Global Research

According to The Daily Telegraph, Washington might get into difficulty in Syria because of the confrontation between Turkey and the Kurdish forces, who are arguing about Raqqa assault, is daily getting more and more aggravated.

Ankara considers that the Kurdish forces in Syria are terroristic, and connect with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) which is banned in Turkey. The U.S., for its part, is trying to cover up contradictions between its allies in the region and prevent direct clashes between them. For Washington, the situation is complicated by the fact that each side demands from it to ban the other party’s participation in the offensive. Because of this, the operation to liberate Raqqa from ISIS can stall or turn into complete chaos. The tension between the Kurds and the Turks is so great that the Pentagon deployed its troops between the parties to prevent direct confrontation.

It is known that Washington made a bid for the Kurdish forces as the most battle-worthy force, long ago. In addition, the U.S. forces are training and supplying them with modern weaponry. Undoubtedly, such close cooperation between Washington and the Kurds causes Turkey’s discontent.

In turn, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) considers that Turkey is an occupier of northern Syria, and intends to do everything possible to prevent any participation of Turkey in the military operation to liberate Raqqa from the terrorists. Talal Selo, SDF spokesman, said this in an interview to the Iranian Fars. Answering the question about the possibility of Ankara’s participation in the liberation of the self-declared ISIS capital in Syria, the Selo also added that the Kurds will not allow Turkey to seize new areas of Syria.

It is obvious that the U.S. plans to conduct a joint operation to liberate Raqqa from ISIS militants are doomed to failure. Perhaps, never-ending contradictions between the Kurds and Ankara can affect the fact that the relations between the U.S. and Turkey will be noticeably spoiled.

If Washington takes the side of Ankara (it is highly unlikely), the Kurds may refuse assistance from the U.S., and more closely cooperate with the official Damascus in the fight against the ISIS. This has already been proved by the placement of some villages in northern Syria under the control of the government forces.

Obviously, then Kurdish detachments will be able to avoid direct confrontation with the Turkish army. For Washington, the refusal of the Kurds from the cooperation means the failure of all its plans. Therefore, the U.S. will most likely prefer the Kurds to Turkey. However, in this case, such developments may lead to increased tensions between NATO partners.

The geo-political struggle between so-called “globalists” and their nationalistic (populist) counterparts has reached a feverish pitch. With trust and belief systems in the crucible, everything from our economic beliefs to our spirituality is up for grabs. At the center of all this, America’s President Donald Trump and the Russian Federation’s President Vladimir Putin stand out as media targets and as gladiators against a kind of neo-liberal hysteria. Here are some thoughts on the globalist order and on the incontrovertible role conflict we just recognize – our religiousness is being fundamentally challenged.

The Americans for Putin Facebook profile has 3060 “likes”. The Vladimir Putin Fan Club on Facebook has 122,196 members. On Instagram, Twitter, VK, and a dozen more social media outlets thousands of Putin fan profiles exist, with millions on millions of followers. Furthermore, a new Gallop poll being broadcast via mainstream media, Mr. Putin’s approval rating is up among Americans most recently. The media in America and Europe would like to attribute this popularity to the Trump election win, but the Russian president’s favor with millions of Americans has nothing to do with Trump or being Republican. Bear with me and I’ll explain why Vladimir Putin is more popular than you imagine.

Mr. Putin’s popularity has many facets, not the least of which is the perception that the Russian president is what Americans would call “a straight shooter”. In this, Putin is joined by Donald Trump for the latter’s “off the cuff” plain speak. But besides the lingo and tone these two exhibit, a more fundamental shared ideal appeal to the biggest demographic set of all in America – Christians. If we look at both Putin and Trump, we can see a kind of cohesiveness between the America leader and Russia’s president via religion and spirituality as well. Let’s look at something Mr. Putin said in a state of the union speech in 2014:

Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values. Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation.

I can assure you, such statements resonate with Americans who have access to them. While the far left condemns any synergy of political will and religiosity, separating church and state has nothing to do with ignoring tradition and values. That separation is needed as a check and balance of control, nothing more. The danger in the 21st century is not the undue influence of God (however defined and worshipped) but the antithesis of spirituality. Billions and billions of people believe in something higher and better than self or government, and the new liberals evangelize belief in extant humanity, and nothing more. In a very real way, the neo-liberal political philosophy is a return to beastlike ideals – at least for devout believers. Without straining geo-political theory to its extremes, looking at Donald Trump’s support base and at his rhetoric, it bears fruit here. It’s a stark irony here that the Jeff Bezos’ far left bull horn The Washington Post cites Trump religious penchant from his inauguration speech:

When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. The Bible tells us how good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity. We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity.

Now the WP wanted to insinuate Donald Trump as some kind of self-proclaimed “demi-god” in their story, but sometimes the truth is used to create a great lie too. But when Trump said of America’s children, “they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty creator,” he mirrored the longstanding essence of Vladimir Putin. For the left, the agnostics and atheists both Trump and Putin are a real enemy in their eyes. Much was made of Trump failing to mention “non-believers”, in the same way the world LGBT community railed at Mr. Putin over freedoms to march in the streets in front of little kids. To understand how world policies and ideas are in conflict, we must use plain language and forget political correctness. Mr. Putin has done this, and so has President Trump. So should we all.

My point here is simple. America and Russia are two nations founded on Christian principles. There, I said it. Christian principles have guided both these nations throughout their histories. But the question; “What are these principles, and how do they fit into a political context?” are logical. This goes to the heart of the matter of our current crises actually, if you’ll allow me to explain.

75% of Americans today identify with a Christian religion, down from 80% when Barack Obama took office. Russia shows essentially the same religiosity footprint, with somewhere between 60% and 75% identifying with Orthodoxy or another form of Christian faith. Russia, it should be mentioned, is far more difficult to measure officially, as governmental numbers do not even exist for such things. Based on the hundreds of Russians in my own network, these numbers seem to fit. Regardless of the minute fraction of deviation, it’s completely fair to call either of these nations “predominantly religious”. Where the problem of religiosity arises is in the rule of law and within the structure of democratic thought. You see many people confuse “religious freedom” with the intent of the framers of the US constitution of creating “religious tolerance”. And it is in the latter term we can finally converge on the truth of either nation’s idealistic path.

America is a nation based on Christian values and principles. Were it not, not a living soul of another faith would walk among my people. We do not have to examine New Testament scripture for long to discover religious tolerance. I will quote Jesus here once, and only once. Romans 14:1-4 reads:

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.  One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.  Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

People in the United States are not taught to cast out people of other faiths. Christianity, like many religions, is based on a belief in love and hope. It is interesting that both Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump have spoken on this very subject. But discussions of minute faith and the doctrines etc. have no place here except to illustrate a point of current ideological crisis. Putin and Trump, their supporters (including me) exert a frustration and fearfulness that core principles are being assailed.

The Globalists are led by notorious atheists and agnostics for the most part. The current West-East divide brought on by the Obama administration’s push to complete the globalist doctrine, it is a movement bent on the destruction of all traditions that stand in the way of one flawed model of “Cosmopolitanism”. The George Soros types of this world believe (or profess to believe) humanity should be one community with one shared sense of morality. The problem is, the morality they seek to stamp into our foreheads is a faithless, godless one. The Neo-Left is about human gods, and a world where permissiveness is bastardized from tolerance and patience.

Make no mistake here, the globalist doctrine leaders like Angel Merkel, banking elites like the Rothschilds, or even Saudi Sheiks adhere to and promote is not based on a hopeful and humane rule of laws. The “morality” these influential players seek is their idea of right and wrong – their notion of social justice disguised like always, as a Utopia where anything goes – an ethnocentric ideal where carte blanche is issued to everyone.

This is the same paradigm that has always existed in international and national relations and politics. The crux of my argument here can be gleaned by reading this Bill Moyers story about rules for religion in politics. At a point Moyers turns talks about the interests of the minority of agnostics, atheists, and humanists in insuring discussions of religion in politics become more “delicate and dangerous”, as Moyers puts it. The political correctness of the far left, as President Trump so often says, is central to America’s internal divisions now. In no realm is this truer than the religious-political realm. Quoting Thomas Land of Emory University’s Candler School of Theology, Moyers reveals the inextricable reality:

Atheists, as well as agnostics, skeptics, and humanists, have a huge stake in how religion plays out in our democracy and are making their voices heard—“smashing idols in the sanctuary,” as Land writes in Christian Century.

The philosophical roots of “Cosmopolitanism” are quite wonderful actually.  Diogenes of Sinope (c. 412 B.C.), who was the founding father of the Cynic movement in Ancient Greece,  and his ideas of being a “citizen of the world” gave way to what is known as “Stoic cosmopolitanism”, or a self image emanating outward to other people with a feeling of affinity and endearment. This form of Stoicism is supposed to lead to a higher form of existence called oikeiosis, or family basically. The problem in the neo-liberal and globalist sense is, the head of this new family is not God the father or Buddha even, but some Frankfurt banker or Washington think tank guru. The hierarchy the Soros and Rockefeller types condone is one made in their own image. And that image has no place for what they perceive as our petty faith in a universal good. Set against this warped humanist ideal are a very few religious leaders.

And so much for political correctness…

Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The most outstanding feature of Islam is its history; if you study Islamic history, you would come to realize that Islam did not spread by force alone, it was the superior moral appeal of its peerless ethics that won the hearts and minds of medieval masses. For instance: Mongols conquered most of the eastern lands of the Islamic Empire during the thirteenth century, however, the Muslims of those lands did not convert to the religion of the conquerors: that is, the Mongolian Shamanism. Instead, the conquerors adopted the religion of the vanquished, i.e. Islam. Not only the Mongols, but several Turkish tribes also voluntarily converted to Islam. Such was the beauty of Islamic teachings and its sublime moral appeal in ancient times.

During the medieval times, when Europe was going through an age of intellectual and moral regression, Islamic culture thrived and flourished under the Abbasids, Ottomans and Mughals. Muslims ruled over India for more than six centuries; despite that, at the time of the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, Hindus outnumbered Muslims three to one (there were only 100 million Muslims in the population of 400 million Indians in 1947). That’s how tolerant and inclusive Islamic culture was back then. By comparison, the Red Indians of America and the Aborigines of Australia were reduced to a tiny minority of those continents after the European invasions.

The Sultanate of Delhi and the Mughal Empire were regarded as benevolent rulers by ancient historians. But when India was conquered by the British Empire, their Orientalist historians deliberately propagated the myth of supposedly “savage and rapacious” rule of Muslims in India in order to sow the seeds of dissension between Muslims and Hindus. In the nineteenth century, the newly established British education system in India deliberately portrayed Muslim rulers of India as marauders, rapists and looters in order to malign them. By contrast, the British rule in India was portrayed in a positive light: that the British Empire built roads and railways and established schools, colleges and hospitals in India.

If we were to compare the British and Muslim rules in India, the Muslim rulers at least resided in India and shared their wealth and fortune with their subjects. The British rule, on the other hand, was a foreign rule; the affairs of the state were run by viceroys and governors on the behalf of the monarchs of England who resided thousands of miles away in London. A small number of European colonizers in India treated their subjects as untouchables; they traded raw materials for pennies and sent finished goods back to the Indian market with huge profits, thus enriching themselves and the British Empire.

Up until 1857, the Hindus and Muslims of India were united enough to rise up in arms together against the British colonizers under the nominal command of the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar. But after that, the British education system introduced by Lord Macaulay in India entrenched communal divisions and made it virtually impossible for Hindus and Muslims to understand each other, even though both religious communities were the victims of exploitation of foreign rule.

Regarding the notion peddled by the Orientalist historians that Muslims or Islam were somehow foreign to India, we need to settle on the definition of nativity first. If an Indian settles in the US, for instance, how would you define such a first generation immigrant? Since he was brought up in India and subsequently migrated to a Western country, therefore such a first generation Indian-American would have more in common with Indians than Americans, as such. But how would you identify the children of an immigrant who have been brought up and educated in the West? The second generation Indian-Americans, for all practical purposes, would be more American than Indian in their outlooks.

Similarly, although I concede that the invading armies of Muslim rulers from Central Asia, Afghanistan and Iran were foreign to India; but once they settled in India, made Delhi their seat of governance, intermarried and gave birth to Indian children, then how come the descendants of such benevolent rulers be labeled as foreign invaders? Excluding a few odd adventurers, like Mahmud of Ghazni, who had his seat of government in Afghanistan but plundered the wealth of India by conducting raids on Somnath, the Muslim rulers of India, particularly the Sultanate of Delhi and the Mughal Empire, were as much native to India as the Hindu and Sikh rajas and maharajas.

Notwithstanding, the only true sociological definition of nation is ethno-linguistic group. The concept of modern nation state, particularly in multiethnic federations like India and Pakistan, is an artificial construct which is predicated on nothing substantive but on myths, fables and symbols. Rather than monolithic communities, the Hindus and Muslims of India were more parochial and tribal in character.

The astute Orientalist historians of British India debunked the myth of six centuries’ old Muslim rule in India by calling them “marauders” and substituted it with the fables of the pre-Christ Maurya Empire in order to forge and reify Hindu identity against Muslims. The primary concern of impoverished Indian masses was to earn bread and butter for their families. The metanarratives of Hindu and Muslim nationalism were taught by the British rulers, Hindu elites and Muslim ashrafiya to their subjects in order to distract and exploit them.

Here, let me clarify that I am not giving a free pass to the Muslim rulers of India. Their rule must have been as tyrannical as any other undemocratic, elitist rule throughout the history has been. I am only contending that the Muslim rulers were deliberately singled out and vilified in order to sow the seeds of dissension between the two communities.

After all, if the British rulers who resided in England and ruled over India can be hailed as saviors who built roads and railways and established schools, colleges and hospitals, not by academics but by common Indian citizens, then why can’t the Sultanate of Delhi and the Mughal Empire that ensured peace and stability in India and built architectural wonders in Delhi, Lahore and Agra be granted a similar level of deference?

By the British divide-and-rule policy in the Indian context, it is generally assumed by Indian historians that the British rulers used the Muslim minority against the Hindu majority by giving the former preferential treatment, separate electorates etc. but the fact is often overlooked that the British imperialists in equal measure used the Hindus against the Muslims by vilifying the latter’s culture, rule and religion.

Moreover, the partition of Bengal on religious lines in 1905 was another classic instance of the British divide-and-rule policy through demographic change. In this case, the British imperialists cleverly partitioned the Hindu-majority Bengal province into the Muslim-majority East Bengal and the Hindu-majority West Bengal. As a consequence, the Hindus felt aggrieved and launched a mass movement against the partition; the Raj obliged the Hindus by accepting their demand of reunifying Bengal in 1911 which created a sense of alienation and deprivation among Muslims.

This time around, however, despite unifying the province along linguistic lines, at the same time the British rulers split up Bihar and Orissa province to the west and Assam province to the east; thus, reducing the initial Hindu majority (pre-1905) that included Bihar, Orissa and Assam, in favor of Muslim majority (post-1911) in the reunified Bengal. Additionally, the British rulers also devised separate electorates for Muslims in 1909; thus, pitting one community against the other which had lived peacefully for centuries before the arrival of British in India.

Finally, rather than cultivating inclusive Indian nationalism that would glorify Hindu, Muslim and Sikh identities and histories in equal measure, the British rulers maliciously nurtured exclusionary Hindu and Muslim nationalism in order to divide the communities and prolong the British rule. As several contemporary Indian historians have contended that Muslim nationalism in India was a reaction to exclusionary Hindu nationalism.

The political leadership of India was the product of British education system that forged artificial identities and entrenched communal divisions, therefore it was not possible for them to rise above their communal prejudices and work for the betterment of all Indians as a nation. This self-serving, divide-and-rule policy by the British rulers and their Hindu, Muslim and Sikh collaborators eventually led to a carnage and mass exodus of people on the eve of independence the likes of which history has seldom witnessed.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and MENA regions, neocolonialism and Petroimperialism.

The most outstanding feature of Islam is its history; if you study Islamic history, you would come to realize that Islam did not spread by force alone, it was the superior moral appeal of its peerless ethics that won the hearts and minds of medieval masses. For instance: Mongols conquered most of the eastern lands of the Islamic Empire during the thirteenth century, however, the Muslims of those lands did not convert to the religion of the conquerors: that is, the Mongolian Shamanism. Instead, the conquerors adopted the religion of the vanquished, i.e. Islam. Not only the Mongols, but several Turkish tribes also voluntarily converted to Islam. Such was the beauty of Islamic teachings and its sublime moral appeal in ancient times.

