who has letters of thanks from President Reagan for my contributions to US eonomic policy, who is asked to speak all over the world, who was Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University for decades, the William E. Simon Chair of Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University for 12 years, Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, columnist for Business Week and the Scripp Howard News Service, etc., and so on, and some dumbshit at the Harvard library posts a list that says I am a suspect source of information.

This is the world we live in. Even the most prestigeous institutions are utterly corrupt. No one is there for the American people or for truth, or for anything or anyone except the One Percent. Americans are shot down in the streets, whites along with blacks, by militarized police trained to see the people who pay their salaries as enemies. Muslims are bombed into the stone age. Reformist Latin American governments are routinely overthrown. European countries are intimidated, bribed, and reduced to vassal status. Aggression is displayed toward Russia, China, and Iran. America has become a great collection of evil. The good in the country is voiceless and without power. Evil rules us.

This is why this site is important. If you do not support it, you are bringing about your own demise.

I don’t have to write. My writing brings me insults from narcistic ignorant egomanics, puts me on black lists, makes overseas travel difficult, and possibly negatively impacts my relatives. The United States has devolved into a police state where truth is “the enemy of the state,” which makes me suspect. Why should I write without your support? If you aren’t willing to support the fight, for whom am I writing?

Democrats and liberals have climbed into bed with the neocons to push the “Russia-did-it” conspiracy theory as a way to “get Trump,” but this New McCarthyism has grave dangers, writes Robert Parry.

The anti-Russian McCarthyism that has spread out from the United States to encompass the European Union, Canada and Australia has at its core an implicit recognition that neoliberal economics and neoconservative foreign policy have failed.

A scene from “Dr. Strangelove,” in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union.

When I recently asked a European journalist why this anti-Russian hysteria had taken root among mainstream European political parties, he answered with a question: “Do you think they can run on their success in handling the recession and the refugees?”

In other words, European voters are angry about the painful economic conditions that followed the Wall Street crash of 2008 and the destabilizing surge of immigrants fleeing from Western “regime change” wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan.

So, like the Democratic Party that doesn’t want to engage in a soul-searching self-examination about Donald Trump’s victory, the European “establishment” parties need a handy excuse to divert criticism – and that excuse is Russia, a blame-shifting that has allowed nearly every recent criticism of an establishment government official to be sloughed off as “Russian disinformation.”

It doesn’t even matter anymore that the criticism may be based on solid fact. Even truthful information is now deemed “Russian disinformation” or Russian-inspired “fake news.”

We saw that in the Canadian mainstream media’s denunciations of Consortiumnews.com for running an article that pointed out that Canada’s Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland had misrepresented her family history to white-out her maternal grandfather’s role editing a Nazi newspaper in Poland that demonized Jews and justified the Holocaust.

Virtually every mainstream outlet in Canada rallied to Freeland’s side when she dismissed our article as Russian disinformation. Only later did a few newspapers grudgingly acknowledge that our story was true and that Freeland knew it was true. Still, the attacks on us continued. We were labeled “Russian disinformationists,” with no evidence needed to support the slander and no defense allowed.

Though arguably a small example, the Freeland story reflects what is happening across the Western mainstream news media. Almost every independent-minded news article that questions the establishment narratives on international affairs is dismissed as “Russian propaganda.” The few politicians, academics and journalists who don’t march in the establishment’s parade are “Moscow stooges” or “Putin apologists.”

The Russian Resistance

This anti-Russian hysteria began some years ago when Russian President Vladimir Putin made clear that Russia would no longer bow to dictates from Washington and Brussels. Russia bristled at the encroachment of NATO on its borders, rejected the neoconservative agenda of “regime change” wars in Muslim countries, and resisted the U.S.-backed putsch ousting Ukraine’s elected president in 2014.

Hillary Clinton speaking at a rally in Phoenix, Arizona, March 21, 2016. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)

But the anti-Russian frenzy gained unstoppable momentum with the U.S. election in 2016. The Democrats, liberals and neoconservatives were horrified at the shocking upset of their presidential choice, Hillary Clinton, by the boorish and buffoonish Donald Trump.

After this bitter defeat, the losers looked for scapegoats rather than order up a serious autopsy on how they lost to the “unelectable” Trump, i.e, by choosing a corporate candidate who was associated with neoliberal economics and neoconservative war policies. Blaming Russia became the easy excuse that could unify the various pro-Clinton camps.

So, the Obama administration – in an unprecedented step – sought to poison the well for its successor by having the U.S. intelligence community put out evidence-lacking allegations about Russian “meddling” in the U.S. election to elect Trump.

The promoters of this Russia-did-it narrative merged with the “#Resistance” movement to do whatever was necessary to push Trump out of office. It didn’t seem to matter that there was very little evidence that the Russians actually did meddle in the election.

The chief claim was that the Russians gave WikiLeaks the Democratic emails revealing the Democratic National Committee’s sabotage of Sen. Bernie Sanders’s campaign and the emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta exposing the contents of Clinton’s hidden speeches to Wall Street and some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation.

WikiLeaks denied getting the material from the Russians, but – more to the point – there was no evidence of collusion between Moscow and the Trump campaign, as even Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman have acknowledged. (The WikiLeaks disclosures also were not a major factor in Clinton’s defeat, which she primarily blamed on FBI Director James Comey briefly reopening the investigation of her using a private email server while Secretary of State.)

Still, the absence of evidence has not deterred Democrats, liberals and neocons from spinning a vast Russian conspiracy theory that ties together Trump’s past business dealings in Russia with the notion that somehow Putin foresaw that Trump would become U.S. president, an eventuality that nearly every American pundit considered an impossibility as recently as last year.

But skeptics of the Trump/Russia conspiracy — if they dare note that Putin would have needed the world’s best Ouija board to foresee Trump’s victory — must then prove that they are not “Russian propaganda/disinformation agents” for having these doubts.

New McCarthyism and Maddow

Given the emergence of this New Cold War, I suppose it made sense that we would soon have a New McCarthyism, although it may have come as a surprise that this witch-hunting is being led by the liberals and the mainstream media, albeit with important assistance from the neoconservatives who have long engaged in smearing the patriotism of anyone who doubted their geopolitical genius.

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow.

Remember back in 1984 when U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick, an early neocon, denounced traitorous Americans who would “blame America first.”

But it appears now that many liberals and even progressives are so blinded by their hatred of Trump that they haven’t thought through the wisdom of their new alliance with the neocons — or the fairness of smearing fellow Americans as “Putin apologists.”

Meanwhile, mainstream news organizations have abandoned even the pretense of professional objectivity in their propagandistic approach toward anything related to Russia or Trump. For instance, I would defy anyone reading The New York Times’ coverage of Russia to assess it as fair and balanced when it is clearly snarky and sneering.

It also turns out that this New McCarthyism has become profitable for its leading practitioners. The New York Times reported on Monday that the ratings for MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow are soaring with her frequent anti-Russian rants.

“Now, rattled liberals are surging back [to network television], seeking catharsis, solidarity and relief,” the Times wrote, citing a Kentucky woman explaining why she has become a devotee of Maddow: “She’s always talking about the Russians!”

Frankly, for the past dozen years, I’ve wondered about Maddow. I first heard her on the radio in August 2005 when she was a summer fill-in at Air America reporting on President George W. Bush’s Katrina fiasco, which she partly blamed on the deployment of Louisiana National Guard units to Iraq, so they couldn’t help evacuate flooded New Orleans.

It was clear that Maddow was talented and her excoriation of the Iraq War was on point, although – by summer 2005 – it didn’t require a huge amount of journalistic courage to slam Bush over the Iraq War. As I watched her career rise through a regular Air America gig to her show on MSNBC and then to stardom as an anchor on the network’s election coverage, I always wondered whether she would put her lucrative corporate acceptance at risk and go against the grain at a tough journalistic moment.

Now, Maddow’s behavior in becoming a modern-day mainstream-media Joe McCarthy has put my doubts to rest. She is riding high in the ratings by keeping her whip hand coming down hard on the bash-Russia steed. She is putting her career or her politics ahead of journalism.

Like so many other Democrat/liberal/neocon activists, Maddow not only ignores the evidentiary gaps in the Russia-did-it conspiracy theory but she seems oblivious to the dangers of her opportunism. By stirring up this McCarthyistic frenzy, she and her “never-Trump” allies make a rational policy toward nuclear-armed Russia nearly impossible. Thus, she is contributing to the real risk of a hot war with Russia that could lead to the annihilation of life on the planet.

Thin-Skinned Trump

One of the bitter ironies here is that Trump’s critics correctly noted that his thin-skinned temperament made him unfit to possess the nuclear button, but they are now egging him into a mano-a-mano confrontation with Putin. If Trump doesn’t get the better of Putin in every situation, Trump will face renewed pummeling for “selling out” to the Russians.

President Donald Trump being sworn in on Jan. 20, 2017. (Screen shot from Whitehouse.gov)

Already, neocon Sen. Lindsey Graham has declared, “2017 is going to be a year of kicking Russia in the ass in Congress.” If Trump doesn’t go along, he will face battering from the likes of Maddow, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and pretty much every mainstream news outlet. So, Trump may have no political choice but to get tough. But what happens when Putin pushes back?

In the past when I’ve made this point about the recklessness of Russia-bashing, I’ve been told that I’m being alarmist, that “kicking Russia in the ass” and baiting Trump to join in the kicking won’t lead to a nuclear war, that the Russians aren’t that stupid. Yeah, let’s hope not.

On the upside of this anti-Russia strategy, the anti-Trump activists insist it is the most promising route to get rid of Trump, which they view as justifying almost any action. It’s not for them to prove that Trump did conspire with Putin to rig the U.S. presidential election; it’s enough to raise the suspicion and use it to push for Trump’s impeachment.

As someone who has covered national security scandals since the 1980s, I am familiar with the kind of evidence that should be required for making serious allegations. For instance, when Brian Barger and I wrote the first story about Nicaraguan Contra drug trafficking in 1985 for The Associated Press, we had about two dozen sources, plus documents. Most of the sources were insiders – i.e., inside the Contra movement and inside the Reagan administration – who described how the operation was run. We had this evidence before we made any public accusation.

In the case of the Russia-Trump conspiracy theory, the U.S. intelligence community has presented almost no evidence of Russian “hacking” and admits that it has no evidence of Trump’s collusion with the Russians. As far as we know, there is no insider who has described how this alleged conspiracy occurred.

That is not to say that some evidence might not eventually surface that confirms the Russia-Trump suspicions, but that is true of all conspiracy theories. Who knows, maybe Joe McCarthy was right about all those Communists inside the U.S. government secretly working for the Kremlin? Maybe he did have a real list of names. But that is what “witch hunts” are all about – investigations designed to prove a point whether true or not.

In this current case, however, the downside is not “just” the destruction of people’s careers and a few imprisonments. The downside of playing chicken with nuclear-armed Russia is the end of life as we know it. At such a moment, journalists and politicians should demand the highest standards of proof, not no proof at all.

Sometimes, I envision the argument that I would hear as the mushroom clouds begin rising over U.S. and Russian cities. If not incinerated in the first moments of the cataclysm, the “smart” people of the mainstream U.S. media (and their liberal and neocon allies) would be insisting that it wasn’t their fault; it was someone else’s fault; blame-shifting to the end.

So, as the Democrats and liberals join with the neocons in launching this New McCarthyism over Russia – and with people like Rachel Maddow leading the charge – what is arguably the most depressing fact is that there appears to be no Edward R. Murrow, a mainstream journalist with a conscience, anywhere on the horizon.

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

The Trump administration has further exacerbated the extremely tense standoff on the Korean Peninsula by dispatching attack drones to South Korea and sending special forces units to participate in massive war games already underway. The military build-up takes place as the White House considers launching strikes on North Korean nuclear and military sites.

US Forces Korea announced on Monday that the company of Gray Eagle Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) will be permanently stationed at Kunsan Air Base, south of Seoul. “The UAS adds significant intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability to US Forces Korea and our [South Korean] partners,” it stated.

While the US announcement emphasized reconnaissance, the Gray Eagle drones can also carry up to four Hellfire missiles that have been used to carry out assassinations and strike military targets. The lethal drones can stay aloft for up to 24 hours.

The South Korean military was in no doubt as to the purpose of the deployment. An unnamed official told the Yonhap news agency: “In case of a war on the Korean Peninsula, the unmanned aircraft could infiltrate into the skies of North Korea and make a precision strike on the war command and other major military facilities.”

The dispatch of attack drones to South Korea coincides with the involvement of US special forces in annual Foal Eagle war games, including SEAL Team 6, the highly-trained assassination squad that killed Osama bin Laden. The SEAL team will take part in the joint exercises in South Korea along with US Army Rangers, Delta Force and Green Berets, according to Yonhap.

A military official told the news agency that bigger numbers and more diverse US special operations forces were taking part, in order “to practice missions to infiltrate into the North, remove the North’s war command and demolition of its key military facilities.” The joint Foal Eagle drills are the biggest ever, involving more than 320,000 troops backed by a US aircraft carrier strike group, stealth fighters and strategic bombers.

Commenting on US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s trip to Japan, South Korea and China later this week, State Department spokesman Mark Toner absurdly claimed that the US military was taking “defensive measures” against “an increasingly worrying, concerning threat from North Korea.”