During the medieval times, when Europe was going through an age of intellectual and moral regression, Islamic culture thrived and flourished under the Abbasids, Ottomans and Mughals. Muslims ruled over India for more than six centuries; despite that, at the time of the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, Hindus outnumbered Muslims three to one (there were only 100 million Muslims in the population of 400 million Indians in 1947). That’s how tolerant and inclusive Islamic culture was back then. By comparison, the Red Indians of America and the Aborigines of Australia were reduced to a tiny minority of those continents after the European invasions.

The Sultanate of Delhi and the Mughal Empire were regarded as benevolent rulers by ancient historians. But when India was conquered by the British Empire, their Orientalist historians deliberately propagated the myth of supposedly “savage and rapacious” rule of Muslims in India in order to sow the seeds of dissension between Muslims and Hindus. In the nineteenth century, the newly established British education system in India deliberately portrayed Muslim rulers of India as marauders, rapists and looters in order to malign them. By contrast, the British rule in India was portrayed in a positive light: that the British Empire built roads and railways and established schools, colleges and hospitals in India.

If we were to compare the British and Muslim rules in India, the Muslim rulers at least resided in India and shared their wealth and fortune with their subjects. The British rule, on the other hand, was a foreign rule; the affairs of the state were run by viceroys and governors on the behalf of the monarchs of England who resided thousands of miles away in London. A small number of European colonizers in India treated their subjects as untouchables; they traded raw materials for pennies and sent finished goods back to the Indian market with huge profits, thus enriching themselves and the British Empire.

Up until 1857, the Hindus and Muslims of India were united enough to rise up in arms together against the British colonizers under the nominal command of the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar. But after that, the British education system introduced by Lord Macaulay in India entrenched communal divisions and made it virtually impossible for Hindus and Muslims to understand each other, even though both religious communities were the victims of exploitation of foreign rule.

Regarding the notion peddled by the Orientalist historians that Muslims or Islam were somehow foreign to India, we need to settle on the definition of nativity first. If an Indian settles in the US, for instance, how would you define such a first generation immigrant? Since he was brought up in India and subsequently migrated to a Western country, therefore such a first generation Indian-American would have more in common with Indians than Americans, as such. But how would you identify the children of an immigrant who have been brought up and educated in the West? The second generation Indian-Americans, for all practical purposes, would be more American than Indian in their outlooks.

Similarly, although I concede that the invading armies of Muslim rulers from Central Asia, Afghanistan and Iran were foreign to India; but once they settled in India, made Delhi their seat of governance, intermarried and gave birth to Indian children, then how come the descendants of such benevolent rulers be labeled as foreign invaders? Excluding a few odd adventurers, like Mahmud of Ghazni, who had his seat of government in Afghanistan but plundered the wealth of India by conducting raids on Somnath, the Muslim rulers of India, particularly the Sultanate of Delhi and the Mughal Empire, were as much native to India as the Hindu and Sikh rajas and maharajas.

Notwithstanding, the only true sociological definition of nation is ethno-linguistic group. The concept of modern nation state, particularly in multiethnic federations like India and Pakistan, is an artificial construct which is predicated on nothing substantive but on myths, fables and symbols. Rather than monolithic communities, the Hindus and Muslims of India were more parochial and tribal in character.

The astute Orientalist historians of British India debunked the myth of six centuries’ old Muslim rule in India by calling them “marauders” and substituted it with the fables of the pre-Christ Maurya Empire in order to forge and reify Hindu identity against Muslims. The primary concern of impoverished Indian masses was to earn bread and butter for their families. The metanarratives of Hindu and Muslim nationalism were taught by the British rulers, Hindu elites and Muslim ashrafiya to their subjects in order to distract and exploit them.

Here, let me clarify that I am not giving a free pass to the Muslim rulers of India. Their rule must have been as tyrannical as any other undemocratic, elitist rule throughout the history has been. I am only contending that the Muslim rulers were deliberately singled out and vilified in order to sow the seeds of dissension between the two communities.

After all, if the British rulers who resided in England and ruled over India can be hailed as saviors who built roads and railways and established schools, colleges and hospitals, not by academics but by common Indian citizens, then why can’t the Sultanate of Delhi and the Mughal Empire that ensured peace and stability in India and built architectural wonders in Delhi, Lahore and Agra be granted a similar level of deference?

By the British divide-and-rule policy in the Indian context, it is generally assumed by Indian historians that the British rulers used the Muslim minority against the Hindu majority by giving the former preferential treatment, separate electorates etc. but the fact is often overlooked that the British imperialists in equal measure used the Hindus against the Muslims by vilifying the latter’s culture, rule and religion.

Moreover, the partition of Bengal on religious lines in 1905 was another classic instance of the British divide-and-rule policy through demographic change. In this case, the British imperialists cleverly partitioned the Hindu-majority Bengal province into the Muslim-majority East Bengal and the Hindu-majority West Bengal. As a consequence, the Hindus felt aggrieved and launched a mass movement against the partition; the Raj obliged the Hindus by accepting their demand of reunifying Bengal in 1911 which created a sense of alienation and deprivation among Muslims.

This time around, however, despite unifying the province along linguistic lines, at the same time the British rulers split up Bihar and Orissa province to the west and Assam province to the east; thus, reducing the initial Hindu majority (pre-1905) that included Bihar, Orissa and Assam, in favor of Muslim majority (post-1911) in the reunified Bengal. Additionally, the British rulers also devised separate electorates for Muslims in 1909; thus, pitting one community against the other which had lived peacefully for centuries before the arrival of British in India.

Finally, rather than cultivating inclusive Indian nationalism that would glorify Hindu, Muslim and Sikh identities and histories in equal measure, the British rulers maliciously nurtured exclusionary Hindu and Muslim nationalism in order to divide the communities and prolong the British rule. As several contemporary Indian historians have contended that Muslim nationalism in India was a reaction to exclusionary Hindu nationalism.

The political leadership of India was the product of British education system that forged artificial identities and entrenched communal divisions, therefore it was not possible for them to rise above their communal prejudices and work for the betterment of all Indians as a nation. This self-serving, divide-and-rule policy by the British rulers and their Hindu, Muslim and Sikh collaborators eventually led to a carnage and mass exodus of people on the eve of independence the likes of which history has seldom witnessed.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and MENA regions, neocolonialism and Petroimperialism.

As the first military hardware associated with the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, commonly called THAAD, arrives in the southern region of the Korean Peninsula, the tensions around and within the  region seem to be escalating. A number of ongoing crises in South Korea are starting to take their toll, and could have regional and global implications.

The most prominent source of tension is the new missile system being erected in cooperation with the United States. The narrative in US media surrounding THAAD is that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, smeared as “the crazy North Koreans,” are threatening to destroy the Republic of Korea located in the south. The new missile system is said to simply be a mechanism for protecting a vulnerable, democratic US ally, that faces being wiped out. Mark Toner of the US State Department described the erection of THAAD as “frankly a response to a threat.”

Who is mad about THAAD? And Why?

Objections to THAAD are not only coming from Pyongyang. Moscow and Beijing have both spoken up against the new missile system for reasons that are routinely ignored in US media discourse.

South Korea is hardly unprotected and alone. The United States already has 28,500 troops in South Korea. It also has F-16 fighter aircraft and A-10 bomber jets. South Korea’s military is also very well stocked, with F-35 Fighter Jets, Aegis Destroyers, and all kinds of military hardware purchased from the United States.

The THAAD missile system being erected in a contract with Lockheed-Martin, in cold war terms, is a “strike enabling system.” Once the system is completed, the US and South Korean forces that are already in the Peninsula are free to launch an attack on North Korea, China, or Russia. The THAAD system, modeled after Israel’s Iron Dome, would prevent retaliation strikes aimed at disabling the attackers. THAAD enables the US and South Korea to begin striking countries in the region, while shielding themselves from any response. Furthermore, THAAD includes a radar system that will closely monitor regional activity, not only in North Korea, but also in northern China.

Its not hard to tell why Russia and China are loudly objecting to this multi-billion dollar military project. Strike enabling systems with penetrating radars are not a mechanism of defusing tension, in an already tense region. THAAD is the latest development in the Pentagon’s ongoing “Asian Pivot,” moving forces into the Pacific. Similar moves have already escalated tensions in the South China Sea.

US media’s justification for the project depends on a false, racist and cartoonish caricature of the DPRK. Fictional Hollywood movies, disproven news items about executions by wild dogs, and endless rumor mongering have all painted a picture of DPRK’s leadership as a group of people hell bent on nuclear war. In reality, the government in the north has frequently stated that its goal is peaceful, democratic re-unification of the peninsula, not war, death, and destruction.

Dissent, Repression & Democracy

At the same time this controversial and provocative missile system is being erected, the President of the Republic of Korea is facing impeachment. Park Geun-hye has had her power suspended as the country prepares for an impeachment trial. Park has been caught taking bribes, and giving favors to members of the corporate elite. Lee Jae-yong, described as the de-facto leader of the multinational electronics conglomerate known as Samsung is facing criminal charges for his illicit dealings with President Park.

Lee Jae-myung, a left-wing populist, is growing in popularity. Lee’s political career has been closely identified with expanding the social safety net and workplace protections. Lee is also a loud opponent of THAAD. Lee’s voice joins a chorus of Korean activists who have filled the streets protesting against the ongoing presence of US troops and the installation of the new missile system. The large anti-US, left-wing activist movement among Koreans, which made global headlines in prior decades has not gone away. It persists among young and old Koreans, despite the heavy restrictions on its activity and constant repression.

Global media has dubbed Lee Jae-myung as “the Bernie Sanders” of South Korea. However, there is one key difference between Lee and Sanders. Sanders identifies himself as a “Democratic Socialist.” Lee does not use such terms to describe himself, as doing so is illegal under the National Security Laws. While millions of Koreans living in the south identify with organized labor, anti-capitalism, socialism, and other radical left-wing ideas, their ability to express themselves is tightly restricted.

The slightest criticism of capitalism, discussions of the history of the Korean War, or statements in any way perceived as being supportive of their northern countryfolk can land citizens of South Korea in prison. The National Security Laws of South Korea are condemned by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and many international bodies. A 24 year old photographer and activist named Park Jung-geun was convicted and given a 10-month suspended sentence simply for sarcastically tweeting the phrase “Long Live Kim Jong-Il” in 2012.

The Unified Progressive Party, a dissident voice in Korean politics, has been outlawed. The leaders of the party were imprisoned after an audio recording surfaced. The crime for which party leaders were sentenced to decades in prison was a hypothetical conversation about what to do in the context all out war between the North and South.

While the US media’s narrative ignores it, for the majority of the years following the country’s division in 1945, the southern half of the Korean peninsula has hardly been democratic. Military dictators like Sygman Rhee ruled with an iron fist. The scandal ridden President who faces a pending impeachment trial is herself the daughter of Park Chung-Hee, the military dictator who ruled the country until his assassination in 1979.

The current President’s father not only brutally repressed labor unions and dissident students, but also slaughtered thousands of Koreans simply for being homeless. In 1975, Hee issued an order for the police to remove all homeless people from the capital city of Seoul. Koreans determined by the police to be vagrants were placed in a network of 36 different prison camps throughout the country, and forced to work long hours. Torture was routinely utilized in these camps, and an unknown number died. While US media endlessly hypes up unsubstantiated claims about “labor camps” in the North, often coming from defectors with clear incentives to exaggerate, the reality of labor camps under the US backed regime in the south, and the thousands who died after being worked to death in them, has been largely glossed over.

What Role Will South Korea Play?

China hasn’t simply objected to THAAD with words. Chinese corporations are tightly controlled by the Communist Party, and their activities fit in with the country’s five year development plan. International observers have often commented on the Chinese governments ability to cooperate with the private sector in order to serve geopolitical goals. An undeclared boycott of South Korea is now being carried out by Chinese businesses.

China’s tourism websites have stopped booking packages in South Korea, which has been a popular destination for Chinese tourists in recent years. The Japanese-Korean conglomerate known as Lotte has also faced a sudden loss of Chinese business. 23 Lotte owned stores in China have been closed own. South Korean music and TV programs have been blocked from web-streaming services on the Chinese mainland. As China cuts off a large amount of its business dealings with South Korea, critics of Beijing are calling these measures “unofficial sanctions” in retaliation for THAAD.

During his Presidential campaign, Donald Trump questioned the US relationship with South Korea, saying “We are better off frankly if South Korea is going to start protecting itself … they have to protect themselves or they have to pay us.”

Though Lee Jae-myung is a leftist, and Trump is identified with the extreme right wing in the United States, on this issue, they seem to agree. Lee is quoted as saying “Americans impeached their establishment by electing Trump… Our elections will do the same.”

Lee Jae-myung, who wants to US military presence scaled back, is one of the “big three” expected to run in the upcoming Presidential election. More and more Koreans agree with his argument that allying with the United States against the north, China, and Russia, is not in the people’s best interest. Furthermore, less than 4% of the population stands behind the disgraced President. South Korea could soon be moving in the same direction as the Philippines, where the long standing neoliberal, pro-American status quo was shaken up by the election of Rodrigo Duterte.

With the THAAD controversy boiling, amid bribery scandals, impeachment proceedings, discontent with the status quo, and renewed tensions with the North, the southern half of the Korean peninsula is gradually becoming more and more of a global hotspot. The point of disagreement seems to be about the role southern Korean will play in the world. Will it remain an extension of US influence in Asia, or will the southern half of the Korean peninsula follow in the footsteps of its powerful Chinese neighbors and northern countryfolk? Will Koreans in the south declare their economic, political, and military independence from the United States and Japan?

These questions, which have driven so many uprisings, protests, military coups, and strikes since 1945 are not going away any time soon.

Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

As the first military hardware associated with the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, commonly called THAAD, arrives in the southern region of the Korean Peninsula, the tensions around and within the  region seem to be escalating. A number of ongoing crises in South Korea are starting to take their toll, and could have regional and global implications.

The most prominent source of tension is the new missile system being erected in cooperation with the United States. The narrative in US media surrounding THAAD is that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, smeared as “the crazy North Koreans,” are threatening to destroy the Republic of Korea located in the south. The new missile system is said to simply be a mechanism for protecting a vulnerable, democratic US ally, that faces being wiped out. Mark Toner of the US State Department described the erection of THAAD as “frankly a response to a threat.”

Who is mad about THAAD? And Why?

Objections to THAAD are not only coming from Pyongyang. Moscow and Beijing have both spoken up against the new missile system for reasons that are routinely ignored in US media discourse.

South Korea is hardly unprotected and alone. The United States already has 28,500 troops in South Korea. It also has F-16 fighter aircraft and A-10 bomber jets. South Korea’s military is also very well stocked, with F-35 Fighter Jets, Aegis Destroyers, and all kinds of military hardware purchased from the United States.

The THAAD missile system being erected in a contract with Lockheed-Martin, in cold war terms, is a “strike enabling system.” Once the system is completed, the US and South Korean forces that are already in the Peninsula are free to launch an attack on North Korea, China, or Russia. The THAAD system, modeled after Israel’s Iron Dome, would prevent retaliation strikes aimed at disabling the attackers. THAAD enables the US and South Korea to begin striking countries in the region, while shielding themselves from any response. Furthermore, THAAD includes a radar system that will closely monitor regional activity, not only in North Korea, but also in northern China.

Its not hard to tell why Russia and China are loudly objecting to this multi-billion dollar military project. Strike enabling systems with penetrating radars are not a mechanism of defusing tension, in an already tense region. THAAD is the latest development in the Pentagon’s ongoing “Asian Pivot,” moving forces into the Pacific. Similar moves have already escalated tensions in the South China Sea.

US media’s justification for the project depends on a false, racist and cartoonish caricature of the DPRK. Fictional Hollywood movies, disproven news items about executions by wild dogs, and endless rumor mongering have all painted a picture of DPRK’s leadership as a group of people hell bent on nuclear war. In reality, the government in the north has frequently stated that its goal is peaceful, democratic re-unification of the peninsula, not war, death, and destruction.

Dissent, Repression & Democracy

At the same time this controversial and provocative missile system is being erected, the President of the Republic of Korea is facing impeachment. Park Geun-hye has had her power suspended as the country prepares for an impeachment trial. Park has been caught taking bribes, and giving favors to members of the corporate elite. Lee Jae-yong, described as the de-facto leader of the multinational electronics conglomerate known as Samsung is facing criminal charges for his illicit dealings with President Park.