Neither the drones nor the Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile system to which Toner was referring are “defensive” in character. The drones, along with the special forces units, are rehearsing for pre-emptive attacks on North Korean military sites and “decapitation raids” to kill North Korean leaders. This is in line with an aggressive new joint operational plan, OPLAN 5015, agreed to between the US and South Korea in late 2015.

The THAAD deployment is part of the Pentagon’s broader build-up of anti-ballistic missile systems and military forces in Asia, primarily for war against China. Beijing has repeatedly voiced strenuous objections to the THAAD installation in South Korea, which has a powerful radar system capable of peering deep into the Chinese mainland and giving the US military much greater advance warning of Chinese missile launches in the event of war.

The Trump administration, which is currently reviewing US strategy towards North Korea, is exploiting North Korea’s test launch of four ballistic missiles last week to advance longstanding military preparations on the Korean Peninsula. According to the Wall Street Journal, the White House is actively considering “regime change” in Pyongyang and military strikes on North Korea.

“We have to look at new ideas, new ways of dealing with North Korea,” US State Department spokesman Toner blandly declared. “China understands that threat. They’re not oblivious to what’s happening in North Korea.”

The reference to China underscores the aims of Tillerson’s upcoming trip. Firstly, he intends to brief Washington’s Japanese and South Korean allies on US plans and to encourage closer military cooperation in the event of conflict. Then he will fly to Beijing, where he will attempt to bully the Chinese government into taking tougher punitive action against Pyongyang.

The mounting US threats towards North Korea are also directed against China, which the Trump administration is targeting as the chief obstacle to maintaining US dominance in Asia and internationally. Tillerson has provocatively declared that the US should block Chinese access to islets under Beijing’s administration in the South China Sea. The only way to carry out such a reckless plan would be through a US military blockade—an act of war that could provoke conflict between the two nuclear-armed powers.

Tensions in the South China Sea have been further strained by the decision of the Japanese military to dispatch its largest warship, the JS Izumo, for three months of operations, including in disputed waters. According to Reuters, the Izumo will make stops in Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines and Sri Lanka before joining the Malabar joint naval exercise with Indian and US naval vessels in the Indian Ocean in July. It will also train with the US navy in the South China Sea.

Over the eight years of the Obama administration and its “pivot to Asia,” the US has engaged in a systematic military expansion throughout the Asia Pacific, strengthened alliances and strategic partnerships and greatly aggravated dangerous regional flashpoints, including the Korean Peninsula and the South China Sea. The Trump administration, which has been critical of the “pivot” for not being sufficiently aggressive, is now embarking on a course that greatly heightens the danger of war.

The response of the North Korean regime to Washington’s actions is reactionary through and through. Its nuclear and missile tests, along with its bloodcurdling threats and Korean chauvinism, in no way defend the Korean people, but do provide the US with a pretext for its military build-up in North East Asia. According to the 38north.org web site, affiliated with John Hopkins University, commercial satellite imagery indicates that Pyongyang could be preparing for another nuclear test.

Confronted with an intense political crisis in Washington, the Trump administration is not simply considering, but actively preparing for reckless provocations and military moves against North Korea that have the potential to trigger a cataclysmic war that draws in the entire world.

The Trump administration has further exacerbated the extremely tense standoff on the Korean Peninsula by dispatching attack drones to South Korea and sending special forces units to participate in massive war games already underway. The military build-up takes place as the White House considers launching strikes on North Korean nuclear and military sites.

US Forces Korea announced on Monday that the company of Gray Eagle Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) will be permanently stationed at Kunsan Air Base, south of Seoul. “The UAS adds significant intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability to US Forces Korea and our [South Korean] partners,” it stated.

While the US announcement emphasized reconnaissance, the Gray Eagle drones can also carry up to four Hellfire missiles that have been used to carry out assassinations and strike military targets. The lethal drones can stay aloft for up to 24 hours.

The South Korean military was in no doubt as to the purpose of the deployment. An unnamed official told the Yonhap news agency: “In case of a war on the Korean Peninsula, the unmanned aircraft could infiltrate into the skies of North Korea and make a precision strike on the war command and other major military facilities.”

The dispatch of attack drones to South Korea coincides with the involvement of US special forces in annual Foal Eagle war games, including SEAL Team 6, the highly-trained assassination squad that killed Osama bin Laden. The SEAL team will take part in the joint exercises in South Korea along with US Army Rangers, Delta Force and Green Berets, according to Yonhap.

A military official told the news agency that bigger numbers and more diverse US special operations forces were taking part, in order “to practice missions to infiltrate into the North, remove the North’s war command and demolition of its key military facilities.” The joint Foal Eagle drills are the biggest ever, involving more than 320,000 troops backed by a US aircraft carrier strike group, stealth fighters and strategic bombers.

Commenting on US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s trip to Japan, South Korea and China later this week, State Department spokesman Mark Toner absurdly claimed that the US military was taking “defensive measures” against “an increasingly worrying, concerning threat from North Korea.”

Neither the drones nor the Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile system to which Toner was referring are “defensive” in character. The drones, along with the special forces units, are rehearsing for pre-emptive attacks on North Korean military sites and “decapitation raids” to kill North Korean leaders. This is in line with an aggressive new joint operational plan, OPLAN 5015, agreed to between the US and South Korea in late 2015.

The THAAD deployment is part of the Pentagon’s broader build-up of anti-ballistic missile systems and military forces in Asia, primarily for war against China. Beijing has repeatedly voiced strenuous objections to the THAAD installation in South Korea, which has a powerful radar system capable of peering deep into the Chinese mainland and giving the US military much greater advance warning of Chinese missile launches in the event of war.

The Trump administration, which is currently reviewing US strategy towards North Korea, is exploiting North Korea’s test launch of four ballistic missiles last week to advance longstanding military preparations on the Korean Peninsula. According to the Wall Street Journal, the White House is actively considering “regime change” in Pyongyang and military strikes on North Korea.

“We have to look at new ideas, new ways of dealing with North Korea,” US State Department spokesman Toner blandly declared. “China understands that threat. They’re not oblivious to what’s happening in North Korea.”

The reference to China underscores the aims of Tillerson’s upcoming trip. Firstly, he intends to brief Washington’s Japanese and South Korean allies on US plans and to encourage closer military cooperation in the event of conflict. Then he will fly to Beijing, where he will attempt to bully the Chinese government into taking tougher punitive action against Pyongyang.

The mounting US threats towards North Korea are also directed against China, which the Trump administration is targeting as the chief obstacle to maintaining US dominance in Asia and internationally. Tillerson has provocatively declared that the US should block Chinese access to islets under Beijing’s administration in the South China Sea. The only way to carry out such a reckless plan would be through a US military blockade—an act of war that could provoke conflict between the two nuclear-armed powers.

Tensions in the South China Sea have been further strained by the decision of the Japanese military to dispatch its largest warship, the JS Izumo, for three months of operations, including in disputed waters. According to Reuters, the Izumo will make stops in Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines and Sri Lanka before joining the Malabar joint naval exercise with Indian and US naval vessels in the Indian Ocean in July. It will also train with the US navy in the South China Sea.

Over the eight years of the Obama administration and its “pivot to Asia,” the US has engaged in a systematic military expansion throughout the Asia Pacific, strengthened alliances and strategic partnerships and greatly aggravated dangerous regional flashpoints, including the Korean Peninsula and the South China Sea. The Trump administration, which has been critical of the “pivot” for not being sufficiently aggressive, is now embarking on a course that greatly heightens the danger of war.

The response of the North Korean regime to Washington’s actions is reactionary through and through. Its nuclear and missile tests, along with its bloodcurdling threats and Korean chauvinism, in no way defend the Korean people, but do provide the US with a pretext for its military build-up in North East Asia. According to the 38north.org web site, affiliated with John Hopkins University, commercial satellite imagery indicates that Pyongyang could be preparing for another nuclear test.

Confronted with an intense political crisis in Washington, the Trump administration is not simply considering, but actively preparing for reckless provocations and military moves against North Korea that have the potential to trigger a cataclysmic war that draws in the entire world.

In all the political drama taking place in the US as a result of the attempted color revolution against Trump, the bigger picture sometimes gets forgotten. And yet, this bigger picture is quite amazing, because if we look at it we will see irrefutable signs that the Empire in engaged in some bizarre slow motion version of seppuku and the only mystery left is who, or what, will serve as the Empire’s kaishakunin (assuming there will be one).

A kaishakunin (Japanese: 介錯人) is an appointed second whose duty is to behead one who has committed seppuku, Japanese ritual suicide, at the moment of agony. The role played by the kaishakunin is called kaishaku (“nin” means person).

I would even argue that the Empire is pursuing a full-spectrum policy of self-destruction on several distinct levels, with each level contributing the overall sum total suicide. And when I refer to self-destructive behavior I don’t mean long-term issues such as the non-sustainability of the capitalist economic model or the social consequences of a society which not only is unable to differentiate right from wrong, but which now decrees that deviant behavior is healthy and normal. These are what I call “long term walls” into which we will, inevitably, crash, but which are comparatively further away than some “immediate walls”. Let me list a few of these:

Political suicide: the Neocons’ refusal to accept the election of Donald Trump has resulted in a massive campaign to de-legitimize him. What the Neocons clearly fail to see, or don’t care about, is that by de-legitimizing Trump they are also de-legitimizing the entire political process which brought Trump to power and upon which the United States is built as a society. As a direct result of this campaign, not only are millions of Americans becoming disgusted with the political system they were indoctrinated to believe in, but internationally the notion of “American democracy” is becoming a sad joke.

And just to make things worse, the US corporate media is finally revealing its true face and has now unapologetically shown the entire world that not only is it not in any way “fair” or “objective”, but that it is a 100% prostituted propaganda machine which faithfully serves the interests of the US “deep state”.

A key element of the quasi-constant brainwashing of the average American has always been the regular holding of elections. Never mind that, at least until now, the outcome of these elections made very little difference inside the US and none at all outside, the goal was never to consult the people – the goal has always been to give the illusion of democracy and people-power. Now that the Democrats say that the Russians rigged the elections and the Republicans say that it was the Democrats and their millions of dead voters who tried stealing it, it become rather obvious that these elections were always a joke, a pseudo-democratic “liturgy”, a brainwashing ritual – you name it – but never about anything real.

The emergence of the concept of the 1% can be “credited” to the Obama Administration, since it was during Obama that the entire “Occupy Wall Street” movement took off, but the ultimate unmasking of the viciously evil true face of that 1% must be credited to Hillary with her truly historical confession in which she openly declared that those who oppose her were a “basket of deplorables”. We already knew, thanks to Victoria Nuland, what the AngloZionist leaders thought of the people of Europe, now we know what they think of the people of the USA: exactly the same thing.

The bottom line is this: I don’t think that the moral authority and political credibility of the US have ever been lower than today. Decades of propaganda by Hollywood and the official US media machine have now collapsed and nobody buys that counter-factual nonsense anymore.

Foreign policy suicide: let’s see what options there are to choose from. The Neocons want a war with Russia which the Trump people don’t. The Trump people, however, want, well maybe not a war, although that option is very much on the table, but at least a very serious confrontation with China, North Korea or Iran, and about half of them would also like some kind of confrontation with Russia. There is absolutely nobody, at least at the top, who would dare to suggest that a confrontation or, even worse, a war with China, Iran, North Korea or Russia would be a disaster, a calamity for the USA. In fact, serious people with impressive credentials and a lot of gravitas are discussing these possibilities as if they were real, as it the US could in some sense prevail. This is laughable. Well, no, it is not. But it would be if it wasn’t so frightening and depressing. The truth is very, very different.

While it is probably not impossible for the United States to prevail, in purely military terms, against the DPRK in a war, the potential risks are nothing short of immense. And I don’t mean the risk posed by the North Korean nukes which, apparently, is also quite real. I mean the risk of starting a war against a country which has Seoul within conventional artillery range, an active duty army of well over one million people and 180,000 special forces. Let us assume for a second that the DPRK has no air force and no navy and an army composed of only 1M+ soldiers, 21k+ artillery pieces and 180k special forces. How do you propose to deal with that threat? If you have an easy, obvious solution, you have watched too many Hollywood movies. You probably also don’t understand the terrain.

But yes, the DPRK also has major wseaknesses and I cannot exclude that the North Korean armed forces would rapidly collapse under a sustained attack by the US and the ROK. I did not say that I believe that this would happen, only that I don’t exclude it. Should that happen, the US might well prevail relatively rapidly, at least in purely military terms. However, please keep in mind that any military operation has to serve a political goal and, in that sense, I cannot imagine any scenario under which the US would walk away from a war against the DPRK with anything remotely resembling a real “victory”. There is a paraphrase of something Ho Chi Minh allegedly told to the French in the 1940s which I really like. It goes like this:” we kill some of you, you kill a lot of us, and then we win”. That is how a war with the DPRK would probably play out. I call this the “American curse”: Americans are very good at killing people, but they are not good at winning wars. Still, in the case of the DPRK there is at least a possibility of a military victory, even if at a potentially huge cost. With Iran, Russia or China there is no such possibility at all: a war with any of them would be a guaranteed disaster (I wrote about a war in Iran here and about a war with Russia too many times to count). So why is it that even though out of the 4 possible wars, one is a potential disaster and the 3 others are a guaranteed disaster, why is it that these are discussed as if they were potential options?!

The reason for that can be found in the unique mix of crass ignorance and political cowardice of the entire US political class. First, a lot (most?) of US politicians believe in their own silly propaganda about the US armed forces being “the best” in “the world” (no evidence needed!). But even those who are smart enough to realize that this is a load of baloney which nobody outside the US still takes seriously, they know that saying that publicly is political suicide. So they pretend, go along, and keep on repetitively spewing the patriotic mantra about “rah, rah, USA, USA, ‘Merica number one, we are the best” etc. Some figure that since the US spends more on aggression that the rest of the planet combined, that must mean that the US armed forces must be “better” (whatever that means). To the birthplace of “bigger is better” the answer is self-evident. It is also completely wrong.

Eventually, something crazy inevitably happens. Like in Syria were the State Department had one policy, the Pentagon another and the CIA yet another one. The resulting cognitive dissonance is removed by engaging in classical doublethink: “yes, we screwed up over and over, but we are still the best”. Ironically, that kind of mindset is at the core of the American inability to learn from past mistakes. If the choice is between an honest evaluation of past operations and political expediency, the latter always prevails (at least amongst civilians, US servicemen are often far more capable of self-critical evaluation, especially in ranks up to Colonel and below, the problem here is that civilians and generals rarely listen to them).

The result is total chaos: the US foreign policy is wholly dependent on the US ability to threaten the use of military force, but the harsh reality is that every country out there which dared to defy Uncle Sam did that only after coming to the conclusion that the US did not have the means to crush it militarily. In other words, only the weak, which are already de-facto US colonies, fear the USA. Or, put differently, the only countries who dare to defy Uncle Sam are the strong ones (that was all quite predictable, but US politicians don’t know about Hegel or dialectics). And just to make it worse, there is no real US foreign policy. What there is is only the sum vector of the different foreign policies desired by various more or less covert “deep state” actors, agencies and individuals. That resulting “sum vector” is inevitably short-term, focuses on a quickfix approach, and unable to take into account any complexity.

As for the US “diplomacy” it simply doesn’t exist. You don’t need diplomats to deliver demands, bribes, ultimatums and threats. You don’t need educated people. Nor do you need people with any understanding of the “other”. All you need is one arrogant self-enamored bully and one interpreter (since US diplomats don’t speak the local languages either. And why would they?). We saw the most compelling evidence of the total rigor mortis of the US diplomatic corps when 51 US “diplomats” demanded that Obama bomb Syria. The rest of the world could just observe in amazement, sadness, bewilderment and total disgust.

The bottom line is this: there is no “US diplomacy”. The US have simply let that entire field atrophy to the point were it ceased to exist. When so many baffled observers try to understand what the US policy in the Ukraine or Syria is, they are making a mistaken assumption – that there is a US foreign policy to being with. I would argue that the US diplomacy slowly and quietly passed away, sometime after James Baker (the last real US diplomat, and a brilliant one at that).

Military suicide: the US military was never a very impressive one, certainly not when compared to the British, Russian or German ones. But it did have a couple of very strong points including the ability to produce a lot of technical innovations which made it possible to produce new, sometimes quite revolutionary, weapons. And if the US track record on ground operations was rather modest, the US did prove to be a most capable adversary in naval and aerial warfare. I don’t think that it can be denied that for most of the years following WWII the US had the most powerful and sophisticated navy and airforce in the world. Then, gradually, things started getting worse and worse as the costs of the very expensive ships and aircraft shot through the roof while the quality of the produced systems appeared to be gradually degrading. Weapons systems which looked nothing short of awesome in the lab and test grounds proved to be almost useless once they to to their end user on the battlefield. What happened? How did a country which produced the UH-1 Huey or the F-16 suddenly start producing Apaches and F-35s?! The explanation is painfully simple: corruption.

Not only did the US military industrial complex bloat beyond any reasonable size, it also cloaked itself in so many layers of secrecy that massive corruption became inevitable. And when I speak of “massive corruption” I am not talking about millions but billions or even trillions. How? Simple – the Pentagon claimed did not have the accounting tools needed to properly account for the missing money and that the money was therefore not really “missing”. Another trick – no bid contracts. Or contracts which cover all the private contractor’s costs, no matter how high or ridiculous.

Desert Storm was a bonanza for the MIC, as was 9/11 and the GWOT. Billions of dollars got printed out of thin air, distributed (mostly under the cover of national security), hidden (secrecy) and stolen (by everybody in this entire food chain). The feeding frenzy was so extreme that one of my teachers as SAIS admitted, off the record of course, that he had never seen a weapons system he did not like or which he did not want to purchase. This man, whom I shall not name, was a former director of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Yes, you read that right. He was in charge of DIS-armament. You can imagine what the folks in charge of armament (no “dis) were thinking…

With the stratospheric rise of corruption, the kind of US general which had to be promoted went from fighting men who remembered Vietnam (where they often lost family members, relatives and friends) to “ass-kissing little chickenshits” like David Petraeus. In less than half a century US generals went from combat men, to managers, to politicians. And it is against this lackluster background that a rather unimpressive personality like General James Mattis can appear, at least to some, like a good candidate for Secretary of Defense.

Bottom line: the US armed forces are fantastically expensive and yet not particularly well-trained, well-equipped or well-commanded. And while they still are much more capable than the many European militaries (which are a joke), they are most definitely not the kind of armed forces needed to impose and maintain a world hegemony. The good news for the US is that the US armed forces are more than adequate to defend the US against any hypothetical attack. But as the backbone of the Empire – they are close to useless.

I could list many more types of suicides including an economic suicide, a social suicide, an educational suicide, a cultural suicide and, of course, a moral suicide. But others have already done that elsewhere, and much better than I could ever do myself. So all I will add here is one form of suicide which I believe the AngloZionist Empire has in common with the EU: a “Suicide by reality denial”: this is the mother and father of all the other forms of suicide – the stubborn refusal to look at reality and accept the fact that “the party is over”. When I see the grim determination of US politicians (very much including the people supporting Trump) to continue to pretend as if the US hegemony was here to stay forever, when I see how they see themselves as the leaders of the world and how they sincerely believe that they need to get involved in every conflict on the planet, I can only come to the conclusion that the inevitable collapse will be painful. To be fair, Trump himself clearly has moments of lucidity about this, for example when he recently declared to Congress

Free nations are the best vehicle for expressing the will of the people — and America respects the right of all nations to chart their own path. My job is not to represent the world. My job is to represent the United States of America. But we know that America is better off, when there is less conflict — not more.

These are remarkable words for which Trump truly deserves a standing ovation as they are the closest thing to a formal admission that the United States have given up on the dream of being the World Hegemon and that from now on the US President will no longer represent the interest of trans-national plutocracies but he will represent the interests of the American people. This sort of languge is nothing short of revolutionary, whether Trump truly delivers on that or not. Unlike everybody else, Trump does not appear to suffer from “suicide by reality denial” syndrome, but when I look at the people around him (nevermind the prostitutes in Congress) I wonder if he will ever get to act on his personal instincts.

Trump is clearly the best man in the Trump administration, he seems to have his heart in the right place and, unlike Hillary, he is clearly aware of the fact that the US armed forces are in a terrible shape. But a good heart and common sense are not enough to deal with the Neocons and the US deep state. You also need an iron will and a total determination to crush the opposition. Alas, so far Trump has failed to show either quality. Instead, Trump is trying to show how “tough” a guy he is by declaring that he will wipe out Daesh and by giving the Pentagon 30 days to come up with a plan to do this. Alas (for Trump), there is no way to crush Daesh without working with those who already have boots on the ground: the Iranians, the Russians and the Syrians. It is really that simple. And every American general knows that. Yet everybody is merrily plowing ahead is if there was some kind of possibility for the US to crush Daesh without establishing a partnership with Russia, Iran and Syria first (Erdogan tried that. It did him no good. Now he is working with Russia and Iran). Will the good folks at the Pentagon find the courage to tell Trump that “no, Mr President, we cannot do that alone, we need the Russians, the Iranians and the Syrians”? I very much doubt it. So, yet again, we are probably going to see a case of reality denial, maybe not a suicidal one, but a significant one nonetheless. Not good.

Who will be the Empire’s kaishakunin?

Alexander Solzhenitsyn used to say that all states can be placed on a continuum which ranges from states whose authority is based on their power to states whose power is based on their authority. I think that we can agree that the authority of the US is pretty close to zero. As for their power, it is still very substantial, but not sufficient to maintain the Empire. It is, however, more than adequate to protect the interests of the United States as a country provided the United States accept that they simply don’t have the means to remain a world hegemon.

If the Neocons succeed in their attempt to overthrow or, failing that, paralyzing Trump, then the Empire will have the choice between an endless horror or a horrible end. Since the Neocons don’t really need a war with the DPRK, which they don’t like, but which does not elicit the kind of blind hatred Iran does, my guess is that Iran will be their number one target. Should the Anglo-Zionists succeed in triggering a war between Iran and the Empire, then Iran will end up being the Empire’s kaishakunin. If the crazies fail in their manic attempts at triggering a major war, then the Empire will probably collapse under the pressure of the internal contradictions of the US society. Finally, if Trump and the American patriots who do not want to sacrifice their country for the sake of the Empire succeed in “draining the DC swamp” and finally crack-down hard on the Neocons then a gradual transition from Empire to major power is still possible. But the clock is running out fast.

Last week President Trump significantly escalated the US military presence in Syria, sending some 400 Marines to the ISIS-controlled Raqqa, and several dozen Army Rangers to the contested area around Manbij. According to press reports he will also station some 2,500 more US troops in Kuwait to be used as he wishes in Iraq and Syria. 

Not only is it illegal under international law to send troops into another country without permission, it is also against US law for President Trump to take the country to war without a declaration. But not only is Trump’s first big war illegal: it is doomed to failure because it makes no sense.

President Trump says the purpose of the escalation is to defeat ISIS in Raqqa, its headquarters in Syria. However the Syrian Army with its allies Russia and Iran are already close to defeating ISIS in Syria. Why must the US military be sent in when the Syrian army is already winning? Does Trump wish to occupy eastern Syria and put a Washington-backed rebel government in charge? Has anyone told President Trump what that would to cost in dollars and lives – including American lives? How would this US-backed rebel government respond to the approach of a Syrian army backed up by the Russian military?

Is Trump planning on handing eastern Syria over to the Kurds, who have been doing much of the fighting in the area? How does he think NATO-ally Turkey would take a de facto Kurdistan carved out of Syria with its eyes on Kurdish-inhabited southern Turkey?

And besides, by what rights would Washington carve up Syria or any other country?

Or is Trump going to give up on the US policy of “regime change” and hand conquered eastern Syria back to Assad? If that is the case, why waste American lives and money if the Syrians and their allies are already doing the job? Candidate Trump even said he was perfectly happy with Russia and Syria getting rid of ISIS. If US policy is shifting toward accepting an Assad victory, it could be achieved by ending arms supplies to the rebels and getting out of the way.

It does not appear that President Trump or his advisors have thought through what happens next if the US military takes possession of Raqqa, Syria. What is the endgame? Maybe the neocons told him it would be a “cakewalk” as they promised before the 2003 Iraq invasion.

Part of the problem is that President Trump’s advisors believe the myth that the US “surge” in Iraq and Afghanistan was a great success and repeating it would being the victory that eluded Obama with his reliance of drones and proxy military forces. A big show of US military force on the ground – like the 100,000 sent to Afghanistan by Obama in 2009 – is what is needed in Syria, these experts argue. Rarely is it asked that if the surge worked so well why are Afghanistan and Iraq still a disaster?

President Trump’s escalation in Syria is doomed to failure. He is being drawn into a quagmire by the neocons that will destroy scores of lives, cost us a fortune, and may well ruin his presidency. He must de-escalate immediately before it is too late.

Did you know that “dark matter,” a discovery which transformed physics and astronomy, was discovered by a woman named Vera Rubin? Or that someone named Jemma Redmond invented a way to use a 3-D printer to make living tissue for transplants?

Neither did this writer, until she read their obituaries. There are many amazing women scientists. Some have received important recognition in their fields. But they are not the national figures and role models that they should be.

The establishment media occasionally laments about the deficit of women in hard sciences, the so-called STEM fields, and gives the impression that women scientists have yet to make their mark. Yet all along women—though few in numbers—have been among the very top scientific achievers and visionaries. It is a telling comment on the undervaluing of women today that these innovators come to national attention not during their lives, but through the news of their deaths.

Gender bias remains a marked feature of 21st century capitalism. Girls begin to think they are not as smart as boys at age 6 (Science, January 2017). The common images of women in the major media are “the glamorous sex kitten the sainted mother, the devious witch, the hard-face corporate and political climber,” according to a 2009 UNESCO report.

Vera Rubin and Deborah Jin, who died in 2016, were each considered for the Nobel Prize in physics, the science with fewest women–11.1 percent. But this highest prize was not awarded to them. Of the 204 Nobel laureates in physics only two have been women—and the first and best-known, Marie Curie, was included at the insistence of her husband Pierre, for their joint work.

This raises many questions. How many women are making major contributions today to science, math, the social sciences, political and social life without their work and their lives receiving visibility? How many women are there worldwide with special gifts who will never have a chance to express them? What can be done to reverse this?

But let us return to these women scientists. Culled from obituaries that appeared in 2016, the article focuses on some of the women innovators who made major contributions in the physical sciences that are mostly men-only bastions.

Their obituaries reveal their astounding contributions. But they also uncover the barriers many faced, and the burdens they carried throughout their careers due to gender. All mentored other women and advocated for women in science. But the greatest advocacy would have been to learn about these women and appreciate their accomplishments as they made them.