Lee Jae-myung, a left-wing populist, is growing in popularity. Lee’s political career has been closely identified with expanding the social safety net and workplace protections. Lee is also a loud opponent of THAAD. Lee’s voice joins a chorus of Korean activists who have filled the streets protesting against the ongoing presence of US troops and the installation of the new missile system. The large anti-US, left-wing activist movement among Koreans, which made global headlines in prior decades has not gone away. It persists among young and old Koreans, despite the heavy restrictions on its activity and constant repression.

Global media has dubbed Lee Jae-myung as “the Bernie Sanders” of South Korea. However, there is one key difference between Lee and Sanders. Sanders identifies himself as a “Democratic Socialist.” Lee does not use such terms to describe himself, as doing so is illegal under the National Security Laws. While millions of Koreans living in the south identify with organized labor, anti-capitalism, socialism, and other radical left-wing ideas, their ability to express themselves is tightly restricted.

The slightest criticism of capitalism, discussions of the history of the Korean War, or statements in any way perceived as being supportive of their northern countryfolk can land citizens of South Korea in prison. The National Security Laws of South Korea are condemned by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and many international bodies. A 24 year old photographer and activist named Park Jung-geun was convicted and given a 10-month suspended sentence simply for sarcastically tweeting the phrase “Long Live Kim Jong-Il” in 2012.

The Unified Progressive Party, a dissident voice in Korean politics, has been outlawed. The leaders of the party were imprisoned after an audio recording surfaced. The crime for which party leaders were sentenced to decades in prison was a hypothetical conversation about what to do in the context all out war between the North and South.

While the US media’s narrative ignores it, for the majority of the years following the country’s division in 1945, the southern half of the Korean peninsula has hardly been democratic. Military dictators like Sygman Rhee ruled with an iron fist. The scandal ridden President who faces a pending impeachment trial is herself the daughter of Park Chung-Hee, the military dictator who ruled the country until his assassination in 1979.

The current President’s father not only brutally repressed labor unions and dissident students, but also slaughtered thousands of Koreans simply for being homeless. In 1975, Hee issued an order for the police to remove all homeless people from the capital city of Seoul. Koreans determined by the police to be vagrants were placed in a network of 36 different prison camps throughout the country, and forced to work long hours. Torture was routinely utilized in these camps, and an unknown number died. While US media endlessly hypes up unsubstantiated claims about “labor camps” in the North, often coming from defectors with clear incentives to exaggerate, the reality of labor camps under the US backed regime in the south, and the thousands who died after being worked to death in them, has been largely glossed over.

What Role Will South Korea Play?

China hasn’t simply objected to THAAD with words. Chinese corporations are tightly controlled by the Communist Party, and their activities fit in with the country’s five year development plan. International observers have often commented on the Chinese governments ability to cooperate with the private sector in order to serve geopolitical goals. An undeclared boycott of South Korea is now being carried out by Chinese businesses.

China’s tourism websites have stopped booking packages in South Korea, which has been a popular destination for Chinese tourists in recent years. The Japanese-Korean conglomerate known as Lotte has also faced a sudden loss of Chinese business. 23 Lotte owned stores in China have been closed own. South Korean music and TV programs have been blocked from web-streaming services on the Chinese mainland. As China cuts off a large amount of its business dealings with South Korea, critics of Beijing are calling these measures “unofficial sanctions” in retaliation for THAAD.

During his Presidential campaign, Donald Trump questioned the US relationship with South Korea, saying “We are better off frankly if South Korea is going to start protecting itself … they have to protect themselves or they have to pay us.”

Though Lee Jae-myung is a leftist, and Trump is identified with the extreme right wing in the United States, on this issue, they seem to agree. Lee is quoted as saying “Americans impeached their establishment by electing Trump… Our elections will do the same.”

Lee Jae-myung, who wants to US military presence scaled back, is one of the “big three” expected to run in the upcoming Presidential election. More and more Koreans agree with his argument that allying with the United States against the north, China, and Russia, is not in the people’s best interest. Furthermore, less than 4% of the population stands behind the disgraced President. South Korea could soon be moving in the same direction as the Philippines, where the long standing neoliberal, pro-American status quo was shaken up by the election of Rodrigo Duterte.

With the THAAD controversy boiling, amid bribery scandals, impeachment proceedings, discontent with the status quo, and renewed tensions with the North, the southern half of the Korean peninsula is gradually becoming more and more of a global hotspot. The point of disagreement seems to be about the role southern Korean will play in the world. Will it remain an extension of US influence in Asia, or will the southern half of the Korean peninsula follow in the footsteps of its powerful Chinese neighbors and northern countryfolk? Will Koreans in the south declare their economic, political, and military independence from the United States and Japan?

These questions, which have driven so many uprisings, protests, military coups, and strikes since 1945 are not going away any time soon.

Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Following the unexpected death of 65-year-old Russian ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin, conspiracy theorists were stirred up as the ongoing Russophobic Deep State war combined with the deaths of nine Russian diplomats in the last year raised many coincident-questioning eyebrows. Now, as The Hill reports, pouring further fuel on that fire, the State Department asked the New York Medical Examiner not to publicly release information about Churkin’s cause of death.

“In order to comply with international law and protocol, the New York City Law Department has instructed the Office of Chief Medical Examiner to not publicly disclose the cause and manner of death of Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations,”  Office of Chief Medical Examiner spokesman Julie Bolcer said, according to New York Times reporter Michael Grynbaum.

As outlined in formal requests from the United States Department of State, Ambassador Churkin’s diplomatic immunity survives his death. Further questions concerning this matter should be directed to the United States Department of State.

Initial reports suggested that there was no foul play involved in the incident and that Churkin died from cardiac arrest, but, as a reminder, Churkin was not alone among Russian diplomats who died of ‘heart attacks’:

1. You probably remember Russia’s Ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov — he was assassinated by a police officer at a photo exhibit in Ankara on December 19.

2. On the same day, another diplomat, Peter Polshikov, was shot dead in his Moscow apartment. The gun was found under the bathroom sink but the circumstances of the death were under investigation. Polshikov served as a senior figure in the Latin American department of the Foreign Ministry.

3. Russia’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, died in New York this past week. Churkin was rushed to the hospital from his office at Russia’s UN mission. Initial reports said he suffered a heart attack, and the medical examiner is investigating the death, according to CBS.

4. Russia’s Ambassador to India, Alexander Kadakin, died after a “brief illness January 27, which The Hindu said he had been suffering from for a few weeks.

5. Russian Consul in Athens, Greece, Andrei Malanin, was found dead in his apartment January 9. A Greek police official said there was “no evidence of a break-in.” But Malanin lived on a heavily guarded street. The cause of death needed further investigation, per an AFP report. Malanin served during a time of easing relations between Greece and Russia when Greece was increasingly critiqued by the EU and NATO.

6. Ex-KGB chief Oleg Erovinkin, who was suspected of helping draft the Trump dossier, was found dead in the back of his car December 26, according to The Telegraph. Erovinkin also was an aide to former deputy prime minister Igor Sechin, who now heads up state-owned Rosneft.

If we go back further than 60 days…

7. On the morning of U.S. Election Day, Russian diplomat Sergei Krivov was found unconscious at the Russian Consulate in New York and died on the scene. Initial reports said Krivov fell from the roof and had blunt force injuries, but Russian officials said he died from a heart attack. BuzzFeed reports Krivov may have been a Consular Duty Commander, which would have put him in charge of preventing sabotage or espionage.

8. In November 2015, a senior adviser to Putin, Mikhail Lesin, who was also the founder of the media company RT, was found dead in a Washington hotel room according to the NYT. The Russian media said it was a “heart attack,” but the medical examiner said it was “blunt force injuries.”

9. If you go back a few months prior in September 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s driver was killed too in a freak car accident while driving the Russian President’s official black BMW  to add to the insanity.

If you include these three additional deaths that’s a total of nine Russian officials that have died over the past 2 years that WeAreChange.com’s Aaron Kesel knows of – he notes there could be more.

*  *  *

So why is the State Department now trying to keep Churkin’s cause of death from the public?

The Trump administration has made it clear it will be reviewing all agreements with Cuba.

U.S. President Donald Trump believes that Cuba, “with all the things it has been given,” has not made any “concessions” within the process of normalization of bilateral relations, according to Trump’s adviser Helen Aguirre Ferre in an interview with EFE Wednesday.

“President (Trump) has been very clear about the fact that all the agreements reached during the previous administration with Cuba will be re-assessed,” said Ferre, the White House director of media affairs.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had already warned during his confirmation hearing that “there will be a comprehensive review of current policies and (Obama’s) executive orders regarding Cuba to determine how best to pressure Cuba to respect human rights and promote democratic changes,” even adding that he will commit to “reverse” them.

Beside the pretext of “human rights,” Tillerson highlighted how he will pressure Cuba to serve U.S. economic and political interests.

He promised to work with the Treasury Department to ensure that no revenue from U.S. firms goes directly toward supporting the Cuban government, and to use trade to pressure Cuba to have Black Panther activist Assata Shakur extradited to the United States. Shakur was accused of killing a U.S. police officer during a shootout in New Jersey in 1977.

Tillerson added that the U.S. will continue to actively support Cuba’s counter-revolutionary forces, including the funding of Miami-based programs like Radio and TV Marti.

Damascus, SANA-President Bashar al-Assad said that the solution to the crisis in Syria should be through two parallel ways: the first one is to fight the terrorists, and this is our duty as government, to defend the Syrians and use any means in order to destroy the terrorists who’ve been killing and destroying in Syria, and the second one is to make dialogue.

The president added in an interview given to Chinese PHOENIX TV that any foreign troops coming to Syria without our invitation or consultation or permission, they are invaders, whether they are American, Turkish, or any other one.

Flowing is the full text of the interview:

Question 1:  Thank you Mr. President for having us here in Dimashq, the capital of Syria. I think this is the first interview you have with Chinese media after the national ceasefire and after so many fresh rounds of talks, both in Astana and in Geneva, and of course after US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, and these days, as we have seen, your troops are making steady progress in battlefields, but peace talks do not seem just as productive. So, as far as the Geneva talks is concerned, your chief negotiator, Mr. Jaafari, was trying hard to find out who should be sitting on the other side of the negotiation table. So, according to your idea, who should be sitting there?

President Assad: This is a very crucial question. If you want those negotiations to be fruitful, we have to ask “who is going to be sitting there?” I mean, there could be a lot of good people with good intentions, but the question is: who do they represent? That’s the question. In this situation, you have different groups, you have people who are, let’s say, patriotic, but they don’t represent anyone, they represent themselves. You have others who represent the terrorists, and you have terrorists on the table, and you have others who represent the agenda of foreign countries like Saudi Arabia, like Turkey, like France, UK and maybe the United States. So, it’s not a homogeneous meeting. If you want it to be fruitful, going back to the first point that I mentioned, it should be a real Syrian-Syrian negotiations. In spite of that, we went to that meeting because we think any kind of dialogue could be a good step toward the solution, because even those people who are terrorists or belonging to the terrorists or to other countries, they may change their mind and go back to their normality by going back to being real Syrians, detach themselves from being terrorists or agents to other groups. That’s why I say we didn’t expect Geneva to produce anything, but it’s a step, and it’s going to be a long way, and you may have other rounds, whether in Geneva or in Astana.

Question 2: But anyway, it is an intra-Syrian talks, right? But the matter of fact is, it is proxy dialogue. I mean, main parties do not meet and have dialogue directly.

President Assad: Exactly.

Journalist: Are you personally satisfied with the current negotiation format or mechanism?

President Assad: we didn’t forge this mechanism; it was forged by de Mistura and the UN with the influence of the countries that wanted to use those negotiations in order to make pressure on Syria, not to reach any resolution. As you just said, each one represents a different agenda, even the opposition delegations, it wasn’t one delegation; different delegations of the opposition. So, if I’m going to – as a government – if I’m going to negotiate with someone, who’s it going to be? Which one? Who represents who? That’s our question. So, you are right, this time there was no negotiations in Geneva, but this is one of the reasons, that’s why it didn’t reach anything. The only thing we discussed in Geneva was the agenda, the headlines, what are we going to discuss later, that’s it.

Question 3: But as we see, lot of time, money, energy have been put into this effort, and the clashes are still going on, people are still dying, and the refugees are still increasing.

President Assad: Exactly.

Journalist: What is the possible way of having a negotiation?

President Assad: Again, you are correct. The more delay you have, the more harm and destruction and killing and blood you’ll have within Syria, that’s why we are very eager to achieve a solution, but how and in which way? You need to have two parallel ways: the first one is to fight the terrorists, and this is our duty as government, to defend the Syrians and use any means in order to destroy the terrorists who’ve been killing and destroying in Syria. The second one is to make dialogue. This dialogue has many different aspects; you have the political one, which is related to the future of Syria; what political system do you need, what kind? It doesn’t matter which one, it depends on the Syrians, and they’re going to have referendum about what they want. The second part is to try to bring many of those people who were affiliated to the terrorists or who committed any terrorist acts to go back to their normality and lay down their armaments and to live normal life in return for amnesty that has been offered by the government, and we’ve been going in that direction for three years, and it worked very well. It worked very well. So, actually, if you want to talk about the real political solution since the beginning of the crisis, of the war on Syria, till this moment, the only solution was those reconciliations between the government and the different militants in Syria, many of them joined the government now, and they are fighting with the government. Some of them laid down their.

Question 4: But talking about the Syria war, you can never exclude the foreign factors. The Saudi-backed high negotiating committee, HNC, are saying that they are counting on the Trump administration to play a positive role instead of the mistaken policies under his predecessor Barack Obama. So, from your side, what do you expect from Trump’s Middle East policy, particularly policy on Syria?

President Assad: The first part that you mentioned about their hopes, when you pin your hopes on a foreign country, doesn’t matter which foreign country, it means you’re not patriotic, and this is proved, because they should depend on the support of the Syrian people, not any other government or administration.

Now, regarding the Trump administration, during his campaign and after the campaign, the main rhetoric of the Trump administration and the president himself was about the priority of defeating ISIS. I said since the beginning that this is a promising approach to what’s happening in Syria and in Iraq, because we live in the same area and we face the same enemy. We haven’t seen anything concrete yet regarding this rhetoric, because we’ve been seeing now certain is a local kind of raids. You cannot deal with terrorism on local basis; it should be comprehensive, it cannot be partial or temporary. It cannot be from the air, it should be in cooperation with the troops on the ground, that’s why the Russians succeeded, since they supported the Syrian Army in pushing ISIS to shrink, not to expand as it used to be before that. So, we have hopes that this taking into consideration that talking about ISIS doesn’t mean talking about the whole terrorism; ISIS is one of the products, al-Nusra is another product, you have so many groups in Syria, they are not ISIS, but they are Al Qaeda, they have the same background of the Wahabi extremist ideology.

Question 5: So, Mr. President, you and Mr. Donald Trump actually share the same priority which is counter-terrorism, and both of you hate fake news. Do you see any room for cooperation?

President Assad: Yeah, in theory, yes, but practically, not yet, because there’s no link between Syria and the United States on the formal level. Even their raids against ISIS that I just mentioned, which are only a few raids, happened without the cooperation or the consultation with the Syrian Army or the Syrian government which is illegal as we always say. So, theoretically we share those goals, but particularly, not yet.

Question 6: Do you have personal contact with the President of the United States?

President Assad: Not at all.

Journalist: Direct or indirect.

President Assad: Indirect, you have so many channels, but you cannot bet on private channels. It should be formal, this is where you can talk about a real relation with another government.

Question 7: As we speak, top generals from Turkey, Russia, and the United States are meeting somewhere in Turkey to discuss tensions in northern Syria, where mutually- suspicious forces are allied with these countries.  So, do you have a plan for a final attack on Daesh when the main players actually do need an effective coordination in order to clear Syria of all terror groups?

President Assad: Yeah, if you want to link that meeting with ISIS in particular, it won’t be objective, because at least one party, which is Turkey, has been supporting ISIS till this moment, because Erdogan, the Turkish President, is Muslim Brotherhood. He’s ideologically linked and sympathetic with ISIS and with al-Nusra, and everybody knows about this in our region, and he helped them either through armaments, logistically, through exporting oil. For the other party, which is the United States, at least during Obama’s administration, they dealt with ISIS by overlooking their smuggling the Syrian oil to Turkey, and this is how they can get money in order to recruit terrorists from around the world, and they didn’t try to do anything more than cosmetic against ISIS. The only serious party in that regard is Russia, which is effectively attacking ISIS in cooperation with us. So, the question is: how can they cooperate, and I think the Russians have hope that the two parties join the Russians and the Syrians in their fight against terrorism. So, we have more hopes now regarding the American party because of the new administration, while in Turkey nothing has changed in that regard. ISIS in the north have  only one route of supply, it’s through Turkey, and they’re still alive and they’re still active and they’re still resisting different kinds of waves of attacks, because of the  Turkish support.