We reclaim these women and tell of what they did so that they may take their rightful place in people’s history.

She discovered dark matter

Vera Rubin

Vera Rubin discovered that unobservable “dark matter” makes up some 25 percent of the universe’s substance, while the visible kind that we know makes up only 5 percent. Colleagues saw this is one of the great discoveries of the 20th century, and may even require a modification of Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

While Rubin received almost every other award, the Novel Prize escaped her. “She remains one of the clearest examples of a woman in scientist who accomplished Nobel-worthy work but who never received a call from Stockholm,” said Scientific American.

Rubin loved astronomy as a child but was discouraged by teachers. She graduated from all-women Vassar College as the only astronomer in her class. She hoped for a Ph.D. from Princeton. but the astrophysics graduate program wouldn’t even send her a course catalogue because they didn’t admit women.

So she got her doctorate from Georgetown University while raising four children. Denied study at a major astronomy school, she explained, “I had to learn an enormous amount by myself.”

There were times when she was chastised and humiliated by senior astronomers, she said. She was so excited once to be asked to meet with prestigious astrophysicist George Gamow. The meeting, however, took place in the lobby because women weren’t allowed in the offices upstairs.

In 1965 she joined the terrestrial magnetism department of the Carnegie Institution, only to find that she had to fight for access to its 200-inch telescope on California’s Palomar Mountain. When she finally got there, the facility had no women’s restroom. She taped an outline of a woman’s skirt to the man’s image on the restroom door, creating a restroom she could use.

Her response to such treatment? “Don’t let anyone keep you down for silly reasons such as who you are…And don’t worry about prizes and fame. The real prize is finding something new out there.”

Rubin sought to research “a problem that nobody would bother me about.’” She began to map the distribution of mass in spiral galaxies by measuring how fast they rotated. When she found irregularities in rotation speed, “great astronomers told me it didn’t mean anything.” Pursuing these anomalies in galaxy rotation is what led her to discover dark matter.

Of her monumental discovery that only 5 percent of the universe is luminous, Rubin was known to say, “I’m sorry I know so little. I’m sorry we all know so little. But that’s kind of the fun, isn’t it?”

She created a new particle

Deborah Jin

Deborah Jin is considered a giant in quantum physics. She created a new kind of particle in the coldest spheres of matter. Her name was also mentioned as a candidate for a Nobel Prize in physics.

Bose-Einstein condensates are states of matter predicted decades ago by Albert Einstein and Indian physicist Satyendra Nath Bose, but never observed. In 2001 Jin’s colleagues Carl E. Wieman and Eric A. Cornell won a Nobel Prize for actually creating one. They welded together gas atoms at a few degrees above absolute zero to form a single coherent particle. Jin conducted many of the early experiments characterizing the gas.

In 2003 Jin accomplished a major feat of her own: creating the first fermionic condensate, a similar new state of matter made from a different particle. Comparing Jin’s work to his own, Weiman said it was “a lot, lot harder.” He added, “What did come out was more impressive than I thought would be possible.”

In 2008 she and a colleague went from atoms to creating the first ultra-cold gas of polar molecules. While her work doesn’t have direct application, it could boost the development of new materials like superconductors to convey electricity more efficiently.

Yvette Fay Francis-McBarnette

She prolonged the lives of children with sickle cell anemia

Yvette Fay Francis-McBarnette broke ground treating sickle cell anemia. Using antibiotics, she prolonged into adulthood the lives of thousands of children with this chronic illness who were never expected to survive to adolescence. Her treatment anticipated a protocol established years later.

In 1946, Francis became the second Black woman to enroll at the Yale School of Medicine. She specialized in pediatric hematology, and went on to direct a sickle cell clinic at the Jamaica Hospital in New York City.

Sickle Cell Disease is a genetic order affecting mostly Black people and people of Mediterranean descent. Francis was first exposed to the disease during a pediatrics residency in Chicago, treating an African-American population that had migrated from the South. “I went home and tested all my relatives,” she said.

In 1966, she and colleagues formed a foundation to research the illness. By 1970, five years before New York City required infant testing; her clinic had already screened 20,000 children and was prescribing antibiotics. By the time a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine article confirmed the efficacy of the antibiotics, Francis had treated thousands.

One patient, Cassandra Dobson, said, “I stayed on antibiotics for 35 years. If I hadn’t, I would’ve died. I was told I was going to die at 5, at 10, at every milestone of my life.” Dobson had children, earned a doctorate in nursing and now teaches at Lehman College in the Bronx.

Francis retired in 2000. Many of her pediatric patients, now adults, did not want to leave her care. At 53 she entered a residency program in internal medicine and a fellowship in hematology so she could continue to treat them.

She created living tissue with a printer

Jemma Redmond

Jemma Redmond was an innovator in the field of 3-D tissue printing—the creation of tissue-like groupings of living cells made with a specialized 3-D printer. Surgeries using bio printing are in their first trials.

Redmond had five patents pending for her breakthroughs in creating these complex biological tissues from scratch out of “bio-ink.” Her main breakthrough was a printer that could keep cells alive as they were printed. She also invented a way to print with up to 10 materials at once, and was researching ways to lessen the cost of bio printing.

Redmond was motivated by the lack of organs available for those who needed transplants. Born intersex and infertile, she sought to print a functioning uterus for those who wanted to have children. Her first
printed project was an extended middle finger, for those who doubted her and called printing organs of such complexity impossible.

In an obituary on the website intersexday.org, Redmond’s partner Kay Cairns writes, “Jemma was 38 when she died. She spent those years fighting back against society’s expectations of her. ‘Be a good boy, get a stable job…’ Jem figured out she was infertile, which led to her discovering she was intersex. She’d always wanted kids…a ‘mini-me.’ It was a crushing realization for her, along with finding out about her hidden medical history, and dealing with constant anxiety from street harassment as someone visibly different. …

“Jem’s imagination was unstoppable, and she stopped at nothing. At the time we met, in 2012, Jem was using kitchen stoves as incubators for her printers. She came to live with me and the printers came with her. Eventually she found a hacker-space to work from. I visited one night for a tour and cycled home with her and a 3-D printed octopus in hand.”

She shifted paradigms in genetics, biology and evolution

Susan Lindquist

Susan Lindquist was one of world’s leading experts in protein folding. She showed how misfolded proteins can lead to mad cow and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, as well as positive evolutionary traits. Her work helped increase understanding of gene functioning and degenerative diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease.

“Her work has provided paradigm-shifting insights into the most basic aspects of cell biology, genetics and evolution,” said the Genetics Society of America.

Lindquist was professor of biology at MIT and one of the first women to lead an independent biological research firm.

While studying for her doctorate at Harvard in the 1970s Lindquist became interested in how genes provided the information to create a protein. She first studied fruit-fly tissue, but changed her focus to yeast because the cells were simpler and easier to study. She was warned that she could ruin her chance for tenure by switching organisms, but dismissed the warning, she said, because as a woman, she never thought she would get tenure. She called this a “positive aspect of gender inequality” because “it allowed me to be fearless….My highest aspiration then, if I really did well, was to have a corner of a lab and write grants under the auspice of a male professor.”

She clarified the biology of memory

Suzanne Corkin

Suzanne Corkin discovered that the brain’s hippocampus is a key site of long-term memory consolidation, adding clarity to the biology of memory and its disorders.

A professor of brain and cognitive science at MIT, she directed the Behavioral Neuroscience Laboratory. She authored or co-authored some 150 research articles and 10 books. She is best known, however, for her research on amnesic patient H.M. (Henry Molaison), who lost the ability to create new memories at age 27 after brain surgery to control severe seizures.

Corkin began to study H.M. as a graduate student, continuing until after his death in 2008. She made hundreds of studies, providing a detailed picture of how the surgical legions affected H.M.’s memory. Her work helped settle a debate about the function of the hippocampus in retrieving and reliving past experiences. Corkin found the hippocampus to be critical in these tasks.

“She was able to take this single case and do such meticulous work on the anatomy and its effects on memory that it helped settle these questions,” said Morris Moscovitch, professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. “That is one hallmark of her work. The other is how much she cared for H.M. She wasn’t merely using him—she became his caretaker. She took care of him like family.”

This was not a conventional relationship. Every time Corkin walked in the room she had to reintroduce herself to H.M. She said that while her interest in him “had always been primary intellectual…still, I felt
compassion for Henry and respected his outlook on life. He was more than a research participant. He was a collaborator—a prized partner in our larger quest to understand memory.”

She challenged the dominant model of science

Ruth Hubbard

Ruth Hubbard, the first woman to get tenure in Harvard University’s biology department, did major work on the biochemistry of vision. Her major contribution, however, was as a feminist critic of science, and advocate for women and people of color in the STEM fields.

She examined in detail how the absence of women, people of color and working class people in science and medicine distorted these fields. She demolished biological theories about gender inequality by exposing their bias towards wealthy men.

In 1941 Hubbard studyed biochemistry at Radcliffe. This women’s college shared a faculty with Harvard University, but had a different campus. Harvard professors taught their male students, then came to Radcliffe and repeated their lecture to the women. Hubbard noted the professors’ disdain for the women, and their view that teaching women was a indignity and a burden. But Hubbard felt she was lucky to be taught by “Harvard’s great men.”

After earning her doctorate at Radcliffe, she became a top researcher at Harvard, working with her husband, George Wald, in identifying how the eye pigment rhodopsin assists in absorbing light. She noted that women were not granted tenure while men were, but she thought, “Oh, well, Harvard lets us work here. Isn’t that nice of them?’” She said, “I really thought men were smarter, more interesting, better company.”

However, her participation in the 1960s against the U.S. war in Vietnam changed her view, she said. She saw with new eyes the examples of science around her–namely bombs and chemical and gas defoliants used in Vietnam.

“It just became imperative not to close my eyes to the fact that science is part of the social structure.”

The women’s movement of that time, which questioned traditional knowledge and exposed its male bias, also resonated with her when she saw a demonstration criticizing the discrimination against women in science. It was a eureka moment.

“I was a scientist. And they allowed me to work at Harvard. So how come there was discrimination?” Her interest in rhodopsin disappeared, and what she called the “pretend objectivity” of lab work. She began to study the process of scientific inquiry and inequities in science.

In 1974, due to pressure from women’s groups, Hubbard became the first woman at Harvard to be tenured in biology. It would take 10 years for a second woman to be tenured in biology.

Job security allowed her to passionately pursue her new interest. She prioritized mentoring women in science careers. She taught a first-of-its kind course—Biology 109—which examined the absence of women in science and medicine and its consequences. She wrote and edited books that challenged the male paradigms in science, dissected the patterns of who gets to ask the scientific questions that set and define society’s role.

She did not mince her words. In 1981 she said “I have felt, and I still feel that Harvard is a bad place for women…Women are still socialized to sit at the feet of great men.”

These biographies were mostly drawn from 2016 obituaries in the New York Times and Scientific American.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, “99% of Americans…win if the GOP health plan fails.”

It benefits business and super-rich elites at the expense of affordable healthcare for everyone – a fundamental human right.

According to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scoring, 14 million Americans will lose coverage next year, 24 million by 2026, leaving over 50 million uninsured, almost double the number under Obamacare.

“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump promised. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it.”

“That’s not going to happen with us.” People covered under Obamacare “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.”

He lied! CBO estimates explain what Trump, Speaker Ryan and other Republicans suppress. Trumpcare is nightmarish for virtually all Americans – except privileged ones benefiting hugely.

The American Health Care Act (AHCA) in its current form cuts $880 billion in Medicaid spending over the next 10 years – by reducing Medicaid expansion and converting the program to a per capita cap.

By 2026, the number of beneficiaries would fall by 14 million, most ending up uninsured – on their own or dependent on charity, if available, in case of illnesses, diseases or serious injuries.

The CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates a federal deficit reduction of $337 over the 2017 – 2026 period.

The largest savings come from Medicaid cuts and elimination of Obamacare subsidies for non-group coverage.

The largest cost increases come from repealing changes under Obamacare to the Internal Revenue code, tax cuts for business, and establishing a new tax credit for health insurance.

Most Americans will face higher premiums, deductibles and co-pays than already onerous ones, making healthcare increasingly unaffordable for millions – while business and the nation’s rich will get hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks over the next decade.

CBO scoring shows Trumpcare would make coverage less available and more unaffordable for most Americans.

They’ll pay much high insurance premiums because of large tax credit cuts. The average subsidy would be about half as much as now provided.

Premiums for older Americans will soar. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price lied, claiming “our plan will cover more individuals at a lower cost and give them the choices that they want for the coverage that they want for themselves and their family, not that the government forces them to buy.”

America’s Essential Hospitals calls itself “the leading association and champion for hospitals and health systems dedicated to high-quality care for all, including the most vulnerable.”

On Monday, it issued a statement, saying CBO analysis “underscores the urgent need for Congress to rethink its strategy on repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act (ACA).”

“This bill would make the country worse off than we were before the ACA. We must move our nation forward, not backward.”

“(U)nprecedented (Medicaid) cuts would immediately weaken our hospitals’ ability to provide care to all our patients.”

“(U)ncompensated care costs would fall hardest on hospitals for vulnerable patients – essential hospitals. (They) already operate with little or no margin…(They) could not sustain these additional cuts.”

“(W)e must halt the repeal process until we can ensure those who have coverage now can keep it.”