Question 8: Now, US troops are in Manbej. Is the greenlight from your side? Did you open the door for these American troops?

President Assad: No, no, we didn’t. Any foreign troops coming to Syria without our invitation or consultation or permission, they are invaders, whether they are American, Turkish, or any other one. And we don’t think this is going to help. What are they going to do? To fight ISIS?  The Americans lost nearly every war. They lost in Iraq, they had to withdraw at the end. Even in Somalia, let alone Vietnam in the past and Afghanistan, your neighboring country. They didn’t succeed anywhere they sent troops, they only create a mess; they are very good in creating problems and destroying, but they are very bad in finding solutions.

Question 9: Talking about Russia and China, they just vetoed a new UN sanction on Syria last week. What do these Chinese vetoes mean exactly for your country?

President Assad: Let’s be very clear about their position, which is not to support the Syrian government or the Syrian president, because in the West they try to portray it as a personal problem, and as Russia and China and other countries and Iran support that person as president. It’s not the case. China is a member of the Security Council, and it’s committed to the Charter of the United Nations. In that veto, China has defended first of all the Charter, because the United Nations was created in order to restore stability around the world. Actually, the Western countries, especially the permanent members of the Council as a tool or means in order to change regimes or governments and to  implement their agenda, not to restore stability, and actually to create more instability around the world. So the second part is that China restored stability in the world by creating some kind of political balance within the United Nations, of course in cooperation with Russia, which is very important for the whole world. Of course, Syria was the headline, the main headline, this is good for Syria, but again it’s good for the rest of the world. Third, the same countries that wanted to use the UN Charter for their own vested interested are the same countries who interfered or tried to intervene in your country in the late 90s, and they used different headlines, human rights, and so on, and you know that, and if they had the chance, they would change every government in the world, whether big country or small country, just when this government tries to be a little bit independent. So, China protected the Chinese interests, Syrian interests, and the world interests, especially the small countries or the weak countries.

Question 10: If I’m not mistaken, you said China is going to play a role in the reconstruction of Syria. So, in which areas you think China can contribute to bring Syrian people back to their normal life after so many years of hardships?

President Assad: Actually, if you talk about what the terrorists have been doing the last six years, it’s destroying everything regarding the infrastructure. In spite of that, the Syrian government is still effective, at least by providing the minimum needs for the Syrian people. But they’ve been destroying everything in every sector with no exception. Adding to that, the Western embargo in Syria has prevented Syria from having even the basic needs for the livelihood of any citizen in Syria. So, in which sector? In every sector. I mean, China can be in every sector with no exception, because we have damage in every sector. But if we talk about now, before this comprehensive reconstruction starts, China now is being involved directly in building many projects, mainly industrial projects, in Syria, and we have many Chinese experts now working in Syria in different projects in order to set up those projects. But of course, when you have more stability, the most important thing is building the destroyed suburbs. This is the most important part of the reconstruction. The second one is the infrastructure; the sanitation system, the electricity, the oil fields, everything, with no exception. The third one: the industrial projects, which could belong to the private sector or the public sector in Syria.

Question 11: Alright. And it seems no secret that there are some Chinese extremists are here, fighting alongside Daesh. I think it is a threat to both Syria and China. What concrete or effective measures do you have to control border and prevent these extremists from free movement in the region?

President Assad: When you talk about extremists or terrorists, it doesn’t matter what their nationality is, because they don’t recognize borders, and they don’t belong to a country. The only difference between nationality and nationality, is that those for example who came from your country, they know your country more than the others, so they can do more harm in your country that others, and the same for Syrians, the same for Russian terrorist, and so on. So now, the measures, every terrorist should be defeated and demolished, unless he changed his position to the normal life. Second, because you’re talking about different nationalities -more than 80 nationalities – you should have cooperation with the other governments, especially in the intelligence field, and that’s what’s happening for example with the Chinese intelligence regarding the Uyghur terrorists who are coming from China through Turkey. Unfortunately, the only means that we don’t have now and we don’t control is our borders with Turkey, because the Uyghur  in Particular, they came from Turkey, the others coming maybe from Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, form the sea, maybe, and the majority from Turkey, but the Uyghur terrorists coming mainly from Turkey. Why? I don’t know why, but they have the support of the Turkish government, and they were gathered and collected in one group, and they were sent to the northern part of Syria. So, the mission now is to attack them, wherever they existed. Of course, sometimes you cannot tell which one… who is who, they mix with each other, but sometimes they work as separate groups from different nationalities. And this is very crucial kind of cooperation between the Syrian and the Chinese intelligence, and we did many good steps in that regard.

Question 12: Mr. President, as you may be fully aware that the “White Helmets” took an Oscar this year for the best documentary short, but folks are saying that the truth about this “White Helmets” is not like what Netflix has presented, so what is your take on this?

President Assad: First of all, we have to congratulate al-Nusra for having the first Oscar! This is an unprecedented event for the West to give Al Qaeda an Oscar; this is unbelievable, and this is another proof that the Oscars, Nobel, all these things are politicized certificates, that’s how I can look at it. The White Helmets story is very simple; it is a facelift of al-Nusra Front in Syria, just to change their ugly face into a more humanitarian face, that’s it. And you have many videos on the net and of course images broadcasted by the White Helmets that condemn the White Helmets as a terrorists group, where you can see the same person wearing the white helmet and celebrating over the dead bodies of Syrian soldiers. So, that’s what the Oscar went to, to those terrorists. So, it’s a story just to try to prevent the Syrian Army during the liberation of Aleppo from making more pressure on the attacking and liberating the districts within the city that have been occupied by those terrorists, to say that the Syrian Army and the Russians are attacking the civilians and the innocents and the humanitarian people.

Question 13: Right. Now Palmyra. I took a one-day trip to Palmyra this time. Now, the city is under your control, so as its strategic position is concerned, because Homs is the heart of Syria, it’s right in the middle, now, when you have Palmyra, what is your next target? Are you going to expand a military operation into Raqqa and Dier Ezzor?

President Assad: We are very close to Raqqa now. Yesterday, our troops reached the Euphrates River which is very close to Raqqa city, and Raqqa is the stronghold of ISIS today, so it’s going to be a priority for us, but that doesn’t mean the other cities are not priority, in time that could be in parallel, because Palmyra is on the way to Dier Ezzor city in the eastern part of Syria which is close to the Iraqi borders, and those areas that have been used by ISIS as route for logistic support between ISIS in Iraq and ISIS in

Syria. So, whether you attack the stronghold or you attack the route that ISIS uses, it has the same result.

Question 14: How many days do you think this war is going to last?

President Assad: if we presume that you don’t have foreign intervention, it will take a few months. It’s not very complicated internally. The complexity of this war is the foreign intervention. This is the problem. So, in the face of that intervention, the good thing that we gained during the war is the unity of the society. At the very beginning, the vision for many Syrians wasn’t very clear about what’s happening. Many believed the propaganda of the West about the reality, about the real story, that this is against the oppression. If it’s against the oppression, why the people in Saudi Arabia didn’t revolt, for example? So, now what we gained is this, this is our strongest foundation to end that war. We always have hope that this year is going to be the last year. But at the end, this is war and you can’t expect what is going to happen precisely.

Question 15: Mr. President, you are President of the Syrian Republic, at the same time, you are a loving husband and a father of three. How can you balance the role of being a President, a father, and a husband?

President Assad: If you cannot succeed in your small duty which is your family, you cannot succeed in your bigger duty or more comprehensive duty at the level of a country. So, there is no excuse that if you have a lot of work to abandon your duties; it’s a duty. You have to be very clear about that, you have to fulfill those duties in a very good way. Of course, sometimes those circumstances do not allow you to do whatever you have to do, your duties, fully, let’s say.

Journalist: During a day, how much time you spend on work, and how much time you spend with your family members?

President Assad: Actually, it’s not about the time, because even if you are at your home, you have to work.

Journalist: Okay.

President Assad: Let’s say, in the morning and the evening, you have the chance, but in between and after those times, you have the whole day to work.

Question 16: Have you ever thought of leaving this country for the sake of your family?

President Assad: Never, after six years, I mean the most difficult times passed; it was in 2012 and 2013, those times we never thought about it, how can I think about it now?

So, no, no, this is not an option. Whenever you have any kind of reluctance, you will lose. You will lose not with your enemies; you lose with your supporters. Those supporters, I mean the people you work with, the fighters, the army, they will feel if you’re not determined to defend your country. We never had any feeling neither me nor any member of my family.

Question 17: And how is Kareem’s Chinese getting along?

President Assad: He learned the basics of Chinese language, I think two years ago. Unfortunately, the lady and the man who taught him had to leave, because they were members of the Chinese Embassy. They went back to China. Now, he stopped improve his Chinese language.

Question 18: Do you think it is a good choice to learn Chinese for him?

President Assad: Of course, of course, because China is a rising power.

Journalist: You didn’t force him to learn Chinese? It’s his own option, right?

President Assad: No, no, we never thought about it, actually. I didn’t think that he has to learn Chinese, and I didn’t expect him, if I thought about it, that he would say yes, because for many in the world the Chinese language is a difficult language to learn. He took the initiative and he said I want to learn Chinese, and actually till this moment, I didn’t ask him why. I want him to feel free, but when he’s getting older, I’m going to ask him how? How did it come through your mind to learn this language, this difficult language, but of course important language.

Journalist: You didn’t ask him before? President Assad: No, not yet. Journalist: So, you think it’s a good choice?

President Assad: Of course, of course. As I said, it’s a rising power, it’s important. I mean, most of the world has different kinds of relation with China whether in science, in politics, in economy, in business, I mean, in every filed you need it now. And our relation for the future is going to be on the rise. It was good, but it’s going to be on the rise because when a country like China proves that it’s a real friend, a friend that you can rely on, it’s very natural to have better relation on the popular level, not only on the formal level.

Journalist: Thank you Mr. President, thank you for your time.

President Assad: Thank you for coming to Syria, you’re most welcome.

Professor Shanthu Shantharam recently wrote a response to Viva Kermani’s well thought out article about injecting some honesty into the debate about genetically modified (GM) food and crops. Both pieces appeared the Indian publication Swarajya.

Shantharam’s response is typical of what we have come to expect from him: a mixture of abuse, personal attacks and gross misrepresentation of both issues and facts.

He says of Kermani’s piece:

The article seems to be borrowed from the manifesto of the global anti-GM propaganda machinery that has been in vogue for as long as the GM crops have been around.

It is highly convenient that he chooses to ignore the agritech cartel’s substantial army of public relations agencies, politicians, scientists and media figures who engage in pseudo-science to promote GM, misrepresent scientific findings, carry out well-planned strategies to attack scientists whose findings are not to the liking of the industry and who produce smear-pieces on prominent figures (see ‘Inside the Church of the Pro-GMO Activist‘). The industry has rolled-out what has become a very transparent playbook to depict those who express concern about GM as ideologues, ignorant and anti-science.

At the same time, it tries to portray critics as being authoritarian, elitist and undemocratic. This from an industry run by privileged multi-millionaire white men who belong to Fortune 500 companies. A taxpayer-subsidised industry driven by self-interest, profit and personal gain. An industry that uses well-paid figures and career scientists (like Shantharam who makes a living outside of India in a prestigious US university) to do its bidding in the media. And an industry that hides its corporate science behind the guise of proprietary and intellectual knowledge, while setting out to undermine democratic processes.

Whether it is the Science Media Centre in the UK, Jon Entine, Kevin Folta, Tony Trewavas, Bruce Chassey or any other number of individuals or institutions, the façade of independence has been peeled away and their links to the GMO agritech sector and/or fundamentalist right-wing neoliberal lobby groups exposed.

Shantharam claims that GMOs are safe as determined by all regulatory agencies in charge of assessing the safety of food. He says the safety of GMOs have also been vouched for by leading scientific organisations. The implication being that there is an overwhelming consensus on GM among respected scientific bodies.

A September 2014 report by Food & Water Watch goes to great lengths to show the backing that Shantharam claims exists only in his mind. He should read the report, which concludes there is no consensus on safety among institutions and independent scientists, nor within the scientific literature.

Moreover, Shantharam seems to assume supposedly independent, evidence-based, public watch dogs are actually doing their job to protect the public. He has nothing to say on how the agritech/agribusiness cartel has written the rules on intellectual property rights and trade rules, has been the guiding hand behind the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture in India and has co-opted, colluded with and infiltrated public bodies across the globe, from the UK, India and the EU to the US and the WTO.

Like all good neoliberal/agritech business apologists, he talks much about democracy and choice while saying nothing about how agritech corporations have subverted both, including the restriction of cotton seed options in India and Monsanto’s illegal entry into the Indian market.

The ‘free’ market and choice exist only in the warped delusions of neoliberal ideologues like Shantharam.

More specifically, in trying to promote the myth that GMOs are equivalent to conventional breeding, Shantharam says:

Kermani must realise that in the 10,000 year history of human effort to grow food, people have artificially modified all that was growing wildly to adapt them to their needs. Therefore, there is nothing natural about agriculture.

Again, this is another industry myth designed to be repeated at every available opportunity in the hope that if said often enough it will become accepted public ‘knowledge’. There is enough evidence (see this as well) to show that GMOs are not substantially equivalent to conventionally bred crops or food derived from them. Substantial equivalence was an industry ploy designed to avoid proper testing and regulation of GM.

According to Shantharam, GM crops are specially tested in accordance with international food safety standards prescribed by the Codex Alimentarius commission where global scientific experts meet to develop global standards for food safety testing. This is simply not true.

Steven Druker has demonstrated that such claims are false:

It’s evident that the system for regulating GE foods has been, and remains, markedly defective worldwide and that a large number of these products have entered the market absent the kind of safety testing that has been called for by the experts… .

Despite saying, “Scientific literature is awash with thousands of high-class, peer-reviewed literature that testifies to the fact that GM crops are substantially equivalent to their non-GM counterparts, and therefore, they do not present any new unique safety concerns,” Shantharam cites no sources. Or perhaps he is relying on big list studies like Nicolia, which show nothing of the sort in terms of saftey.

He also argues that GM crops are being cultivated in almost 30 countries for the past 20 years without a single proven instance of any harm to any human or animal being. Where is his evidence? Can he show the data from any studies to support this claim?  It is nothing but PR. And bad PR at that. (see section three of this report).

Shantharam says:

Kermani must read the scientific opinions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to ascertain the safety of all GM crops that it has reviewed, and also two gigantic reports of GM safety research funded by the EU for more than 25 years. It is the politics of GM crops in the EU that completely ignores its own funded research reports.

Of course, we cannot say for sure to which reports he refers to as, again, he cites no sources. Perhaps he means the discredited ‘A decade of EU-funded GMO Research‘ or maybe GRACE, which is also seriously wanting.

He then says:

That the agricultural industry has saved more lives than all pharma industries put together can be asserted by a simple fact that the green revolution saved millions from starvation and death in the middle of the last century. GM crops are being cultivated in almost 30 countries for the past 20 years without a single proven instance of any harm to any human or animal being. How much more proof does one need of its safety?

Again, where is the data to support his claims? Perhaps he should read Raj Patel’s piece before making baseless claims about the green revolution. And maybe he should work his way through Rosemary Mason’s fully-referenced work to understand how agrochemicals are a major contributor to spiralling rates of illness and disease.

And when he is finished there, he might want to look at how the green revolution he cherishes so much and the geo-politicised, globalised system of food production it is wedded to is leading to the worldwide eradication of the small farm (the bedrock of complex cropping systems and sustainable, nutritional food production), bad food, poor health, rigged trade, environmental devastation, mono-cropping and diminished food and diet diversity, the destruction of rural communities, ecocide, degraded soil, water scarcity and drought, destructive and inappropriate models of development and farmers who live a knife-edge existence and for whom debt has become a fact of life.

Shantharam attacks Kermani for advocating organic farming, something he says has led and would lead again to food scarcity and starvation. Perhaps it is too much to expect Shantharam – who is after all only a microbiologist – to grasp historical and more recent contexts that have led to starvation, food deficit areas and food insecurity. He promotes the myth that a lack of food productivity led to famines or has led to present-day food insecurity. Maybe Shantharam should read academics who actually specialise in this area, which he does not.

While he might think a science PhD qualifies him to speak authoritatively on issues beyond his limited realm of expertise, Shantharam is not an economist, political scientist, trade policy analyst or historian, nor does he possess expertise in any other number of disciplines that would help him to develop a deeper understanding of development issues, history, hunger, malnutrition, poverty and sustainable, productive farming. His only concern is to lobby relentlessly on behalf of his corporate masters for a bogus GM techo-fix.

We just have to look at the outcome of GM technology since GM crops were commercialised over 20 years ago. Has it reduced pesticides use? No. Has it increased yields? No. Have companies who control the technology and its associated proprietary inputs (e.g. Roundup/glyphosate) made a financial killing? Yes (see this, this and this).

Despite Shantharms’s propaganda about the successes of Bt cotton in India, he might also want to look at how when his cherry-picked data and analysis of the story of GM cotton in India is put to one side, Bt cotton has been a failure and is a major contributory factor in farmer distress and suicide.

Monsanto has sucked over $900 million from Indian farmers for a failed technology and has done so illegally. By way of contrast, Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant brought in $13.4 million in 2014 alone, according to Bloomberg. Yet, Shantharam still tries to spin the message of GM cotton success while poor farmers in India are under pressure from seed company agents and a pay a high financial and social cost.

While lobbying for GM he seeks to denigrate not only critics but genuine solutions. And regardless of Shantharam implying that GM will not be the only route to feeding the world, the very logic of capitalism is to capture markets and destroy competition (by any foul mean possible ) and to impose a certain model of agriculture on the world.

It is a capitalism and a system of agriculture propped up by the blood money of militarism (Ukraine and Iraq), ‘structural adjustment’ and strings-attached loans (Africa) or slanted trade deals (India), whereby transnational agribusiness drives a global agenda to suit its interests and eradicate impediments to profit. And it doesn’t matter how much devastation ensues or how unsustainable their model is, ‘crisis management’ and ‘innovation’ fuel the corporate-controlled treadmill it seeks to impose.

Of course, much of this is being aided and forced through by directives from the likes of the World Bank with its ‘grow’ campaign or ‘enabling the business of agriculture’.

As a microbiologist, Shantharam seems oblivious to the reality of how the world actually functions. In his desperation, he resorts to smears and personal insults. Those who express valid concerns about GM are not to be so easily dismissed as ’ignoramuses’, ‘leftists’ or ‘anti-GM’. They are pro-democracy, pro-transparency and anti-corruption. People are demanding transparency, genuine independent testing and genuine independent evaluations of the health, social, economic and environmental impacts of GM. They also require fair and open debate.

Instead, what we get from Shantharam is industry-inspired dogma and spin underpinned by his usual pomposity that reaches its zenith by labelling anyone who questions his pseudo-facts, corporate science and PR clichés as “ignoramuses.”

When you are part of a problem and fuel and benefit from it, you will do your best to attack and denigrate anything or anyone that challenges your interests. It’s the usual case of a pro-GMO scientist-cum-lobbyist being blinded by technology and wedded to ideology.

Commander of Asa’eb al-Haq Movement affiliated to the Iraqi popular forces of Hashd al-Shaabi said that the US forces have carried out a rapid heliborne operation and evacuated two commanders of ISIL terrorists from Western Mosul in Northern Iraq.

Javad al-Talaybawi said that the US forces carried out the heliborne operation in one of the Western neighborhoods of Western Mosul, evacuating two senior ISIL commanders to an unknown location after the commanders came under siege by Iraqi government forces in intensified clashes in Western Mosul.

“Americans’ support and assistance to the ISIL is done openly to save their regional plan in a desperately attempt,” al-Talaybawi underlined.

Al-Talaybawi had warned late in February that the US forces tried hard to evacuate ISIL commanders from the besieged city of Tal Afar West of Mosul.

After photos surfaced in the media displaying US forces assisting ISIL terrorists, al-Talaybawi said that the Americans were planning to take ISIL commanders away from Tal Afar that is under the Iraqi forces’ siege.

In the meantime, member of Iraqi Parliament’s Security and Defense Commission Iskandar Watut called for a probe into photos and footages displaying US planes airdropping aid packages over ISIL-held regions.

Watut further added that we witnessed several times that US planes dropped packages of food stuff, arms and other necessary items over ISIL-held regions, and called on Iraq’s air defense to watch out the US-led coalition planes.

Eyewitnesses disclosed at the time that the US military planes helped the ISIL terrorists in Tal Afar region West of Mosul.

“We saw several packages dropped out of a US army aircraft in the surrounding areas of the city of Tal Afar in Western Nineveh province and six people also came out of a US plane in the ISIL-controlled areas,” the Arabic-language media quoted a number of eyewitnesses as saying.

Tal Afar city has been under the siege of the Iraqi volunteer forces (Hashd al-Shaabi) for about two months now and the efforts by the ISIL terrorists to help their comrades besieged in Tal Afar have failed so far.

The news comes as the Iraqi army had reported that the US air force has been helping the ISIL terrorists in areas controlled by the terrorist group.

The Iraqi army says that the US army is trying to transfer the ISIL commanders trapped in areas besieged by the Iraqi army to safe regions.

Full disclosure: I’ve met with Russians. I met with a Russian this morning. She brought me coffee. Such crazy and dangerous things can occur in Moscow. I am afraid the CIA and NSA could take notice of this meeting, and then it can be used – even against you. “You have perused an article by Israel Shamir. Were you aware he had Russian contacts?”

Though I am not too young, this is the first time I have witnessed such a witch-hunt. In Russia, there are many foreigners, Europeans and Americans as well, and Russians mingle with them freely, with no fear. The Russians are not afraid to meet with the US Ambassador; they are rather proud of the occasion. When the US Ambassador throws a party or holds a reception, all who-is-who in Moscow come to Spaso-House, the residence.

Even in Stalin’s days, the Russians went to the reception, and Mikhail Bulgakov depicted such a reception as Satan’s ball in his Master and Margarita. In recent years, all Russian opposition figures have visited the US ambassador and had had hearty chats with him.

Not only in Russia. The Wikileaks-published State Department cables describe hundreds of meetings between US Ambassadors and opposition figures all over the world. Amazingly, nowhere was such a meeting considered as a breach of national security and an incapacitating blemish on an opposition leader.

Well, probably in light of the Russian scare, nations should enact laws forbidding a person who had met with the US ambassador from occupying any public position or running for election. They could call it the Flynn Law, in the spirit of reciprocity.

The US political class has brought this calamity upon itself. If whoever met the Russian ambassador or a Russian government minister, or the Russian president (God forbid) is unsuitable for governing, the whole top layer of American politicians would be disqualified. Last year even Jill Stein, the super-kosher woman of the US politics, the Green Party candidate for president, visited Moscow and had a place at the table with Putin, before flying back and asking to recount the Wisconsin vote.

The Russians watch the new witch-hunt over the ocean with mild surprise. They did not know they were so formidable, so scary. Nor did I. I can list Russia’s faults from today till next Christmas – it is a country of terrible bureaucracy, of impossible laws, of annoying police, of huge social gaps, of harsh weather and bad roads – but I do not know of a single reason for considering Russia a threat to anybody. The Russians are keen to accept international law, they believe in national sovereignty, they do not tell other states how they should manage their civic life or do business. And they do not meddle in other states’ affairs, though it would be better if they did.

When in February 2014, Ms Nuland, then of the US State Department (the ‘F*ck the EU’ lady mercifully lost her job with ascent of Trump) and the US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt stoked the Maidan fire and doled out cookies in Kiev, the Russian Ambassador in Kiev made himself scarce. Perhaps he went to play golf. Not a single Russian political figure had bothered to go to Kiev and talk to people. Russian non-interference in the Ukraine’s affairs had been so scrupulous, as if the Ukraine were a remote Latin American state of little interest to Russians.

That fateful February three years ago, the only thing in which the Russians had interested were the Sochi Olympic Games. Kiev burned, but they discussed the biathlon. Biathlon, forsooth! The governors of Ukraine provinces asked Moscow whether it would come to save the day of the legitimate government, but in Moscow nobody picked up the receiver. On February 22, 2014, when the president Yanukovych escaped Kiev and went to Kharkov for meetings with the leaders of the Eastern Ukraine, the Russians could have established the legitimate government in Kharkov and at least split the Ukraine into two halves, with very little effort. But they did not show up and they did not say they would support such a government, and the people of Ukraine accepted the Kiev putsch.

If Putin were just slightly similar to the fire-breathing image of himself in the Western media, the Ukraine would be a Western province of Russia, as it had been for the last four hundred years, and it could have been done legally, without firing a single shot. But Vladimir Putin is not Vlad the Terrible of your comic strips. He is a great procrastinator, a man who will do nothing if possible. He goes into action only if there is no way to postpone it. He took the Crimea, or rather accepted the Crimeans’ demand to join Russia, as he (correctly) thought his people would not forgive him for surrendering the peninsula with its main fleet base to NATO and the Russian population to the tender mercy of ferociously anti-Russian Western Ukrainian gangs.

My old Israeli friend and Russia watcher, Yakov Kedmi, the former head of an Israeli intelligence service, predicted in April 2014 that the Russian army would take East and South Ukraine before the May 2014 presidential elections in Ukraine. I dismissed that as a pipe dream. Putin will do nothing if he is given half a chance. I was right.

Putin acted in Georgia in 2008 only after his peace-keeping troops had been attacked by the NATO-trained troops of President Saakashvili, who famously said his army would take Moscow in a fortnight. Even then he did not take Tbilisi the capital, but quietly pulled his troops back.

Even such provocations as the removal of Russian war-time graves and memorials, as stripping ethnic Russians of their citizenship rights in the Baltics, did not force his hand.

The last thing he wanted was to quarrel with the United States. He approved of the US invasion of Afghanistan and opened his territory for the transit of the US troops and weapons. He approved the resolutions on Iraq before the US invasion; he spoke against the invasion only in tandem with France and Germany. He agreed (rather, abstained) on the West-sponsored resolution on Libya leading to the murder of Colonel Gadhafi. He gave up the Russian bases in Vietnam and Cuba. He withdrew his troops from Tarsus, his only naval base in Syria, and returned to Syria only in face of an imminent American attack on the sovereign state, at request of its legitimate leader.

The Western media presents Russia as a ferocious Rottweiler, and the Russians do not recognise themselves in the mirror of the Western media. Russia is a Newfoundland dog, not a Rottweiler. It is big, strong, peaceful and not aggressive. I know, I have had Newfoundlands. Even a very nasty cat can’t wake up their fighting spirit.

Ideologically, Putin’s Russia is not all that different from the West. March 8, Women’s Day, is an official holiday in Russia, and Russian women have all the rights their Western sisters have, or even dream of. Russian billionaires are free to build the biggest yachts in the known universe. They pay as little taxes as anybody, a flat income tax rate of 13%. Even Trump is unlikely to beat that.

Communism is dead, and the official propaganda machine daily tells Russians that the Soviet days were dreadful, in spite of the living generation’s tender memories of Soviet equality. Communists have no access to the mass media, despite being the second biggest party in Russia.

The small and unpopular pro-Western (say, Clintonesque) opposition receives a lot of government support. They are allowed to demonstrate, they have a TV and newspapers, while anti-Western opposition, whether Trumpist or Communist, has been kept in the cold, without demos and only marginal media.

White nationalists, a small band, are being jailed at the first anti-Semitic jibe. Jeremy Bedford-Turner of Russia would have been in jail a long time ago. Moscow has 92 synagogues for less than a thousand practicing Jews – they are staffed and manned by the imported American Rabbis of Habad. Best and the choicest pieces of Russian municipal land are given to synagogues and Jewish cultural centres for free.

Article 282 of the Russian Penal Code is as strict as ADL or SPLC activists would dream of. A big part of Unz.com articles, if published in Russia, would send their authors to jail. Russia has millions of immigrants; it is actually the third country in the world by the number of accepted immigrants. The majority of them are Muslim. Moscow has one of the biggest mosques in the world. Russia has a visa-free arrangement with many Muslim countries.

Russia’s connection with the Alt-Right is a figment of the imagination. The Alt-Right has its Russian counterpart, the well-known philosopher and student of Heidegger, Alexander Dugin and his followers. They are faring worse than the Alt-Right in the West. Dugin is often presented as “Putin’s adviser”, but he has never so much as met Putin tête-à-tête. Dugin supports Putin, but Putin does not support Dugin. The philosopher has been pushed out of Moscow State University, landed in a marginal internet TV channel, and it is rumoured he is even being pushed out of that channel. His views are less acceptable in Russia than those of Bannon are in the US.

RT, the Russian TV channel, news agency and site, is always cautious, like the BBC. Recently, an Alt-Right American of Russian origin, Nina Kouprianova, whose witty twitter has many followers, far from being a “Moscow Mouthpiece”, as the beastly Daily Beast claimed, had her articles removed from the RT site. Her full-blooded support for Putin did not help her at all. Dugin is not a frequent guest in the RT, or on any major Russian channel.

On the positive side, there is freedom of speech “like in the West”, and attacks on Putin and his Prime Minister Medvedev are a daily routine in the Russian media and in social networks. Just now a short documentary by Mr Navalny accusing Medvedev of corruption has received its six million views. Millions of Russians use Facebook, where Mr Mark Zuckerberg teaches them what can be said in the polite society and what can’t.

In short, sorry to disappoint you, Russia is wonderful, but it is not an enemy of the West even in its Obama-Clinton version. It just wants to proceed with its own speed. It did not and does not want to interfere with your ideas.

The unlikely stories of Russian hackers influencing American voters can be laid to rest after publication of Vault 7, a vast collection of CIA hacking devices, in particular of its Umbrage. The CIA has created a “fingerprint” that can be used by forensic investigators to attribute multiple different attacks to the same entity.

Wikileaks explained: “This is analogous to finding the same distinctive knife wound on multiple separate murder victims. The unique wounding style creates suspicion that a single murderer is responsible. As soon one murder in the set is solved then the other murders also find likely attribution. The CIA’s Remote Devices Branch’s UMBRAGE group collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques ‘stolen’ from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation. With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the “fingerprints” of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from”.

So much about “Russian fingerprints” allegedly found in the DNC email leak and other Trump-related leaks! Indeed there is not and can’t be any proof of who hacked what, but the presumption is that if some proofs are presented, they were made up by the CIA.

And this leads us to the real villain of the story, the US intelligence community. It became so powerful that it decided to lead the country, the US, and the world, while keeping democratic institutions as a sham cover.

It is they, not timid Putin’s Russia, that is leading the world to its final Armageddon. It is they who organised the Russian Scare. Now we know that President Trump is the last defender of the dying democratic order, while his enemies in the mass media are CIA stooges.

As nobody likes to be manipulated, I’ll tell you, American voters. You weren’t manipulated by the Russians. The other way round, you are the freest people in the world, and you had and used the unique opportunity to save your country and the entire world from being taken over by spooks. This job is far from over, and there is nobody who will do it for you, certainly not the Russian president.

Now, armed by this knowledge, you can support your president and disregard the CIA-produced propaganda. Now we have no doubt that the President Obama indeed listened and read every word said or written by Donald Trump and in his vicinity. Now we have no doubt that the mass media is just another hacking tool in the CIA collection created to hack the most precious computers: your minds and your hearts.

Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]

This “opposition” has loyalties that lie with the Bolivarian Revolution and nothing else.

At 35 years of age, he is tall and slim, and his imposing stature moves about in a subtle swagger that exudes confidence tempered with a humility that does not succumb to his good looks and natural charisma. As a deputy, he is the leader of a block of 55 deputies in the Venezuelan National Assembly. From all appearances, his personality and the important position he holds should attract the sensation-seeking U.S. corporate media that hangs on to every word and is so eager to capture images of the deputies and their supporters to make a “story.”

There is, however, a problem for them and for Washington. Héctor Rodríguez is the leader of this minority block of 55 Chavista-led deputies, Bloque de la Patria, which is an outcome of the Dec. 5, 2015 legislative election that saw the ruling socialist party, the PSUV, lose its majority in the National Assembly.

Rodríguez opposes the majority in what has become a bourgeois national assembly, to paraphrase the words that Nicolás Maduro used in a talk in Caracas to national and international guests on March 7, 2017.