Millions now covered will lose out if Trumpcare passes in its current form. The health and welfare of most Americans depends of defeating it.

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

In 2003 I had, along with some American lawyers, members of the National Lawyers Guild, the good fortune to be able to travel to North Korea, that is the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, in order to experience first hand that nation, its socialist system and its people.

The joint report issued on our return was titled “The Grand Deception Revealed.” That title was chosen because we discovered that the negative western propaganda myth about North Korea is a grand deception designed to blind the peoples of the world to the accomplishments of the Korean people in the north who have successfully created their own circumstances, their own independent socio-economic system, based on socialist principles, free of the domination of the western powers.

“How could we have ever believed that it is a good idea to grow our food with poisons?” – Dr. Jane Goodall

Two new reports published in recent weeks add to the already large and convincing body of evidence, accumulated over more than half a century, that agricultural pesticides and other toxic chemicals are poisoning us.

Both reports issue scathing indictments of U.S. and global regulatory systems that collude with chemical companies to hide the truth from the public, while they fill their coffers with ill-gotten profits.

According to the World Health Organization, whose report focused on a range of environmental risks, the cost of a polluted environment adds up to the deaths of 1.7 million children every year.

A report by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, presented to the United Nations Human Rights Council, focused more narrowly on agricultural chemicals. The UN report states unequivocally that the storyline perpetuated by companies like Monsanto—the one that says we need pesticides to feed the world—is a myth. And a catastrophic one at that.

The fact that both these reports made headlines, in mainstream outlets like the Washington Post and the Guardian, is on one hand, good news. On the other, it’s a sad and discouraging commentary on our inability to control corporate greed.

Ever since Rachel Carson, in her book “Silent Spring,” so eloquently outlined the insanity of poisoning our environment, rational thinkers have warned that at the least, we ought to follow the precautionary principle when it comes to allowing the widespread use of poisons to be unleashed into the environment.

And yet, here we are, in 2017, facing the prospect, in what is unfolding as the most corporate-friendly administration in history, of dismantling what little remains of the government’s ability to stop the rampant poisoning of our soils, food, water and air—the very resources upon which all life depends.

In his book, “Poison Spring: The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA,” published in 2014, E. G. Vallianatos, who worked for the EPA for 25 years, wrote:

“It is simply not possible to understand why the EPA behaves the way it does without appreciating the enormous power of American’s industrial farmers and their allies in the chemical pesticide industries, which currently do about $40 billion per in year business. For decades, industry lobbyists have preached the gospel of unregulated capitalism, and Americans have bought it. Today, it seems the entire government is at the service of the private interests of America’s corporate class.”

That was three years ago. And yet, as public opinion shifts toward condemnation of the widespread use of toxic chemicals on our food, here in the U.S., government officials entrusted with public health and safety appear more determined than ever to uphold the “rights” of corporations to poison everything in sight—including our children.

‘UN experts denounce ‘myth’ pesticides are necessary to feed the world’

The headline in the Guardian’s story on the report delivered this week to the UN Human Rights Council said it all.

From the Guardian:

A new report, being presented to the UN human rights council on Wednesday, is severely critical of the global corporations that manufacture pesticides, accusing them of the “systematic denial of harms”, “aggressive, unethical marketing tactics” and heavy lobbying of governments which has “obstructed reforms and paralysed global pesticide restrictions.”

The report says pesticides have “catastrophic impacts on the environment, human health and society as a whole”, including an estimated 200,000 deaths a year from acute poisoning. Its authors said: “It is time to create a global process to transition toward safer and healthier food and agricultural production.”

The UN report was authored by Hilal Elver, special rapporteur on the right to food, and Baskut Tuncak, special rapporteur on toxics. The report stated that chronic exposure to pesticides has been linked to cancer, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, hormone disruption, developmental disorders and sterility. It said the populations most at risk are farmers and agricultural workers, communities living near plantations, indigenous communities and pregnant women and children, who are especially vulnerable to pesticide exposure and require special protections.

The Crop Protection Association, a lobbying group representing the $50-billion agri-chemical industry, fired back at the report with its standard false claim that pesticides “play a key role in ensuring we have access to a healthy, safe, affordable and reliable food supply.” But Elver told the Guardian:

It is a myth. Using more pesticides is nothing to do with getting rid of hunger. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), we are able to feed 9 billion people today. Production is definitely increasing, but the problem is poverty, inequality and distribution.

Sustainable Pulse also reported on the story, noting that the report warns that some pesticides can persist in the environment for decades:

The excessive use of pesticides contaminates soil and water sources, causing loss of biodiversity, destroying the natural enemies of pests, and reducing the nutritional value of food. The impact of such overuse also imposes staggering costs on national economies around the world.

The UN report, which mentioned (page 15, no 68) the efforts of the Monsanto Tribunal to raise global awareness about the dangers of pesticides, included a long list of recommendations for moving away from chemical-based agriculture.  At the top of the list was a call out to the international community to work on a comprehensive, binding treaty to regulate hazardous pesticides throughout their life cycle, taking into account human rights principles. Such a treaty should:

• Aim to remove existing double standards among countries that are particularly detrimental to countries with weaker regulatory systems
• Generate policies to reduce pesticide use worldwide and develop a framework for the banning and phasing-out of highly hazardous pesticides
• Promote agroecology
• Place strict liability on pesticide producers.

‘Exposure to pollution kills millions of children, WHO reports find’

In a March 5 story, the Washington Post reported on two World Health Organization (WHO) reports how exposure to polluted environments is linked to more than one in four deaths among children under the age of five.

Worldwide, 1.7 million children’s deaths are attributable to environmental hazards, such as exposure to contaminated water, indoor and outdoor pollution, and other unsanitary conditions, the reports found.

Weaker immune systems make children’s health more vulnerable to harmful effects of polluted environments, the report says.

According to the WHO reports, which focused on a wide range of chemicals, including those found in food, electronics, contaminated water supplies, second-hand tobacco smoke, and others, one-fourth of all children’s deaths and diseases in 2012 could have been prevented by reducing environmental risks. From the WHO press release:

Children are also exposed to harmful chemicals through food, water, air and products around them. Chemicals, such as fluoride, lead and mercury pesticides, persistent organic pollutants, and others in manufactured goods, eventually find their way into the food chain. And, while leaded petrol has been phased out almost entirely in all countries, lead is still widespread in paints, affecting brain development.

Authors of the WHO report recommended:

• Housing: Ensure clean fuel for heating and cooking, no mould or pests, and remove unsafe building materials and lead paint.
• Schools: Provide safe sanitation and hygiene, free of noise, pollution, and promote good nutrition.
• Health facilities: Ensure safe water, sanitation and hygiene, and reliable electricity.
• Urban planning: Create more green spaces, safe walking and cycling paths.
• Transport: Reduce emissions and increase public transport.
• Agriculture: Reduce the use of hazardous pesticides and no child labour.
• Industry: Manage hazardous waste and reduce the use of harmful chemicals.
• Health sector: Monitor health outcomes and educate about environmental health effects and prevention.

What will it take?

If you find yourself unsurprised by the findings of these reports, or the recommendations that follow, it’s no wonder. Many organizations, including ours, have for decades been calling for reforms.

But we can’t let our lack of surprise translate into complacency. In an op-ed published this week in The Hill, Devra Lee Davis, president of the Environmental Health Trust, and author of “The Secret History of the War on Cancer,” draws the parallel between our failure to regulate the tobacco industry with our failure to regulate the chemicals that today are largely responsible for two sad statistics: 1) one in two of us will be diagnosed with cancer in our lifetimes; and 2) the rate of childhood cancer has increased by 50 percent since President Nixon declared a war on cancer, 40 years ago.

Davis, who says we’re fixated on “the wrong enemies, with the wrong weapons,” says we should ask ourselves this:

Why did we wait until nearly forty years after tobacco was understood to cause cancer and other diseases before mounting a major effort to curtail its production and use? What took us so long to reduce the amount of benzene in gasoline or toxic flame retardants in our waters, food, furniture, bedding, fabrics and breastmilk?

Unfortunately, we know why—corporate control of our regulatory system. Perhaps the better question is, having failed to rein in Congress’ loyalty to a handful of ruthless, emboldened corporations, can we elect new people, at every level of our government, who will work for us? More critically, can we do it in time to save ourselves?

Katherine Paul is associate director of the Organic Consumers Association. 

Clashes between the Syrian army and pro-Turkish forces were reported in Tadef, south of al-Bab on March 12. The Sultan Murad Division (consists of Turkmens) released a statement that 3 Syrian army soldiers had been captured by the Free Syrian Army near the al-Bab Silos. If confirmed, a notable level of tensions between pro-Turkish forces and Syrian forces remains in the area. This also means that Ankara cannot or does not want to control its proxies to avoid this.

Russian and Syrian military personnel were spotted in the town of Manbij, controlled by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), mostly consisting of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG). Photos confirm an intensification of contacts between the Syrian army and the SDF and the unpublicized Russian-US cooperation in the area.

Intense clashes took place between the Syrian army and ISIS in the area of the Jihar Airbase. Last week, the Syrian army’s Tiger Forces reached the ISIS-held airbase and successfully entered it. At some moment, government troops even had a tactical control over the site, but they failed to consolidate the gains. Since then ISIS had conducted a number of counter-attacks to push government troops back from the area. Government forces are now holding positions near the airbase.

The Syrian military is reportedly concentrating significant number of military personnel and equipment for a military operation against Hayat Tahrir al-Sham militants in western Aleppo. Local sources and media activists report about a high presence of pro-Iranian militias, fighters of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party and other pro-government groups in the area.

The US-backed SDF has captured the village of  Kas ‘Ajeel 48km southeast of Raqqa and reached the al-Ray channel near Jadidat Khabour.

The US State Department declared that Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and all factions which merged into it are now considered by the US as a terrorist group. This statement is similar to the position of the Russian-Syrian-Iranian alliance over this “moderate opposition faction” operating in the Syrian province of Idlib.

Formally, HTS is a coalition of militant groups led by Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda). Indeed, Jabhat Fatah al-Sham had absorbed a number of smaller groups operating in Idlib. Saudi Arabia is the main sponsor of the group and uses is as its tool in the Syrian war. HTS has been repeatedly made significant efforts to sabotage any kind of peace talks involving more moderate parts of the so-called Syrian opposition and conducts numerous terrorist attacks against civilians. Last weekend, the group claimed responsibility for double suicide bombing in Damascus, which killed over 40 and injured 120 others people, mainly Iraqi pilgrims. Meanwhile, the Trump administration officially aims at expanding and strengthening US ties with Saudi Arabia.

NATO weapons (Made in the UK) in possession of terrorists from al-Qaeda group were found and seized by a Syrian Arab Army unit in Damascus Countryside.

The first truck loaded with weapons, described as the smaller one, had a full arsenal of missiles and munition made in UK and hidden under boxes of vegetables. It was coming from Daraa city in the south where the SAA is fighting a fierce battle against a new wave of terrorists attacks re-enforced from Jordan.

SAA Seizes 2 Shipments of NATO Weapons to Al Qaeda Near Damascus

The second truck heading to Kiswa city south of the Syrian capital Damascus loaded with automatic machine guns, firearms, and live munitions. The arsenal was boxed and wrapped with aluminum foils to avoid detection by the SAA checkpoints.

This shipment of weapons was shipped the same time the NATO sponsored terrorists of FSA blew up civilian buses in the heart of Damascus killing scores of mostly Iraqi pilgrims on a religious visit to shrines in Bab Sgheir cemetery in the old famous Shaghour neighborhood.

It’s of no surprise the NATO’s full engagement arming terrorists fighting to destroy Syria and turn it into a failed state, similar to their previous ‘achieved goals’ in Libya and Iraq and elsewhere. The timing however might be surprising to the Russian leadership which keeps falling in the same trap time and again trying to struck deals with their ‘Western partners’ and the Erdogan regime in NATO member state Erdoganstan (formerly Turkey).

We are now moving rapidly into stage II of Levantine Madness as the US boosts its intervention in the war-torn Mideast.

Five thousand US troops are back in Iraq to bolster the shattered nation’s puppet regime that is propped up by American bayonets. New Iraqi military formations have been formed, totally equipped with modern US M1 Abrams tanks, Humvees, and fleets of trucks. More US forces are on the way.

These US-financed Iraqi units are euphemistically called ‘anti-terrorism forces’ and are supervised by US officers. In fact, what we see is the old British Imperial Raj formula of white officers commanding native mercenary troops.

Members of the Iraqi 6th Emergency Response Battalion conduct weapons training under the supervision of U.S. Special Operations Forces. (Photo: DVIDSHUB/flickr/cc)

These Iraqi units are now assaulting ISIS-held Mosul, Iraq’s second city, and smaller towns. Most of America’s Iraqi ‘sepoys’ (as native troops in the British Indian Raj were known) are Shia bitterly opposed to the nation’s minority Sunnis. After its 2003 invasion of Iraq, the US encouraged animosity between Shia and Sunni as a way of breaking resistance to foreign occupation – ‘divide et impera’ as the Romans used to say.

Interestingly, the backbone of ISIS leadership is made up of senior officers of Saddam Hussein’s old Iraqi army. The ‘Mother of All Battles’ continues, as President Saddam predicted shortly before he was lynched.

Meanwhile, thousands of US troops and Special Forces are now also engaged in Syria though just whom they are battling remains confused. Syria has become a mad house of warring factions backed by outside powers – a sort of modern version of Germany’s dreadful 30 Year’s War of the 1600’s.

The overall US commander for the Mideast, Gen. Joseph Votel, just asked the Trump administration for a large number of new American troops, saying he lacks the military resources to subdue and pacify the Levant. Votel, who is pretty sharp and a star of the US Army’s Special Operations ‘mafia,’ also just warned that India and Pakistan risked triggering a nuclear war, a grave danger this writer has been worrying about for years.

Meanwhile, the crazy-quilt war in Syria that was started by the Obama administration and the Saudis has become unmanageable. Syrian government forces are being strongly backed by Russia and slowly driving back anti-regime forces backed by the US, Saudi Arabia, France and, ever so quietly, Israel. ISIS and what’s left of al-Qaida are battling the Damascus government, sometimes discreetly aided by the western powers.

America’s main ally in Iraq and Syria are Kurdish militias of the PYD party, an affiliate of the older PKK which has sought an independent Kurdish state for decades. I covered the long, bloody war between the Turkish armed forces and the PKK in Eastern Anatolia during the mid-1990’s. Turkey is desperately concerned that formation of even a mini-Kurdish state in northern Syria or Iraq will eventually lead to creation of a large Kurdish state in Turkey. Eighteen percent of Turks are ethnic Kurds. The mighty Turkish Army will never allow this to happen.

The Turks just watched the US break up Sudan, creating the new state of South Sudan, which has turned into a bloody disaster. Could Turkey be next? Many Turks suspect the US was behind the recent coup attempted against Turkey’s leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Washington would like a more obedient leader in Ankara – or see the army generals back in power.

Turkey calls the Kurdish PYD ‘terrorists.’ The US calls them comrades in arms and finances them. Clashes between the Turks and PYD appear very likely. PYD’s blood brothers, the PKK, continue to wage bombing attacks across Turkey along with Islamic State. US forces in the region could easily be drawn into this murky fracas.

Meanwhile, ISIS appears increasingly vulnerable. It has lost almost half of Mosul, the one big city it holds. The ISIS ‘capital,’ Raqqa, will soon be overrun by US-led Iraqi forces and Kurds. Raqqa is a two-by nothing, one-camel town of no military value whatsoever. There is no way that 3,000 or so ISIS hooligans with only small arms could hold off a serious attack by regular troops and massed airpower, including B-52 and B-1 heavy bombers.

Why Raqqa was not taken a year ago or more remains one of the war’s major mysteries. As I’ve previously written, I suspect that the US and Saudi Arabia originally helped create and arm ISIS to be used against Syria’s government and Afghanistan’s Taliban movement. The US has long pretended to fight ISIS but has barely done so in reality.

Maybe this time it will be for real. ISIS has largely slipped out of the control of its western handlers, a bunch of 20-something wildmen whose main goal is revenge for attacks on Muslim targets. Without modern logistics, heavy weapons and trained officers the idea that ISIS could stand up to any western forces is a joke. It’s only when ISIS confronts ramshackle Arab forces that it has any clout. And that’s because mostly Iraqi Arab forces have no loyalty to their governments. They are merely poorly paid mercenaries.

As if this witch’s brew was not sufficiently toxic, US and Russian aircraft and Special Forces are brushing up against one another in Syria. At the same time, the US Navy in the nearby Persian Gulf is provoking the Iranians to please President Donald Trump who seems determined to have war with Iran.

The US Navy is now threatening to impose a naval blockade on war-torn Yemen, another joint US-Saudi warfare enterprise that has gone terribly wrong.

History shows it’s also easy to lie, flag-wave and bluster into war but awfully hard to get out. Trump, whose main information sources appears to be Fox fake TV news, does yet seem to understand this verity. He should have a good look at Afghanistan, America’s longest war, now in its 16th year of stalemate. The Pentagon, heedless that Afghanistan is known as ‘the Graveyard of Empires,’ wants more troops.

Eric Margolis is a columnist, author and a veteran of many conflicts in the Middle East. Margolis recently was featured in a special appearance on Britain’s Sky News TV as “the man who got it right” in his predictions about the dangerous risks and entanglements the US would face in Iraq. His latest book is American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World.

Private Banks – Not the Government or Central Banks – Create 97 Percent of All Money

Who creates money?

Most people assume that money is created by governments … or perhaps central banks.

In reality – as noted by the Bank of England, Britain’s central bank – 97% of all money in circulation is created by private banks.

Bank Loans = Creating Money Out of Thin Air

But how do private banks create money?

We’ve all been taught that banks first take in deposits, and then they loan out those deposits to folks who want to borrow.

But this is a myth …

The Bank of England the German central bank have explained that loans are extended before deposits exist … and that the loans create deposits:

The above is from an official video released by the Bank of England.

The Bank of England explains:

Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money.

The reality of how money is created today differs from the description found in some economics textbooks:

• Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits.

***

One common misconception is that banks act simply as intermediaries, lending out the deposits that savers place with them. In this view deposits are typically ‘created’ by the saving decisions of households, and banks then ‘lend out’ those existing deposits to borrowers, for example to companies looking to finance investment or individuals wanting to purchase houses.

***

In reality in the modern economy, commercial banks are the creators of deposit money …. Rather than banks lending out deposits that are placed with them, the act of lending creates deposits — the reverse of the sequence typically described in textbooks.

***

Commercial banks create money, in the form of bank deposits, by making new loans. When a bank makes a loan, for example to someone taking out a mortgage to buy a house, it does not typically do so by giving them thousands of pounds worth of banknotes. Instead, it credits their bank account with a bank deposit of the size of the mortgage. At that moment, new money is created. For this reason, some economists have referred to bank deposits as ‘fountain pen money’, created at the stroke of bankers’ pens when they approve loans.

***

This description of money creation contrasts with the notion that banks can only lend out pre-existing money, outlined in the previous section. Bank deposits are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that could be lent out.

Similarly, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago published a booklet called “Modern Money Mechanics” in the 1960s stating:

[Banks] do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers’ transaction accounts.

Monetary expert and economics professor Randall Wray explained to Washington’s Blog that:

Bank deposits are bank IOUs.

Economics professor Richard Werner – who obtained his PhD in economics from Oxford, was the first Shimomura Fellow at the Research Institute for Capital Formation at the Development Bank of Japan, Visiting Researcher at the Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies at the Bank of Japan, Visiting Scholar at the Institute for Monetary and Fiscal Studies at the Ministry of Finance, and chief economist of Jardine Fleming – was granted access to study a bank’s books, and confirmed that private banks create money when they simply create fictitious deposits into a borrower’s account.

Werner explains:

What banks do is to simply reclassify their accounts payable items arising from the act of lending as ‘customer deposits’, and the general public, when receiving payment in the form of a transfer of bank deposits, believes that a form of money had been paid into the bank.

***

No balance is drawn down to make a payment to the borrower.

***

The bank does not actually make any money available to the borrower: No transfer of funds from anywhere to the customer or indeed the customer’s account takes place. There is no equal reduction in the balance of another account to defray the borrower. Instead, the bank simply re-classified its liabilities, changing the ‘accounts payable’ obligation arising from the bank loan contract to another liability category called ‘customer deposits’.

While the borrower is given the impression that the bank had transferred money from its capital, reserves or other accounts to the borrower’s account (as indeed major theories of banking, the financial intermediation and fractional reserve theories, erroneously claim), in reality this is not the case. Neither the bank nor the customer deposited any money, nor were any funds from anywhere outside the bank utilised to make the deposit in the borrower’s account. Indeed, there was no depositing of any funds.

***

The bank’s liability is simply re-named a ‘bank deposit’.

***

Banks create money when they grant a loan: they invent a fictitious customer deposit, which the central bank and all users of our monetary system, consider to be ‘money’, indistinguishable from ‘real’ deposits not newly invented by the banks. Thus banks do not just grant credit, they create credit, and simultaneously they create money.

***

Instead of discharging their liability to pay out loans, the banks merely reclassify their liabilities originating from loan contracts from what should be an ‘accounts payable’ item to ‘customer deposit’ ….

How Can Banks DO This?

Professor Werner explains the reason that banks – but no one else – can create money out of thin air is that they are the only institution exempted from normal accounting rules.

Specifically, every other company would be busted for fraudulent accounting if they conjured new money out of thin air by reclassifying a liability (i.e. an accounts payable) as an asset (i.e. a deposit).

But the banks have pushed through exemptions so that they don’t have to follow normal accounting rules:

What enables banks to create credit and hence money is their exemption from the Client Money Rules. Thanks to this exemption they are allowed to keep customer deposits on their own balance sheet. This means that depositors who deposit their money with a bank are no longer the legal owners of this money. Instead, they are just one of the general creditors of the bank whom it owes money to. It also means that the bank is able to access the records of the customer deposits held with it and invent a new ‘customer deposit’ that had not actually been paid in, but instead is a re-classified accounts payable liability of the bank arising from a loan contract.

***

What makes banks unique and explains the combination of lending and deposit-taking under one roof is the more fundamental fact that they do not have to segregate client accounts, and thus are able to engage in an exercise of ‘re-labelling’ and mixing different liabilities, specifically by re-assigning their accounts payable liabilities incurred when entering into loan agreements, to another category of liability called ‘customer deposits’.

What distinguishes banks from non-banks is their ability to create credit and money through lending, which is accomplished by booking what actually are accounts payable liabilities as imaginary customer deposits, and this is in turn made possible by a particular regulation that renders banks unique: their exemption from the Client Money Rules. [Werner gives a concrete example on British law for banking and non-banking institutions.]

Sound fraudulent? Professor Werner thinks so, also:

But he also makes some more important points …

What Does It All Mean?  The Implications of Money Creation By Private Banks

Mainstream economists believe that private debt doesn’t even “exist“ as a force that acts on the economy.  For example, Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman assume that huge levels of household debt don’t hurt the economy because more debt among households just means that savers have loaned them money … i.e. that it is a net wash to the economy.  To make this assumption, they rely on the myth debunked above … that banks can only loan as much money out as they have in deposits.  In reality, 143 years of history shows that excessive private debt – in and of itself  – can cause depressions.

Moreover, Professor Werner points out that attempts to shore up the banking system with capital requirements (such as the Basel accords) are doomed to failure, since they don’t recognize that banks create money at will:

Basel rules were doomed to failure, since they consider banks as financial intermediaries, when in actual fact they are the creators of the money supply. Since banks invent money as fictitious deposits, it can be readily shown that capital adequacy based bank regulation does not have to restrict bank activity: banks can create money and hence can arrange for money to be made available to purchase newly issued shares that increase their bank capital. In other words, banks could simply invent the money that is then used to increase their capital. This is what Barclays Bank did in 2008, in order to avoid the use of tax money to shore up the bank’s capital: Barclays ‘raised’ £5.8 bn in new equity from Gulf sovereign wealth investors — by, it has transpired, lending them the money! As is explained in Werner (2014a), Barclays implemented a standard loan operation, thus inventing the £5.8 bn deposit ‘lent’ to the investor. This deposit was then used to ‘purchase’ the newly issued Barclays shares. Thus in this case the bank liability originating from the bank loan to the Gulf investor transmuted from (1) an accounts payable liability to (2) a customer deposit liability, to finally end up as (3) equity — another category on the liability side of the bank’s balance sheet. Effectively, Barclays invented its own capital. This certainly was cheaper for the UK tax payer than using tax money. As publicly listed companies in general are not allowed to lend money to firms for the purpose of buying their stocks, it was not in conformity with the Companies Act 2006 (Section 678, Prohibition of assistance for acquisition of shares in public company). But regulators were willing to overlook this. As Werner (2014b) argues, using central bank or bank credit creation is in principle the most cost-effective way to clean up the banking system and ensure that bank credit growth recovers quickly. The Barclays case is however evidence that stricter capital requirements do not necessary prevent banks from expanding credit and money creation, since their creation of deposits generates more purchasing power with which increased bank capital can also be funded.

Moreover, Werner points out that banks create the boom-bust cycle by lending too much for speculative, non-productive purposes:

By failing to take into account the fact that banks create money, economists and governments are sowing the seeds for future crashes.

But the economics field is very resistant to change …

Economics professor Steve Keen notes in Forbes:

In any genuine science, empirical data like this would have forced the orthodoxy to rethink its position. But in economics, the profession has sailed on, blithely unaware of how their model of “banks as intermediaries between savers and investors” is seriously wrong, and now blinds them to the remedy for the crisis as it previously blinded them to the possibility of a crisis occurring.

A wit once defined an economist as someone who, when shown that something works in practice, replies “Ah! But does it work in theory?”

And a 2016 IMF paper notes:

Around [the 1960s] banks began to completely disappear from most macroeconomic models of how the economy works.­

This helps explain why, when faced with the Great Recession in 2008, macroeconomics was initially unprepared to contribute much to the analysis of the interaction of banks with the macro economy. Today there is a sizable body of research on this topic, but the literature still has many difficulties.­

***

Virtually all recent mainstream neoclassical economic research is based on the highly misleading “intermediation of loanable funds” description of banking …

***

In modern neoclassical intermediation of loanable funds theories, banks are seen as intermediating real savings. Lending, in this narrative, starts with banks collecting deposits of previously saved real resources (perishable consumer goods, consumer durables, machines and equipment, etc.) from savers and ends with the lending of those same real resources to borrowers. But such institutions simply do not exist in the real world. There are no loanable funds of real resources that bankers can collect and then lend out. Banks do of course collect checks or similar financial instruments, but because such instruments—to have any value—must be drawn on funds from elsewhere in the financial system, they cannot be deposits of new funds from outside the financial system. New funds are produced only with new bank loans (or when banks purchase additional financial or real assets), through book entries made by keystrokes on the banker’s keyboard at the time of disbursement. This means that the funds do not exist before the loan and that they are in the form of electronic entries—or, historically, paper ledger entries—rather than real resources.­

***

This “financing through money creation” function of banks has been repeatedly described in publications of the world’s leading central banks—see McLeay, Radia, and Thomas (2014a, 2014b) for excellent summaries. What has been much more challenging, however, is the incorporation of these insights into macroeconomic models [how true].