In the U.S. Congress, depending on its composition, the minority Democrats or Republicans oppose the majority. However, this “opposition” is always within the framework of the capitalist status quo, preserving the racist state as a vestige of slavery, negating the genocide of the Indigenous peoples (which is still under way in different forms) and sacrificing the working people on the altar of capitalist globalization, which itself is a key component of a foreign policy based on imperialist aggression and wars.

In parliamentary systems, such as in Canada and Britain, the establishment consensus adds a shameful British slant to the “opposition” charade, which would be a comedy if it were not so tragic. In these other countries in the North, the “loyal opposition” (as they are actually formally recognized) can feel free to oppose as long as they are loyal to the head of state, which in both Canada and Britain is the Queen of England.

“Extraordinary meeting with leaders of different nationalities! Only united will we build a just world!|
Count on our solidarity!” | Source: Twitter of Hector Rodriguez

However, Rodríguez’s loyalty lies with the Bolivarian Revolution and nothing else. On March 6, in Caracas, he participated in a more intimate meeting with delegates of the international Network of Intellectuals, Artists and Social Movements in Defense of Humanity. It took place in a small hall in the Foreign Affairs building. During the course of this encounter, an exchange between the participants and the deputy naturally evolved. It was so engrossing that the banal act of taking notes would have failed to do justice to the content or the style in the best Chavista tradition exhibited by Rodríguez, which is also increasingly being demonstrated by President Nicolás Maduro and other leaders.

The discussion covered many themes. One, for example, was an incredibly lucid explanation of the view that the Bolivarian Revolution, which the block of deputies are part of, is based in words and deeds on opposition to U.S. imperialism and capitalism. While the Revolution is flexible in terms of tactics, for example, in negotiating with the majority pro-capitalist, pro-U.S. force in the National Assembly in order to strive for a peaceful solution to the crisis, when it comes to the question of principles and objectives, there is no compromise possible.

No wonder that those in the North, who rely on the corporate media, never hear about this “opposition” as personified in Rodríguez. This censorship takes place even though the establishment media must be in dire straits in the hunt for a new face to replace the bland dinosaur-type politicians in the National Assembly. Washington and its media would rather sink into the swamp of Venezuelan political oblivion, even though they should pay formal attention to the “opposition” as they do so faithfully not only in other countries but also, of course, in the U.S. Congress. If they ever decide to focus on Venezuela’s opposition to the National Assembly majority, Rodríguez and other such deputies would no doubt steal the show.

Another distinguishing feature of the Bolivarian Revolution opposition is that its rejection of the status quo is defined more by what it is in favor of than what it is against. The goals of the Bolivarian Revolution comprise social and economic equality, housing, food, health, education, culture, sports and a participatory and protagonist democracy, the very essence of which is blocked by imperialism and the neoliberal status quo.

Those of us who came of political age in the 1960s felt right at home as the deputy zeroed in on the imperialists, gringos and Yankees while making crystal clear what we already know. The conflict is not with the people of the U.S., who were duly represented in red those days in Caracas, but rather with the ruling circles who, as Martí and Bolívar said in their own respective ways, are destined to plague the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean with hardship and misery.

Moreover, the U.S. is doubling-down on its reprehensible destiny as the peoples in the South strive to finally break free from the shackles of the most forceful and aggressive military and economic power in the history of mankind (or surely since the fascism of WWII), represented by Republicans and Democrats. Thus, it was encouraging to hear President Maduro on that memorable evening in Caracas telling the truth: Venezuela has not been attacked by any U.S. president as much as during the eight years of Obama. Let that sink in.

In this context, the intransigent Bolivarian opposition to U.S. imperialism is no small matter. Venezuela, at the forefront of anti-U.S. imperialism today, is thus writing another chapter in modern world history, as the Cuban Revolution and Fidel Castro have done in safeguarding their sovereignty, dignity and the social system they have chosen.

For his part, Rodríguez walked the audience very carefully and deliberately, repeating as if to test our determination (and looking us in the eyes), that while the battle is at present still mainly in the realm of ideas, if necessary – if necessary – Venezuela will also fight militarily. There is no doubt that if forced to do so, the Bolivarian Revolution will resist in this way as well. This is why all of humanity must today more than ever stand with Venezuela

During the course of the exchange with Rodríguez, what stands out is his deep political conviction illuminated by clarity in theory. This is not merely manifested by ideas and words. When ideas and words combine with action, they become a material force in society. Material force means that the ideas become an organic part of society: the ideas in the minds of individuals such as Rodríguez and other leaders and activists at all levels are socialized and thus evolve into a common movement replete with diversity. Yes, diversity – but always and only within the wide framework of broad-based Chavismo.

Thus, the minority in the National Assembly — and perhaps still a minority of 40 percent, or even half of the population in the shifting sands, of Venezuelan society – represents the future of Venezuela and that whole region. A material force such as the Bolivarian Revolution cannot be snuffed out. Yes, it can suffer setbacks, but it cannot be eliminated.

Nevertheless, Chavismo is not an electoral movement but a revolution in the making and constantly redefining itself. It does so to the extent of fearlessly organizing revolutions within the revolution, striving to carry this out in conjunction with the people and activists at all levels. With this fresh approach so singularly characteristic of the Bolivarian Revolution, the irresistible material force of socialism to replace capitalism and foreign dependence increasingly takes root and grows in Venezuelan society and on its political scene.

Arnold August, a Canadian journalist and lecturer, is the author of “Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections” and, more recently, “Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion” which explores Cuba’s relationship with the U.S., Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. He is a collaborator of teleSUR English. Arnold can be followed on Twitter @Arnold_August and Facebook.

The WikiLeaks stash of CIA hacking documents shows tools used by the CIA to hack individual cell-phones and devices. There are no documents yet that suggest mass snooping efforts on a very large scale. Unlike the NSA which has a “collect it all” attitude towards internet traffic and content the CIA seems to be more interested in individual hacking.

This suggests that the CIA can not decipher the modern encrypted communication it adversaries use. It  therefore has to attack their individual devices.

But it does not mean that the CIA can not engage in mass snooping.

The New York Times description is wrong:

Some technical experts pointed out that while the documents suggest that the C.I.A. might be able to compromise individual smartphones, there was no evidence that the agency could break the encryption that many phone and messaging apps use.If the C.I.A. or the National Security Agency could routinely break the encryption used on such apps as Signal, Confide, Telegram and WhatsApp, then the government might be able to intercept such communications on a large scale and search for names or keywords of interest. But nothing in the leaked C.I.A. documents suggests that is possible.

Instead, the documents indicate that because of encryption, the agency must target an individual phone and then can intercept only the calls and messages that pass through that phone. Instead of casting a net for a big catch, in other words, C.I.A. spies essentially cast a single fishing line at a specific target, and do not try to troll an entire population.

“The difference between wholesale surveillance and targeted surveillance is huge,” said Dan Guido, a director at Hack/Secure, a cybersecurity investment firm. “Instead of sifting through a sea of information, they’re forced to look at devices one at a time.”

Snake-oil alert: Right diagnosis, wrong conclusion and therapy.

If the CIA breaks into an individual Samsung Galaxy 7 it can record what is typed on the screen, and whatever gets transferred via the microphone, camera and loudspeaker. No encryption can protect against that. But why should the CIA break into only one Galaxy 7?

It is wrong to conclude that the CIA can therefore not “intercept such communications on a large scale”. It can. Easily.

If you can break into one individual Samsung Galaxy 7 you can break into all of them. This can be automated.

The CIA also breaks into internet routers and network infrastructure systems. By watching the network traffic flowing by the CIA (and NSA) systems can “see” who uses encrypted communication. They can then launch programs to silently take over the communicating devices. Then the communication can be recorded from the devices and read in the clear. There is nothing at all that prohibits this to take place on a massive scale.

The reaction to the Snowden leaks about gigantic NSA snooping on internet lines led to an increased use of encryption. Suddenly everyone used HTTPS for web traffic and the user numbers of Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp and other encrypting communication applications exploded.

But encrypted traffic still sticks out. One can detect an encrypted skype call by watching the network traffic on this or that telecom network. One can detect what kind of end-devices are taking part in a specific call. With a library of attack tools for each of the usual end-devices (Iphone, Android, Windows, Mac) the involved end-devices can be silently captured and the call can be recorded without encryption.

The Times writes: “Instead of casting a net for a big catch, in other words, C.I.A. spies essentially cast a single fishing line at a specific target, and do not try to troll an entire population.”

It is right in one sense. There is not one central point in the river of traffic where one casts the net. But it is wrong in to conclude that the CIA or other services would then use “a single fishing line”. What hinders them from using hundreds of fishing lines? Thousands? Hundred-thousands?

Wide use on encryption simply moves the snooping efforts from the networks towards the end-devices. It might be a little more expensive to snoop on hundred-thousands of end-devices than on a few network backbones but budget or manpower restriction are not a problem the NSA and CIA have had in recent decades.

To tell users that it encryption really restricts the CIA and NSA is nonsense. Indeed it is irresponsible.

The sellers of encryption are peddling snake-oil. The dude from “a cybersecurity investment firm” the Times quotes is just selling his rancid wares.

Your neighbor snoops on your open WLAN traffic? Yes, chat encryption might prevent him from copying your session with that hot Brazilian boy or girl. But it does not prevent professionals from reading it. For that you would need secure devices on both ends of the communication. Good luck finding such.

Matteo Renzi assumed the role of Italian Prime Minister on February 22, 2014 as the self-proclaimed rottamatore – the ‘demolition man’ of an inefficient system. After successfully passing a series of laws by means of this very system that lowered social standards, he failed in the attempt at a constitutional amendment that would have accelerated future measures designed to further degrade social standards. In a referendum held on December 5, 2016 a clear majority of 59 per cent rejected the proposed changes. Renzi held on to pass the 2017 budget through parliament but then resigned on December 7. Since then, ex-foreign minister Paolo Gentiloni has taken charge of government affairs.

New elections demanded by the opposition after the failure of Renzi’s constitutional reform are not in the cards for now. There is also no more talk about an imminent collapse of the Italian banking system and a resulting flare up of the euro crisis. In the weeks prior to the referendum media warnings came fast and thick that failure to approve the constitutional amendments would lead to a severe economic crisis. At the same time interest rates and capital flight increased drastically.

Palace Revolutions

A similar development took place in the autumn of 2011. In September of that year, a letter from former ECB president Jean-Claude Trichet and his designated successor Mario Draghi to Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi leaked out, in which Berlusconi was called upon to undertake a decisive reorganization of the Italian national budget.

At that time massive increases in interest rates raised the cost of refinancing the accrued debts of the Italian state. Berlusconi stepped down on November 9. His successor Mario Monti assembled a governing team of unelected technocrats and announced radical cuts. Interestingly, this was accomplished via the legal framework for such measures created by Berlusconi beforehand – the relevant law was passed on September 8. The letter from Trichet and Draghi that urged Berlusconi to take the measure was dated August 5 and published in the press on September 29.

Tribunes of the People

When faced with such palace coups and machinations, widespread public fury toward an aloof political class is more than understandable. Renzi knew how to use this anger, and as the ‘demolition man’ was able to delight in great popularity for a time. To be sure, Renzi was not born into the upper ranks of the political class. For many years his father was a small-town councilor before he founded a marketing firm in Genoa, where his son also worked before becoming a full-time politician.

Nevertheless Renzi junior quickly learned the intrigues of the trade. Although he gladly presented himself as the representative of the common people, who strikes fear into those on top, he was, however, never elected by the people, at least not as prime minister. On the contrary, he assumed this post from Enrico Letta, winner of the February 2011 parliamentary elections, whom he forced to resign after Letta suffered a serious setback in the election for the Chair of the Democratic Party. With governmental responsibility achieved via a party factional struggle, Renzi turned out to be a palace-revolutionary technocrat in the mantle of a people’s tribune.

This is a mantle also worn by Beppe Grillo, who is designated by the representatives of the political class as a populist threat to political and economic stability. To forestall such a threat the new elections demanded after Renzi’s resignation were rejected and instead it was declared that despite the failed referendum everything was quite in order after all. Grillo’s Five Star Movement has excellent prospects to emerge as the strongest party in the next elections. In the 2013 parliamentary elections – the movement’s first – it straight away became the second strongest party with 25 per cent of the vote, behind the Democratic Party.

Nevertheless the proposition that Grillo would upend this system is questionable. The authoritarian style with which he leads his movement suggests rather that he could play the cleaned-up populist technocrat just as much as Renzi. Renzi and Grillo represent a type of currently very popular politician who promises fundamental changes but who nevertheless has more of the same discredited policies in mind. Their success can above all be traced back to the lack of a relevant leftwing opposition. Their policies have not only failed in the construction of a halfway solid social consensus, but moreover, they have not even been able to achieve their own economic objectives.

A Mountain of Debt…

The marginalization of the left opposition can be traced back to the support for the governments of Romano Prodi in 1996-1998 and 2006-2008 by Rifondazione Comunista. The aim in both cases was to prevent the return of a Berlusconi government. Both times this goal failed. Instead, Rifondazione shrunk from a party that obtained 6-8 per cent of the vote, to a splitter-party polling just 2 per cent.

A central goal of the first Prodi government was to have Italy – a founding member of the European Economic Community in 1957 – participate in monetary union. In order to comply with the conditionality demanded by the Maastricht Treaty of a maximum debt-to-GDP ratio of 60 per cent, Prodi launched a sharp austerity drive, which was continued by his successors. From the mid 1990s to the mid 2000s, Italy’s state debt was indeed rolled-back to 100 per cent from 120 per cent. Despite these cutbacks in the public sector, unemployment managed to decline from an initial rate of 11 per cent to half of that, while the labour force participation rate climbed from 58 per cent to 63 per cent.

The positive turn in the labour market was however not produced by an uptick in private investment, but by the increasing indebtedness of private households. Its share of GDP rose from less than 20 per cent to about 40 per cent. A portion of the demand that was financed in this way flowed out of the country. The balance-of-payments slid from positive into negative territory. Consequently this was accompanied by a corresponding increase in foreign indebtedness.

…A House of Cards

Since 2008, the recession and euro crisis have quashed this labour market success; state debt climbed again, this time to 133 per cent of GDP. If it seemed in the late 1990s that debt reduction could actually be achieved through spending cuts, recent years have shown the opposite to be correct. Not only did the Italian state have to struggle with revenue shortfalls and the costs of rising unemployment, but it was also confronted with a banking crisis.

Due to ongoing stagnation – Italian economic performance remains well below its 2008 level – private households and firms are increasingly unable to service their debt obligations. In 2008 Italian banks had non-performing loans in the value of €117-billion on their balance sheets, in 2015 this rose to €350-billion. This accounts for about 40 per cent of all outstanding loans.

In 2008 Italian banks held state loans in the amount of €100-billion, in 2015 this climbed to €400-billion. A state heavily indebted to banks has little leeway to take crisis-laden banks under its wing – the more so as the room for maneuver is itself legally limited by the rules of the European Banking Union. Early last year, in desperation, a number of banks compelled small depositors to purchase stock certificates, while the Renzi government tried to convince large-scale capital to launch a bank rescue fund. This enterprise managed to assemble only a meagre €4-billion.

After Renzi’s resignation, the successor government set-up a €20-billion fund for the rescue of the world’s oldest bank, Monte dei Paschi di Siena, which having a non-performing loan to stock equity ratio of 249 per cent faced an acute threat of bankruptcy. The bank’s attempts to scrape up a relatively modest €5-billion on the capital market had previously failed.

Such amounts cannot begin to tackle the private and public debts that have been accumulated. Without political measures that allow for a massive write-down of debts and that simultaneously guarantee the maintenance of current payments, the Italian economy will remain trapped in a debtor’s prison and stagnation. Should it not be possible to scrape together the relatively few euros required to counteract such an acute emergency, it will be shown that the mountain of debt is in reality a house of cards. What is missing is a political force, which out of the ruins of a collapsed house of cards, can build an economy less dependent on debt and more socially just and ecologically sustainable. •

Ingo Schmidt teaches Labour Studies at Athabasca University and is one of the organizers of the annual World Peace Forum teach-ins in Vancouver. His latest books include The Three Worlds of Social Democracyand Reading ‘Capital’ Today (with Carlo Fanelli).

This article originally appeared in the February edition of Sozialistische Zeitung.

Translation by Sam Putinja.

The United States has been growing progressively insane for a long time. For my generation, the realization descended upon us in the 1960s when the military/security complex convinced Americans that if we permitted Vietnamese nationalist leader Ho Chi Minh to unify Vietnam, the dominoes would fall until the Communist World Revolution had us in its grip. This despite the fact that Stalin had killed off the Trotskyist world revolutionaries and declared “Socialism in one country.”

Nationalists in the West’s colonies, such as Vietnam and Cuba, misinterpreted the talk about making the world safe for self-determination as applying to them. Ho Chi Minh helped the US against Japan during World War 2. His requests for US help for Vietnamese independence from France were cold-shouldered by the Truman administration. He did not turn against the US until Washington turned against him.

http://www.historynet.com/ho-chi-minh-and-the-oss.htm

America’s participation in the Vietnam War lasted for a decade or thereabouts. The extraordinary carnage and war crimes served no interest other than the power and profit of the military/security complex and the paranoia of the arbiters of US foreign policy.

No lesson learned, we have spent the entirety of the 21st century to date repeating the mistake. This time it is stateless Muslim terrorists who somehow were merged in official US propaganda into the governments of seven countries in the Middle East and North Africa. After 17 years of murdering women, children, and village elders, destroying the infrastructure of countries, and bombing weddings, funerals, children’s soccer games, schools and hospitals, Washington has surpassed its criminal record in Vietnam.

The folly of the Vietnam War was not explicated for us until the war’s aftermath. However, the folly of our 21st century crusade against evil was presented to us in monthly installments as the folly unfolded by Lewis Lapham’s articles in Harper’s and later in the Lapham Quarterly.

These essays have been collected together in a book, Age of Folly: America Abandons Its Democracy (Verso, 2016).

Lapham is one of the remaining “men of letters” who date from a time when some Americans still existed who preferred the red pill to the blue pill. In the 21st century, awareness has been out of fashion, and there were few to learn from Lapham’s demonstrations of our folly.

Lapham’s book should be titled “Our Age of Folly.” As I read Lapham, every age has been one of folly, and America has been abandoning its democracy from day one, if America ever had a democracy to abandon.

Few remember that the Iraq War, ongoing since 2003, was supposed to be a “cakewalk” that would last three weeks. The war would not be the multi-trillion dollar event it turned out to be. We were assured the war would cost only $70 billion and be paid for with Iraqi oil revenues. George W. Bush fired his White House economist, Lawrence Lindsey for saying that the war could cost $200 billion. The only beneficiaries of the war are the recipients of the profits of the military/security complex and the police state agencies that the “war on terror” was used to justify.

Lapham finds in Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney’s announcement that the US was launching a “war of liberation to remove Saddam’s regime from Iraq” the same hubris, arrogance, and hegemonic aspirations that caused ancient Athens to ruin itself in the Peloponnesian War. Reading Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, Lapham reports, “was as if I were reading the front page of the New York Times or the Pentagon’s Defense Planning Guidance.”

Being a man of letters, Lapham can make words dance and bite, and many are bitten. Michael Ignatieff, “a brand-name foreign-policy intellectual recruited from the faculty of Harvard University,” writes in behalf of Washington’s exercise of America’s imperial power “sententious and vacant prose, most of it indistinguishable from the ad copy for an Armani scarf or a Ferragamo shoe. Too much direct quotation from the professor’s text might be mistaken for unkindness.”

Lapham describes the transformation by the media and national security experts of the ragged, lightly armed Taliban into “an Arab host gathered on the plain of Armageddon under the glittering banners of militant Islam.” He relates policy arguments in which one expert declared that it is time to “flip” Iran. No said Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center, it is the moment to drop a nuclear bomb on Afghanistan for the “very strong demonstration effect” that would get the entire Middle East in line with Washington’s orders. Challenged by someone who thought this prescription displayed a cavalier disregard for human life, Simes responded that “the NATO victory in Serbia was not won against the Serbian military ‘but because we were effective against the Serbian civilian infrastructure.’”

Ah, the morality of Americans. Winning is all that counts.

Few movers and shakers could resist hitching their wagon to the pursuit of Osama bin Laden, who died from renal failure in December 2001 before the hunt for him was well underway. Lapham reports that Geraldo Rivera, not to be outdone in the patriotic show of hunting down evil, “went off to the Khyber Pass with a pistol in his luggage, informing his viewers on FOX News that he would consider killing Osama bin Laden if the chance presented itself somewhere on the snowy heights of Tora Bora.”

Lapham’s essays walk us through the period from arrogance to quagmire to defeat covered up with a declaration of victory. In 2015 the Russians had to come in to clear up the mess Washington made of the Middle East, a favor for which we have not forgiven them.

Lapham thinks that the readers of Harper’s could have done a better job of running US foreign policy than the supervisors of the empire in Washington. I am sure that he is right, and so could have my own readers.

For Lapham the US government is a font of folly. He sees the 21st century American government in the way that Winston Churchill saw the British government in 1904:

“A party of great vested interests, banded together in a formidable confederation; corruption at home, aggression to cover it up abroad . . . sentiment by the bucketful; patriotism and imperialism by the imperial pint; the open hand at the public exchequer; the open door at the public house; expensive food for the millions, cheap labour for the millionaire.”

Lapham doesn’t get everything correct. He doesn’t give Reagan a fair break or credit for ending stagflation and the Cold War. Instead, Lapham portrays Reagan as just another servant of the rich. Lapham doesn’t catch on until late about 9/11, but neither did most others, including architect Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, now 3,000 strong. Lapham never says 9/11 was an inside job, but he artfully describes how the orchestra and chorus were miraculously ready to play the required tune, just as somehow the US military was ready and able to invade Afghanistan less than one month after 9/11. In other words, the invasion force was assembled awaiting the pretext, and the orchestra and chorus were awaiting the 9/11 conductor’s baton.

Lapham spares no one, least of all his own class. As a young man Lapham was a member of the upper class and remains today a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He could expect a career guaranteed by the preferments bestowed on his class. Returning from Cambridge University, he secured an interview with the CIA, looking forward to an exciting life as a spy serving the cause of freedom and democracy. In a passage that is perhaps the most amusing in the book, he describes boning up for the interview by “reading about Lenin’s train and Stalin’s prisons, the width of the Fulda Gap, the depth of the Black Sea. Instead of being asked about the treaties of Brest-Litovsk or the October Revolution, I was asked three questions bearing on my social qualifications for admission into what the young men at the far end of the table clearly regarded as the best fraternity on the campus of the free world.”

His fellow Yalies wanted proof of his upper class bonafides and relied on three questions that would reveal if Lapham were the real goods. Lapham had to answer the question, which club does one take from the golf bag when standing on the thirteenth tee at the National Golf Links in Southampton, followed by the question of the direction at dusk in late August of the prevailing wind on final approach under sail into Hay Harbor on Fishers Island, followed by “Does Muffy Hamilton wear a slip?”

Muffy was a very beautiful, very rich young socialite “much admired for the indiscriminate fervor of her sexual enthusiasms,” which those with bonafides would have experienced. Lapham correctly answered the first two questions. His experience with Muffy was limited to mixing her a drink at the New Haven Fence Club. He knew only by second hand authority that her underclothes consisted of Belgian lace.

The questions, Lapham reports, killed his interest in a CIA career. He apologized for having misread the job description and walked out of the interview. So much “smug complacence, self-glorifying certainty and primogeniture crowed into so small a room” offended Lapham and revealed to him an attitude “not well positioned for intelligence gathering.”

The failure of intelligence, not only the CIA’s, but also the failure of the intelligence of the leadership class, politicians, media, and a goodly chunk of the American people, explains the folly that has devoured our civil liberties and the economic prospects of our people and has left us with children unfamiliar with the world both past and present, making them “easy marks for the dealers in totalitarian politics” of which our country has an excess supply.

In this digital age in which wordsmiths are extinct, to read a Lapham essay is a delight for those of us old enough to appreciate the performance. One of Lapham’s virtues is that he is a delight to read whether or not one agrees with him. His other virtue is that in his sarcasm is a true picture of our era of folly.

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.  

“Maior tristeza da nossa vida, fomos arrumar um lugar que nunca em nossa vida iríamos imaginar para uma filha ou um filho… [o cemitério]. Aqui [imagens dos túmulos], duas meninas amigas, Jennefer e Mariana… Ridículo! A ganância cometeu este crime, o maior massacre do Rio Grande do Sul apagou nossos sonhos aqui na terra, mas nos resta a fé pois sabemos que neste local só está a vestimenta linda, o corpo que um dia pertenceu a anjos lindos e lindas que foram nossos filhos e filhas”

Adherbal Alves Ferreira, 48, comerciante, pai de Jennefer Mendes Ferreira, 22, uma das 242 vítimas fatais da Kiss, em postagem no Facebook há quase 1 ano da tragédia (24.1.2014)

“Nem em guerra se vê tantos corpos como eu vi naquele dia…”, comenta Ione Lemos para esta reportagem, hoje superintendente de Assistência Social da Prefeitura de Santa Maria, e à época da tragédia (27 de janeiro 2013) secretária da mesma pasta. Ione começou a trabalhar, incansavelmente, às 4h da manhã daquele dia, só retornando à sua casa quatro dias depois. Apenas no dia da tragédia, morreram 233 pessoas de um total de 242.

Para o delegado santamariense Marcelo Arigony, que investiga o incêndio na boate Kiss, “logo após a tragédia, todos foram heróis, a Prefeitura, os cidadãos, os profissionais da saúde”, em entrevista à TV COM (da rede RBS, afiliada à RedTie Globo na região sul do país).

Todos, menos o Corpo de Bombeiros de Santa Maria. Justamente uma das poucas instituições que ainda possuíam credibilidade no Brasil revelaram-se uma grande vergonha nacional, ao menos os Bombeiros de Santa Maria, para potencializar a dor e o inconformismo por uma tragédia que poderia ter sido facilmente evitada.

Os porquês da exclusão dos Bombeiros da lista de heróis pós-tragédia e, se ainda não bastasse, grande causadores dela, veremos a seguir entre todos os detalhes daquela fatídica noite e seus dias subsequentes, não menos calamitosos especialmente quando entra em cena o Poder Público brasileiro.

Por Memória, Verdade e Justiça

Tragédias como a da boate Kiss devem se repetir no Brasil conforme sempre ressaltam os familiares das vítimas. Fatalmente, repetir-se-ão no país do imponderável.

No país das catástrofes onde uma passa por cima da outra e logo nos esquecemos de todas, tenta-se, a fim de evitar a dura autoanálise que implicaria atos de transformação da realidade, culpar ao acaso, aos fenômenos da natureza, aos espíritos do além – à vontade soberana de Deus, dependendo da crença de cada um -, ou até mesmo às próprias vítimas.

Como consequência natural, a pós-tragédia é sempre tão catastrófico quanto a pré-tragédia. Pois neste caso de Santa Maria, a semana pós-tragédia também seguiu à risca essa desgraçada lógica à brasileira do descaso e do excesso da mais descarada corrupção, envolvendo sobretudo saúde pública e justiça.

Daí a urgência em se resgatar nossa memória, construir nossa realidade com base na verdade e cobrar justiça do Poder Público. Está mais que provado que sem pressão popular, nada funciona neste país e mesmo isso, muitas vezes, é insuficiente. Tudo isso em contraposição à mídia brasileira que, como era de se esperar e alegado por este autor desde a fatídica data de 27 de janeiro de 2013 logo ocorreria, esqueceu-se do segundo maior incêndio da história do Brasil – o pior dos últimos 50 anos. E tal observação vale tanto para a mídia tradicional, conservadora, quanto à alternativa. A primeira, velha praticante de sensacionalismo e da venda desavergonhada do produto desgraça, sem a menor piedade.

A cobertura midiática limitou-se aos primeiros dias pós-tragédia. Tudo isso era absolutamente previsível, conforme este autor, nas primeiras horas após o incêndio, havia adiantado que ocorreria nas publicações no Brasil.

Isso tudo porque a tragédia em Santa Maria envolve problemas estruturais dos poderes políticos e empresariais brasileiros, pelos quais a mídia em grave crise financeira é sustentada, o motivo pelo qual ela ainda não faliu completamente.

Assim como no recente julgamento do Mensalão, em que todas as partes envolvidas são culpadas (PT, Justiça, Imprensa e oposição oportunista), neste caso do incêndio da boate Kiss a mídia tratou de fazer com que a sociedade não tenha compreendido absolutamente nada de suas causas e consequências.

Lamenta Paulo de Carvalho, 63, empresário, pai de Rafael Paulo Nunes Carvalho, 32, vendedor, uma das 242 vítimas fatais da Kiss:

Por que [os meios de comunicação] não fazem o mesmo com a tragédia de Santa Maria [em relação à pressão sobre o julgamento do Mensalão]? O que é mais importante para a sociedade, o julgamento midiático do Mensalão onde não se perdeu vidas humanas (pelo menos não diretamente), somente reputação e exposição, ou a tragédia de Santa Maria com 242 jovens mortos e 600 feridos, mostrando o quanto estamos expostos a situações de risco? O quanto ceifou vidas em poucos minutos pela falta de escrúpulo e pela irresponsabilidade, contando com a conivência de poderes públicos?

Isso é muito maior, não há comparação. Somente uma vida humana já deveria ser suficiente para o manifesto da mídia. Dizem que o público é que rege a mídia. Discordo, e muito. Mas também estou muito indignado com a mídia da Internet.

(…) Sem dúvida, houve também muita exploração [midiática[ somente com o intuito de vender publicidade. (…) as revistas sensacionalistas fizeram o que sempre fazem exploraram o fato , só isso. nenhum interesse em justiça ou melhoria das condições das casas de show. O que depois ocorreu é que os jornalistas não são donos das revistas e jornais e TV e simplesmente os donos ignoraram porque não dava mais audiência. o que é muito ruim. pois a mídia deveria ter um papel social mais forte em defesa da sociedade. Se assim procedesse, muitos crimes seriam evitados pela divulgação constante. Se essa mídia tivesse mais consciência social, teria noticiado com mais vigor o que estava para acontecer [a tragédia]

Ariane Floriano, mãe de Rogério Floriano Cardoso, 25, cabo-armeiro do Exército santa-mariense, uma das vítimas fatais da Kiss, tampouco poupa críticas quando o assunto foi a Imprensa brasileira:

No momento que cheguei ao ginásio para o velório coletivo, eu gritava muito e os jornalistas rapidamente se aproximaram: vários colocaram o microfone em minha boca. Sentia como corvos na carniça. Eu gritava, ‘só quero meu filho!’. O tempo para mim parou ali, nem sei quanto tempo fiquei no CDM [Centro Desportivo Municipal]

No mesmo sentido indigna-se a Carina Correa, fundadora do Movimento do Luto à Luta, mãe de Thanise Garcia, 18, estudante de Filosofia na Unifra, entre as vítimas fatais da Kiss. Carina ficara dois meses em estado de choque após a tragédia, sem saber o que havia ocorrido ao certo, parada ao lado das coisas da filha como em estado de coma segundo seu relato, sem se lembrar de nada:

Quando estamos acampados no Ministério Público, ninguém da Imprensa vai… O Jornal Nacional só fez sensacionalismo com os pais em frente aos caixões dos filhos! Quando estivemos agarrados ao caixão dos nossos filhos berrando, todos os jornalistas vieram como urubus!