What’s the Solution?

We’ve seen the problems created by failing to take into account the fact that private banks create money.

But there are solutions …

Initially, Professor Werner notes that preventing banks from creating new money to loan for speculation and mere personal consumption would prevent booms and busts:

Werner says that the “Asian Miracle” happened for exactly this reason:

Additionally, allowing small community banks to grow would cause the real economy to flourish … since small banks loan to small businesses (which create most of the jobs), while big banks only loan to giant companies and speculators:

Indeed, big banks are virtually out of the business of traditional lending … and small banks are the only ones funding Main Street.

Werner says this is the secret of Germany’s economic success:

Postscript: Due to their unique money-printing powers, banks now literally own the world … including the entire political system.

There’s a war raging in connection with banking.  Remember that the giant banks tried to kill off community banking through the Trans Pacific Partnership. And as Professor Werner points out, the European Central Bank is currently in a war to destroy community banks:

One of key battles for prosperity and democracy today is decentralization of the banking system.

Jesselyn Radack is a national security and human rights attorney who heads the “Whistleblower & Source Protection” project at ExposeFacts. Twitter: @jesselynradack

The administrative ping pong of Brexit continues, an exercise that merely prolongs both pain and uncertainty. Confused, parliamentarians await the next twist before the inevitable surrender.  The last round of votes touched on two House of Lords amendments directed at easing the bruising effects of any Brexit on the rights of EU citizens living in the UK.

On returning to the House of Commons, members dismissed the amendments with cold certainty, suggesting that the government whips had not only been busy, but successful. The issue of calls to protect the status of EU nationals within the three months of the start of Brexit talks was rejected by 335 votes to 287.  Calls for Parliament to have a meaningful vote on any Brexit outcome failed by 331 to 286 votes.

The House of Lords had been initially optimistic on tinkering with the bill while bringing Parliament more into the fray. Shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer suggested that there was a “compelling case” to clear up the uncertainly afflicting some three million EU residents, claiming that “not only is it the right thing to do in principle but it would set the right one ahead of negotiations.”[1]

As for the issue of parliamentary involvement in triggering Article 50 negotiations with the European Union, Prime Minister Theresa had suggested in light of Gina Miller’s victory over the government that MPs would be given “the opportunity to bring their invaluable experience and expertise to bear in helping the government select the best course in the forthcoming Brexit negotiations.”  Given the latest turn of events, such consultation and involvement is likely to be minimal.  At heart, May remains disgruntled about much of what counts for consultation.

Brexit secretary David Davis has been proffering the familiar line of the May government that Britain wants the best of both worlds.  Having jumped from a turbulent ship into arguably more turbulent waters, Britain wishes to dictate terms from the marooned dinghy.  “The government has been very clear what it intends – it intends to guarantee the rights of both British and European citizens.”

That’s not all, claims Davis. “We have a plan to build a Global Britain, and take advantage of its new place in the world by forging new trading links.” (His preference here is less for the rights of EU citizens than trading opportunities.)  This charming delusion hatched in historical myopia persists to be Tory policy.

The secretary has also been making brave assertions that attempting to protect the rights of EU citizens in Britain will be something of a moral mission, his own personal responsibility. The caveat there, of course, is how Europe wishes to respond to British citizens living and working in Europe proper.

Tiresomely, May’s ministers have been insisting on speed in terms of getting the exit negotiations underway, giving the impression that Brexit is akin to an accelerating car zooming at speed to its target.  According to Davis, “Every member state has reinforced the point – they want this at the top of the agenda, they want this to be dealt with first.”

The EU Withdrawal Bill was subsequently not challenged on being heard again by the Lords.  Labour peers promised not to re-insert the contentious amendments, even a diluted version of them. The Brexit momentum had become too strong.  Only the Lib Dems were insisting that the fight continue.  “Shame on the government for using people as chips in a casino,” protested Lib Dem leader Tim Farron, “and shame on Labour for letting them.”

This latest outcome suggests, at least on the surface, the desire on the part of the May government on keeping Brexit firm and assured even if there is no guarantee on what would happen in the absence of a deal.  In that stormy background is a nationalist mania that is pulling the strings and indifferent to prudence.  “Deranged,” was how former attorney general and Tory rebel Dominic Grieve described it.[2]

This supposed end to parliamentary ping pong is merely another hiatus before the next play – May’s announcement on triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty will now have to wait till later this month.

Even that time table has been claimed to be dangerously delusional.  Be patient to see, argues Nick Cohen, for the Dutch, French and German elections.[3]  The nationalist fires of other countries are burning with sceptical rage; populism is being readied for a potential seizure, if not of parliaments, then on good portions of the popular vote.  Brexit negotiations, were they to take place later, might just seem less treacherous, and isolated, than they do now.

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

Notes

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39249721

[2] http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/03/brexit-bill-passed-mps-reject-lords-amendments

[3] http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/beware-cult-brexit/

Many both within and beyond America’s borders labor under the delusion that US policy is determined by the nation’s elected representatives amid a careful balancing act between the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government. In reality, the inner workings of US policy resemble nothing of the sort.

In reality, an unelected deep state controls the United States, its resources, government, and people. However, the term “deep state” has been overused and intentionally abused, particularly since the election of US President Donald Trump in an effort to continue concealing the real deep state and divert public attention away from what is becoming an increasingly obvious continuity of agenda from one presidency to the next.

Uncovering and understanding the nature of the real deep state is in fact elementary, but essential in understanding the genesis and perpetuation of US policy. It is also essential in formulating solutions aimed at reining in the unwarranted power and influence wielded by this seemingly nebulous entity.

Identifying the Real Deep State is Easy

Despite the myth of “democracy,” real power is held by those who control the essentials of any given state, province, district, or community. Essentials include control over monetary instruments, essential infrastructure such as water, power, communication, and transportation, control over manufacturing, healthcare, and basic public services, as well as more obvious forms of power such as control over police and military forces.

In rare instances, such vital essentials are controlled by decentralized, grassroots organizations – and in these instances deep states are either weak or virtually nonexistent. However, more often than not, this is not the case – at least not yet.

Ordinarily, regardless of apparent, ongoing political processes, those who actually, truly control these essentials often exist well beyond but not out of reach of politics. They include large corporations and financial institutions. Organizations, lobbyists, media platforms, think tanks, and political parties are set up and controlled by these special interests to then project their power and influence into or entirely driving any given political process.

The concept of a “deep state” is not unique to only the US. Virtually every nation and throughout all of human history, regardless of a nation’s alleged political proclivities, has been ruled by wealthy and influential special interests either directly or by proxy.

Ignoring political rhetoric and charades, and focusing on where money, power, and influence truly resides, reveals the real deep state.

Unraveling the “Trump Vs Deep State” Narrative 

A cursory examination of President Trump’s administration reveals that he is but one of many extensions of the real deep state. Allegedly “alternative” Breitbart News mogul Stephen Bannon who functions as President Trump’s chief strategist is in fact a former Goldman Sachs banker. US Secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, is also a former Goldman Sachs banker. Additionally, he managed funds for alleged “Trump archenemy,” George Soros, and had invested in the presidential campaigns of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, is a long-time ExxonMobil executive, and the list goes on.

If one were to map the flow of US power and influence globally, tracing it back to its source, they would find themselves on Wall Street and in the boardrooms of financial institutions and corporations like Goldman Sachs and ExxonMobil. They would also find, leading out from these boardrooms, proxy news platforms like Breitbart News aimed at manipulating, distracting, and preying on the emotions of the American public.

In other words, in reality, the Trump administration, like those of previous presidencies, is the embodiment of the deep state.

However, a narrative has emerged alleging that President Trump is actually at war with a shadowy “deep state” consisting of everything from the US intelligence community to career bureaucrats “resisting” the Trump administration and “its” policies from within the system.

To explain this contrived narrative to the American public, another one of the real deep state’s propaganda functionaries, TIME Magazine, punished an article titled, “President Trump’s Allies Keep Talking About the ‘Deep State.’ What’s That?“

In it, it claims:

To allies of Trump in the conservative media and on Capitol Hill, it is an organized resistance within the government, working to subvert his presidency. They blame career bureaucrats, many of whom they see as loyal to former President Barack Obama, for leaking damaging information to the news media.

TIME also cites Freedom House, a US government-funded organization dedicated to regime change worldwide and chaired by the very same special interested centered upon Wall Street – again, the actual, real deep state – in an effort to downplay and dismiss the notion that the United States is actually run by just such an entity.

It claims:

“[The White House] is taking a sexy term that means something very real in an environment in which there has been a lot of violence associated with this term and we’re applying it to stuff that’s pretty normal in terms of a large bureaucracy,” said Schenkaan, the Freedom House project director. “These are state employees and they have been implementing their jobs faithfully for a long time.”

Back in reality, the American public is beginning to suspect in much larger numbers than ever before, that the US government is simply carrying out a singular agenda – regardless of election results and political affiliations – of  a permanent, deeply rooted conglomeration of special interests that transcend political parties, ideologies, presidential terms, as well as both domestic and international law.

The creation of an attractive, provocative, almost irresistible strategy of tension between various functionaries within the real deep state is intentionally designed to draw in and trap political discourse long before it reaches and reveals the true nature of both the real deep state and the solutions required to dismantle it.

America’s Deep State is the World’s Problem 

It is beyond obvious that America’s real deep state represents not only the usurpation of American sovereignty, but also a threat to global peace and stability. The wielding of America’s unwarranted power and influence manifests itself as regional wars, subsequent waves of refugees, socioeconomic exploitation and catastrophe within targeted states and across entire regions, as well as a general global malaise  resulting from a minute handful of special interests abusing and egregiously wasting the planet’s human and natural resources for its own petty, self-serving pursuits.

It is not, then, an American problem, because the consequences of America’s unchecked deep state stretch out across the entire globe.

Confronting this deep state, and all others like it regardless of size and reach, requires a careful transition pursued by lesser states – and more importantly – by modern, decentralized institutions and alternatives driven by individuals.

Confronting the real deep state at the very source of its power – its corporate and financial activities and the profits reaped from billions of people across the planet paying into them – is fundamental.

The effectiveness of doing so is already evident in such realms as information space where decentralized networks of genuine alternative news platforms have countered and overcome the real deep state’s information war capabilities. Adding leverage to this process are competing centers of global power in Eurasia who have created competing media platforms that have further diluted the US deep state’s grip on information.

A similar process – enabled by technology – is unfolding across all aspects of manufacturing and infrastructure. The emergence of aerospace industries across the developing world is beginning to challenge the US-European monopoly over both air and space. Chinese corporations building trains and aircraft – on the largest end of the spectrum – are diluting monopolies enjoyed for decades by corporations like Boeing and Airbus.

On the smaller end of the spectrum, localized manufacturing of simpler goods carried out by individuals or small businesses, both within formal and informal economies and markets, are chipping away at centralized manufacturing and retail monopolies.

Alternative energy such as solar power lends itself well to decentralized power production both for individuals and members of networks known as microgrids. As these microgrids proliferate, energy monopolies will inevitably whither.

And the organic food movement – a mesh network that continues to expand by leaps and bound in both size and capabilities – has challenged and in some instances, entirely replaced centralized agricultural and processing monopolies who also constitute the membership of the US deep state.

Solving the Deep State Problem 

Despite this, the deep state still poses a formidable and dangerous threat to both global and individual peace and prosperity.

The natural human inclination to create alternatives to compete with such a threat – but which simply resemble a mirrored version of the threat – means that a “Chinese” or “Russian” dominated deep state leading any given unipolar global order will simply replace America’s immense deep state and continue carrying on the abuses and destructive role Wall Street and Washington currently fulfill.

Talk of a multipolar world order in which nations balance themselves against one another rather than fall under a single, unipolar order dominated by a single deep state and the handful of interests that constitute it, forms a bridge between today’s current global order and a decentralized, balanced future.

A multipolar world order in which nations are balanced globally, then leads to an internal process of decentralization and balance, all of which is driven by technology and the opportunities in business and sociopolitical pursuits opened up by it which allow each individual to take a more proportional share of a nation’s or community’s resources.

While it may seem counterintiutive for nations like Russia, India, or China, or even smaller players like Iran, Thailand, or Brazil to invest in decentralization, national and local self-sufficiency, and even informal economies, currencies, and markets, by doing so, they help chip away at the current, dominate global deep state which through its media and consumerism still reaches into, threatens, and influences virtually every society on Earth.

Ultimately, sidestepping the crass, unsophisticated but highly provocative and alluring strategy of tension created around the Trump administration and the alleged “deep state” it is supposedly fighting, is essential in identifying and confronting the real deep state that is orchestrating both sides of this charade.

Placing stock in political functionaries of the deep state to solve the deep state problem is beyond futile – it is a rouse intentionally engineered to preserve and perpetuate the deep state. By identifying the true source of the real deep state’s power and influence – the wealth it derives from its corporate-financier monopolies, its control over national and international infrastructure, and its media – we can begin devising practical alternatives to dilute these monopolies and thus the power and influence they grant those who control them.

It requires a period of transition involving both state and individual efforts pursued by all who stand threatened by the deep state – and all those who are threatened by the deep state consist of anyone who resides outside the boardrooms from within which its agenda is devised and implemented.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

A sign of the tragic disarray of the Canadian labour movement is the extent to which its misadventures keep piling up. As the turmoil within the union representing the Ontario government’s unionized employees (Ontario Public Service Employees Union – OPSEU) hits the press, the chaos continues in Local 113 of the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU).

The 10,500 members in that local – over a third of the ATU’s Canadian membership – operate and maintain Toronto’s transit system, North America’s third largest public transit system, behind only New York and Mexico City. As with OPSEU, the acrimonious story is not about a tough strike or a response to an anti-union government. Rather, at a time when the union should be leading the charge to address popular frustrations with the failures in the city’s transit system, the local is preoccupied with a messy internal battle.

Members of ATU Local 113 who work for Veolia Tansport on strike, October 2011 to Januay 2012.

Local 113 President Bob Kinnear had attempted to break away from its American-based parent and, in what was quickly apparent, to join Unifor, Canada’s largest private sector union. For the time being he has clearly failed. The tale is mired in territorial conflicts over the members involved, legacies of personal nastiness among Canadian union leaders, whispers of conspiracy on the part of Unifor and the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), of national flag waving and charges of U.S. imperialism, counter-denunciations of ‘nationalism’ and undermining international solidarity, opposing interpretations of democracy, a remarkable – if challenged – court decision, and miscellaneous elements impenetrable to either inside or outside observers.

Though we can’t avoid delving into some of the sordid details of this development, we’ll try to limit the noise of the various intrigues involved (for a blow-by-blow see: “ATU Trusteeship, Unifor Raid, CLC Crisis”).[1] The two crucial but difficult tasks are to get to the basic principles at stake and – above all – to figure out where the members stand and how their voices might play a more direct role in resolving this sordid clash.

Breaking Away

In trying to get a handle on this, a useful starting point is to compare it to an earlier breakaway from an American-based parent, one that is now generally even if not unanimously seen in positive terms: the formation of the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) a little over three decades ago. The following differences are significant:

1. The formation of the CAW involved a nation-wide section of an international union (the United Auto Workers – UAW) breaking away. ATU Local 113 is a local in one city.
2. The autoworkers’ major bargaining was fully integrated across Canada and the USA. Local 113 bargains autonomously.
3. The autoworkers’ split revolved around a clear and historic question: how to respond to concessions and the right of Canadians to make that decision themselves – in the face of actions taken by the international UAW to deny that right. No clear, agreed upon, issue has been articulated by Local 113.
4. The Canadian autoworkers had established an overwhelming unity before it moved to break from their parent. Not only are the rest of the ATU locals (almost 2/3 of the Canadian members) apparently supportive of their international ties but even within Local 113, a clear majority of the executive board and an even larger proportion of the stewards have taken a stand against Kinnear and the split, with little or no indication (other than the usual rumblings in any union) of a rank and file rebellion against the parent.
5. The Canadian autoworkers patiently developed the membership support for taking on the risks of breaking away. The union first withdrew from its cross-border collective agreement with Chrysler and struck the corporation on its own for the very first time. It later went on strike against GM in spite of pressures from its American parent, the UAW. Following that, it asked the UAW to take measures that concretely reflected Canadian autonomy. It was only after this was denied that the Canadians took the next, and very reluctant step of setting up their own Canadian union. All the while it brought its members into discussions of the growing tensions and went to the members to ratify the decision to break away. In the case of Local 113 on the other hand, the initiative by the president of the local to leave ATU seemed to very much come out of the blue.
6. Finally, while it was easy to identify the Canadian autoworkers as representing progressive unionism against the faltering UAW, in the ATU conflict it is the Americans who apparently have the greater claim to that mantle. Larry Hanley, the president of the ATU, came to office with strong credentials in fighting for democratic unionism and won against the tired incumbents by promising to revive the union. He was one of the handful of U.S. union leaders who openly supported Bernie Sanders and has been moving to complement the workplace power of his members with community support through the organizing of a ‘bus riders’ union’. Hanley has as well dramatically expanded education and leadership training to ATU locals including in Canada. Local 113, according to Hanley, stands out as the one Canadian local that has abstained from these programs.

International Union, Canadian Members

The point is that the attempted breakaway from the ATU by Local 113 has no parallel to breakaways such as that of the CAW (now Unifor). It cannot be assumed – as Canadians generally tend to do – that the tag ‘Canadian” necessarily makes a group more progressive. Nevertheless, Canadian locals cannot be simply treated as any local in the U.S. with the same formal standing. No other country is penetrated by international unions centred elsewhere to anywhere near the extent that occurs in Canada and this fact demands great sensitivity on the part of unions that call themselves ‘internationals’ but which are in fact U.S.-based and controlled.

Unions straddling the Canada-U.S. border have, to varying extents, acknowledged this difference. Most have introduced structures and practices that move toward satisfying the principle of Canadian workers having the power to run their own affairs and determine their own policies, hopefully in solidarity with their American counterparts (The Canadian labour movement itself recognizes Quebec as a distinct region and its governing and operational procedures often apply differently in Quebec.) But even such accommodation can’t foreclose the possibility of Canadian workers choosing to follow the general international pattern of establishing their own national unions.

In this regard, certain elements of the ATU’s constitution are extremely troubling. As the court case launched against the receivership of the local by Kinnear and financed by Unifor noted, it is outrageously undemocratic to state that if only 10 workers decide to stay in the ATU, it is sufficient for those staying to retain the assets and ignore the votes of the other 99.9% of the membership. It is true that this rule – rooted in the 1930s and the desire to keep locals alive even if raided – doesn’t prevent the workers from deciding to leave the local in spite of the assets. And in this particular case it can be expected that the subsequent support from Unifor or another suitor would offset that loss and so make a democratic exit possible. But this clause is anachronistic and should be unilaterally dropped by any union respecting the democratic process.

Similarly, though Canadian delegates elect a Canadian Director of the ATU, that position is alleged (though disputed by the ATU) to have little or no resources or power. Greater weight resides in the election of a Canadian to serve as an international vice-president of the ATU as a whole. But that position is elected by all the delegates to the ATU Convention, not just the Canadians. This conflicts with CLC policy going back to 1974 and is an affront to Canadian democratic autonomy. (Note that when the ATU imposed its trusteeship on the local, it was the international vice-president that was put in charge.)

The Process…

Canadian unions have, via the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) come together to reach a consensus on how to avoid the destructiveness of the conflicts that came with Canadian attempts to break away from U.S.-based parents and which overlapped with questions of raiding. This involved a step by step procedure enshrined in the CLC constitution (Article 4: CLC Constitution, Amended May 2014). This called for abstaining from tampering with another union’s members, application by a Canadian union/local to the CLC for a negotiated process to be put in place, a review of the complaints and an opportunity for the international to correct the problem, an independent report if there is no agreement reached, and finally a supervised membership vote if necessary backed by sanctions if that is blocked. In this case, however, this process did not get off the ground as both sides accused the other of undermining the process.

The ATU argued that Unifor President Jerry Dias had been secretly meeting Kinnear (“tampering”) and that Kinnear had no mandate from his executive or members to apply to the CLC for support in a breakaway. Dias countered that Unifor had started no raiding drive and signed no cards, and that Unifor’s financial support for Kinnear’s court challenge was primarily in support of the right of Local 113’s members to democratically determine their own future. In the court decision, the judge noted that the ATU’s quick strike to put the local into trusteeship and exile Kinnear served to block free speech within the local. In reaction to the trusteeship, CLC President Hassan Yussuff – it did not ease suspicions that Yussuff came out of Unifor – took the unprecedented step of temporarily suspending the CLC process (under Article 4 of the CLC’s constitution). This led to angry accusations, from international and national unions alike, that Yussuff was siding with Dias.

Suspending Article 4 formally allowed Unifor to raid Local 113, but with a trusteeship in place and no signs of serious membership support, a raid was clearly not on. The affiliates’ anger reflected a deeper concern: setting a dangerous precedent. Trusteeships are not uncommon in many Canadian unions; in condemning the ATU trusteeship and linking this to suspending protection against raiding, it seemed that raiding in cases of trusteeship was being endorsed. The strong reaction against this promptly led the CLC to reverse its position and reinstate Article 4.

Though the judge ruled that the rapid-fire trusteeship of the ATU wasn’t justified, the story doesn’t end here. If the judge’s decision is upheld in a challenge, Kinnear remains president. But with a profoundly antagonistic board and steward body, and a membership hardly rushing to his defense, Kinnear has for the time being not been coming into the union office. If the court’s decision is reversed, Kinnear will be formally gone but ATU’s overall reputation as a progressive, democratic union will be damaged by the continuing charges of heavy-handed intervention.

As for Unifor, it seems to have walked into a minefield it was unprepared for. It will argue that its commitment to defending the right of Canadian workers to make their own decisions has been reinforced by the court’s critical and precedent-setting decision for other Canadian workers contemplating a break from their parent. Even if the court order is reversed, the issue of greater or full Canadian autonomy has been highlighted. With the likelihood of Local 113 leaving the ATU seemingly foreclosed, at least for the time being, the ATU should be farsighted enough to consolidate this victory by consulting its Canadian locals on extending greater autonomy to them while deepening the impressive plans it has for strengthening the union and its locals’ activism more generally.

Closure to this sad chapter won’t however end without addressing the great silence of the members. The survival of Local 113 is ultimately based – as is the case in all unions – not on the behind-the-scenes-machinations of union executives or even consensus-based constitutional procedures, as important as these might be, but on democratic decisions directly made by the rank-and-file membership. This could occur through a CLC supervised vote (unlikely given the current chaos around the use of the CLC’s Article 4), or an ATU-initiated but independently-supervised ratification vote in Local 113 for staying in the union (also unlikely because of ATU concern for the precedent it sets for inviting such votes), or take some other form. But unless some democratic expression of membership sentiments emerges a cloud will continue to hang over all the parties involved.

Deeper Issues Confronting the Canadian Labour Movement

The dispiriting events piling up in the North American and Canadian labour movements are symptoms of the labour movement’s disorientation. Underlying the tensions exposed by the conflict in Local 113 are three deeper issues confronting the Canadian labour movement. First, once workers join a union, they cannot be treated as the property of the union. Procedures for democratically leaving to join another union must be accepted and this is true whether it is a national or international union. Trusteeships to prevent this are undemocratic and, of course, the combination of an imposed trusteeship and it originating from a foreign-based parent makes such interventions particularly poisonous. Of course applying this principle universally is not always clear-cut. It would obviously be destructive if members decided to shop around for another home – rather than fight to change their union – because of a particular slight or imperfect end to bargaining. And local trusteeships determined by a central body on behalf of union-wide concerns are in fact sometimes necessary, as when there is corruption that is also linked to blocking internal democracy.

Second, this emphasis on the right to leave might suggest that what is negatively labelled ‘raiding’ might be validated as contributing to ‘liberating’ workers from an oppressive union. This will in some cases be true, but this defense of raiding is very often only a glib justification of expanding one union’s dues collecting power at the expense of another. The problems with raiding is not just that it is destructive to class solidarity but that it tends to offer an easy ‘fix’ to tougher problems and serves as a diversion from these challenges.

Those familiar challenges include: How can unions correct their generally sorry record in organizing new members? Can unions actually demonstrate real solidarity and introduce joint campaigns to organize new members independent of which of them gets the ultimate dues (or whether none do as new unions are set up)? And is the key to organizing better techniques, or does it start with the kind of radical internal revival and reorientation that leaves unions both more attractive to non-union workers and more likely to mobilize the internal disposition and resources to make creative organizing breakthroughs possible?

Third, in the particular case of international unions, it is often said that globalization strengthens the case for international unions. In fact, however, because the main impact on workers’ lives has shifts from collective bargaining outcomes to the policies of the state – e.g. social service cutbacks, privatization, back-to-work legislation, inequitable tax reform, and free trade – the strategic importance of national class alliances becomes correspondingly more significant than cross border ties established in an earlier period. In this case, demanding the autonomy to genuinely address the development of class power within Canada – up to and including breaking away from the U.S.-based parent – may make perfect sense. And it need not be inconsistent with greater overall internationalism (the CAW became significantly more internationalist after it broke with the UAW).

But this involves more than reducing the serious step of a breakaway to an abstract nationalism. Working class sovereignty can only have legitimate meaning if it starts with the Canadian rank and file as the final arbiters of changes in Canadian structures. It demands building the working class in both Canada and the U.S. through bringing more workers into unions rather than fighting over dues. And it means collectively struggling with how to reinvent our unions and extend their boundaries into all dimensions of working class lives.

Sam Gindin was an assistant to Bob White when he was CAW president, research director of the Canadian Auto Workers from 1974–2000 and is now an adjunct professor (retired) at York University in Toronto. He is the author of The Canadian Auto Workers: The Birth and Transformation of a Union.

Herman Rosenfeld is a Toronto-based socialist activist, educator, organizer and writer. He is a retired national staffperson with the Canadian Auto Workers (now Unifor), and worked in their Education Department.