Indigna-se também com a mídia a ativista pelos direitos dos animais do Grupo Amigo Bicho e odontologista, Denise Zimmerman Darif, 48, moradora da cidade de Guaraciaba-SC, mãe de Thaís Zimmermann Darif, 20, estudante de Medicina Veterinária da Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM), entre as 242 vítimas fatais:

No início houve um grande assédio da imprensa, nos procurávamos muito, vieram aqui em casa várias vezes para entrevistas, mas notei que quando eu falava de justiça, do governo e fazia algumas cobranças essas nem sempre eram citadas na matéria, quando saía no jornal ou TV…e desgraça dá Ibope…vc bem sabe disso. Com o tempo ninguém mais quer saber, infelizmente nem todas a s pessoas tem a consciência de que poderia ser com um familiar seu…com um filho seu…ninguém está imune…se tem uma coisa que é certa é que todos morrem e que qualquer um pode ser vítima da violência, do descaso, da corrupção…. poucas pessoas da imprensa deram o devido valor à tragédia me parece

Perguntado por que a Imprensa tem sido omissa, responde Sérgio da Silva, 50, pai de Augusto Sergio Krauspenhar da Silva, estudante de Filosofia na UFSM e de Direito no Centro Universitário Franciscano (UNIFRA), outra vítima fatal do incêndio:

Porque a Imprensa é comprada, porque tem interesses políticos por trás dela. Investem nesta cambada, e ficam com o rabo preso. Empresários evitam falar. Jornais e empresários investiram na campanha do prefeito [de Santa Maria, Cezar Schirmer], algo muito sabido na cidade. A mídia deve expor a verdade, não pode se esconder atrás de interesses políticos. Por isso houve manifestações populares em Porto Alegre, jogaram lixo nas dependências da RBS, e em Santa Maria fizeram o mesmo

Mais contido nas palavras porém não menos crítico e indignado em relação à cobertura midiática brasileira sobre a tragédia em sua cidade, o advogado da Associação dos Familiares e Sobreviventes da Tragédia de Santa Maria (AVTSM) diz:

A Imprensa aborda muito superficialmente a questão. O Brasil em geral está minimizando a tragédia. Tratando-o como tragédia, encarando-a como mero acidente

Pois hoje, em tempos de sufocada luta por memória, verdade e justiça, as vozes que menos importam aos donos do poder são as dos pais das vítimas da Kiss. E agora, no dia 27 de janeiro de 2017 quando se completaram quatro anos da tragédia, mais um inevitável Dia das Lágrimas em Santa Maria, a grande mídia mal se lembrou da tragédia de Santa Maria. Nos anos anteriores, apresentou reportagens na cidade repetindo o dia do incêndio e a cobertura no aniversário de um ano do incêndio nos moldes sensacionalistas, baseados unicamente em sofrimento nada construtivo, fazendo todo o possível para registrar e até mesmo, tanto quanto possível, levar muitos às lágrimas (comunicadores que se enquadram perfeitamente no Jornalismo Canalha, livro do jornalista José Arbex Júnior, são mestres na arte de induzir entrevistados) com direito aclose e slow motion a essas lágrimas, vendendo-as “indignadamente”, alegre e gananciosamente ao mundo sem discutir as causas e consequências da tragédia a fundo, assim como nunca fez e jamais fará.

E, é claro, para a grande mídia tupiniquim logo se esquecer de todos os que em Santa Maria sofrem, outro velho filme.

Portanto, passados quatro anos do incêndio, há urgência também em se tentar apresentar respostas aos familiares das vítimas que sofrem com a dor da perda e com as inúmeras dúvidas que perduram até hoje (algumas delas trazidas a seguir, bem como na série de reportagens que se inicia em Pravda Brasil sobre este assunto), que amarguram ainda mais a alma do indivíduo em posição de vítima, adiando assim a cicatrização das feridas – se é que serão cicatrizadas algum dia.

Tudo isso especialmente porque, conforme já abordado anteriormente, a mídia conseguiu fazer, uma vez mais altamente atarefada com o velho e envelhecido sensacionalismo e com interesses político-empresariais que a marcam, com que a sociedade não tenha compreendido absolutamente nada da tragédia ocorrida na acolhedora e traumatizada Santa Maria. Consequentemente, não há nenhuma perspectiva de mudanças no que diz respeito à aliança historicamente corrupta entre políticos e empresariado., especialmente envolvendo fiscalização.

Sonhos da Juventude: O Começo do Fim

“Estávamos todos falando dos estudos, dos planos para o futuro e de repente, de uma hora para outra, muitos estavam mortos!”, lamentou, desacreditada, uma sobrevivente.

Na boate Kiss, área de 615 metros quadrados, havia segundo testemunhas entre 1.500 (estimativa esta dos Bombeiros, também) e duas mil pessoas (este número máximo, segundo relatos à Polícia) quando o incêndio começou, sendo que a capacidade era de 691 pessoas. Repetia-se na noite de 26 de janeiro de 2013 a comum superlotação na casa que, no momento da tragédia, apenas uma porta de saída, a mesma que servia de entrada, tornaria impossível a evacuação de tanta gente, em tempo tão curto e sem iluminação.

Eram cerca de 3h18 da manhã do dia 27 quando Luciano Augusto Bonilha Leão, coordenador de palco da Banda Gurizada Fandangueira, colocou uma luva acoplada com um artefato pirotécnico, o Sputinik na mão esquerda do sr. Marcelo de Jesus dos Santos, vocalista da banda.

O artefato havia sido adquirido pelo próprio coordenador de palco da banda naquele dia, quem não possuía nenhum treinamento para seu manuseio além de ter comprado, como de costume, fogo de artifício para uso externo, mais de dez vezes mais econômico financeiramente que o de uso interno conforme será abordado com detalhes nas próximas reportagens desta série.

O coordenador Luciano acionou o material à distância por meio de um dispositivo, gerando combustão e fogo estando o teto a cerca de 3 metros de distância do palco, sendo que o Sputinik solta faísca a cerca de 4 metros de altura; o vocalista ergueu o braço com o artefato, começou a pular e, logo, uma faísca atingiu a espuma de isolamento acústico. Segundo relato de sobreviventes da Kiss, quando o vocalista pulava o artefato atingia diretamente o teto.

A Tragédia

Revela a esta reportagem o segurança terceirizado da Kiss, Rodrigo Ruoso:

O fogo se iniciou do tamanho de um prato pequeno, o vocalista Marcelo tentou apagá-lo jogando um copo d’água, não conseguiu apagar e depois nem se preocupou em avisar as pessoas o que ocorria, só pensou em escapar. Então, joguei um extintor de incêndio contra seu peito para que tentasse apagar o fogo, mas o material estava vazio

O segurança Rodrigo, após também tentar usar o extintor, pegou um microfone no palco e avisou às pessoas que havia um incêndio, algo que nem todos ouviram, ele relata, já que a música prosseguiu e impediu a comunicação por alguns instantes após o início do incêndio. Logo no início do fogo as luzes da boate se apagaram por completo, gerando mais pânico ainda nas pessoas.

“O fogo se alastrou com velocidade incrível”, diz o segurança que ao sair da boate perdeu os sentidos, tendo sido atendido na Unidade de Pronto Atendimento para logo retornar à frente da boate, e tentar colaborar com o salvamento de vidas. O proprietário da boate, Elissandro Spohr, por sua vez, uma hora após o início do incêndio já se encontraria em sua casa com a companheira, de onde não sairia até ser chamado pela Polícia para depor, dias depois.

De acordo com o delegado Sandro Meinerz, também com exclusividade a esta reportagem, o qual investigou a tragédia junto do dr. Arigony, em alguns segundos o fogo se alastrou por completo pelo teto da casa e, em menos de dois minutos, a densa fumaça preta, altamente tóxica, já tomava conta do local impedindo totalmente a visão dos que não haviam conseguido sair da boate, que era um verdadeiro labirinto segundo seus frequentadores e investigadores. “O caos estava instalado no ambiente superlotado do estabelecimento. O pânico tomou conta dos indivíduos”, afirma o Relatório Definitivo da Polícia Civil sobre o Incêndio da Kiss, concluído em 22/3/2013.

Do lado de fora com Spohr no momento do incêndio, o segurança da Kiss, André de Lima, afirma a esta reportagem que quando houve o tumulto, o sócio da boate e outros seguranças no interior da boate, por cerca de um minuto, achavam que se tratava de briga mesmo com pessoas desesperadas na porta querendo sair, gritando “fogo!”.

“Já tinha havido briga um ano antes da tragédia. Seguranças terceirizados na porta de entrada/saída, no interior da Kiss, impediram a evacuação de pessoas no dia do incêndio, por um minuto. Assim que foi notado fogo, a saída foi permitida”, relata o segurança André, o que coincide exatamente com o relatado pelo segurança Rodrigo Ruoso. Depoimentos à Polícia nos dias subsequentes à tragédia afirmariam que dois seguranças impediram a saída de frequentadores da boate no início do incêndio entre um e três minutos, exigindo o pagamento das comandas.

Procurada por esta reportagem sobre isto, Denise Darif  conta que no celular de Thaís, após o início do incêndio, estavam registradas duas ligações, muito provavelmente pedindo socorro.

“Será que aqueles malditos seguranças a impediram de sair da boate? Nunca irei saber”, lamenta uma das Mães de Santa Maria, e entusiasta defensora da liderança de Adherbal, presidente da AVTSM, por seu senso de justiça e pela prestação de todo tipo de assistência aos familiares de vítimas e sobreviventes. “Este homem brilhante me representa, e apoio o Adherbal para que seja eleito figura do ano no que diz respeito à luta por direitos humanos”, afirma a mãe de Thaís referindo-se à votação promovida por uma rádio gaúcha em fins de 2013.

Outro sério obstáculo para a saída das pessoas do interior da Kiss eram os táxis, improvisados em estacionamentos clandestinamente “organizados” pela Prefeitura devido a problemas de concorrência no setor. Os carros estavam estacionados irregularmente imediatamente em frente à Kiss, configurando-se mais barreiras à fuga dos sobreviventes, o que, segundo a segunda e última parte do Relatório Definitivo da Polícia Civil sobre o Incêndio da Kiss, ocasionou maior número de pisoteamentos e mortes dentro da boate. A questão dos táxis também será abordada em um próximo artigo, quando entrarem em cena as complexas e controversas abordagens da liberação de alvarás.

O segurança Rodrigo afirma que “muitos não puderam sair da boate e acabaram morrendo por se ferirem nos guarda-corpos [irregularmente posicionados]. E se o extintor tivesse funcionado, eu teria salvado 242 vidas e hoje nem saberia disso”. Todos os detalhes ouvindo a todas as versões sobre a grave questão dos extintores, dos guarda-corpos e a estrutura da Kiss em geral, serão abordados nas próximas reportagens.

O mesmo segurança também pontua que os que estavam ao fundo da boate, assim como ele mesmo, tiveram mais chances de se salvar devido ao fato de que a fumaça se dirigia à porta de saída/entrada do estabelecimento, intoxicando mais rapidamente a muitos que alis e encontravam. De acordo com a Polícia Civil, o calor na Kiss chegou a 500° C.

Enquanto sobreviventes, familiares de vítimas e outros civis tentavam de tudo para salvar mais pessoas dentro da boate, o sr. Elissandro Spohr, deixou as imediações da boate com a namorada em uma hora, foi à sua casa de onde apenas sairia para depor na Polícia, alguns dias depois.

Já o Corpo de Bombeiros, além de toda a corrupção envolvendo prevenção contra incêndio que será abordada na reportagem sobre alvarás, simplesmente assistiu aos civis tentando salvar as pessoas dentro da boate, e ainda as recomendou que fizesse isso, para não ter que se arriscar em algo que, segundo previsão dos oficiais em frente à boate, estava prestes a desabar.

Os Bombeiros compareceram em número absolutamente insuficiente no local da tragédia, e com total escassez de equipamentos para salvamento, especialmente roupas e máscaras de oxigênio. O baixo número de bombeiros deveu-se ao fato que grande parte da corporação servia à Operação Golfinho fora da cidade, organizada pelo Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, algo contestado duramente por envolvidos na tragédia, inclusive pelo dr. Smaniotto. Já a falta de materiais para contenção e salvamento der vítimas de incêndio envolveu casos de corrupção: verbas municipais ao órgão de competência estadual desviadas, fato que será abordado em uma próxima reportagem desta série.

Sobre a incompetência covarde do Corpo de Bombeiros de Santa Maria no local do incêndio, atestou a mesma segunda parte do Relatório Definitivo da Polícia Civil sobre o Incêndio da Kiss, em absoluta conformidade ao que disseram sobrevivente e pais de vítimas que estiveram em frente à boate da morte durante o incêndio:

Os bombeiros solicitaram a ajuda de civis para que adentrassem na boate Kiss, a fim de salvar feridos, bem como que ajudassem na demolição de paredes.

O sobrevivente Jovani Rosso afirmou à Polícia, segundo o Relatório:

Os bombeiros lhe pediram para entrar e retirar as pessoas do interior da Kiss. Entrava rastejando com sua camiseta molhada sobre nariz e boca. Informou que em um determinado momento pegou a mangueira dos bombeiros e entrou para apagar o fogo. Tentou pegar uma máscara de oxigênio e seu cilindro que estavam na cabine do caminhão. Vestiu, mas um bombeiro mandou que tirasse e guardou novamente os equipamentos no caminhão. Retirou cerca de 15 pessoas de dentro da Kiss e, pelo que lembra, os bombeiros somente auxiliaram no socorro às vítimas, pois não entravam na boate. Ficou auxiliando por cerca de três horas. Ao ser reinquirido, em 11/03/2013, esclareceu que “alguns civis entraram para salvar e acabaram morrendo no interior do prédio; tais civis estavam na Boate, saíram e depois retornaram para salvar as vítimas e também acabaram morrendo; quando eles retornaram para salvar as vítimas e morreram, os Bombeiros já estavam lá, isto é, os Bombeiros não só permitiram, como incentivaram a entrada do declarante e deles, para efetuar salvamentos; dentre aqueles que entraram  para salvar pessoas e acabaram morrendo, o declarante recorda de três, os quais eram seus amigos (…)

O Relatório policial ainda, baseado em testemunhas, aponta que militares emprestavam luvas para civis entrarem na boate, e até a mangueira d’água. Concluiu ainda tal documento:

Os policiais militares que estavam no local não ajudaram em nada, apenas faziam correntes de isolamento. Depois de  muito tempo, os bombeiros iluminaram o local. Os bombeiros sequer ajudaram a quebrar as paredes dos banheiros

O Corpo de Bombeiros foi procurado por esta reportagem, mais especificamente seu comandante Maia, o qual relutou em conceder entrevista até alegar que responderia a perguntas somente através de correio eletrônico. Foi-lhe dito que não se trabalha desta maneira, pois contraria os princípios jornalísticos uma entrevista desta maneira, mas o comandante relutou afirmando que a mídia estava denegrindo a imagem de sua corporação pós-tragédia. Perguntado como a Imprensa fazia isso, Maia limitou-se a uma longa, fraca e forçada risada, sem justificar sua acusação.

Foram-lhe enviadas, finalmente, as questões por correio eletrônico, jamais respondidas por ele. Esta reportagem procurou o chefe dos Bombeiros de Santa Maria após o prazo estipulado por ele para enviar as respostas por telefone, sem ser atendida. Posteriormente, por correio eletrônico, foi encaminhado um protesto por correio eletrônico ao comandante Maia, encaminhado também aos mais diversos políticos de todo o país incluindo os de Santa Maria, órgãos de Imprensa, instituições brasileiras além de envolvidos na tragédia: o bombeiro jamais se manifestou.

Dos 233 mortos daquela noite, assim como os outros nove que foram a óbito nas semanas seguintes, todos por intoxicação com cianeto de 3 a 5 minutos após o início do incêndio, conforme peritos médicos: após perderem os sentidos e desmaiarem, faleceram. Das 233 vítimas iniciais, 90% encontrava-se empilhada no banheiro: segundo a Polícia e os Bombeiros, é altamente provável que, em meio à espessa fumaça preta sem possibilidade de encontrar a única porta de saída, enxergaram a luz dos toaletes imaginando ser a saída. Em um dos banheiros, vítimas tentaram sair pela janela, arrebentada, porém do lado de fora havia madeira, impossível de ser quebrada.

A confirmação de que todas as vítimas, inclusive as nove nas semana posteriores, foram a óbito por intoxicação com cianeto segundo laudos médicos, conforme pode ser lido no laudo enviado com exclusividade a esta reportagem pelo dr. Sandro Luís Meinerz, delegado de Polícia titular da DEFREC de Santa Maria, Terceira Região Policial, envolvendo a necropsia de Fernando Pellin, uma das 242 vítimas do incêndio na boate Kiss (veja o laudo aqui: http://edumontesanti.skyrock.com/61.html / role a tela). Porém, muitos sofreram também queimaduras, incluindo sobreviventes (alguns seriamente queimados), devido ao fogo que, em determinado momento, passou a pingar do teto.

A dra. Solange Garcia, que atuou no tratamento de vítimas da tragédia, confirmaria a esta reportagem tais fatos, o que será abordado mais adiante nesta reportagem, e em uma próxima, especificamente tratando da espuma de poliuretano liberadora do intoxicador gás cianeto ao ser queimada.

A Noite Pós-Tragédia

O professor de Matemárica Walter Cabistani, 49, assessor jurídico da AVTSM e pai de Walter Mello Cabistani, 20, estudante de Direito da UFSM, uma das 242 vítimas fatais da Kiss, indigna-se ao recordar, em entrevista a esta reportagem, a noite da tragédia, especialmente no que diz respeito ao velório do filho: “Jornalistas e políticos não respeitaram o velório e os momentos de dor dos familiares”. Conta ainda que notava que, quando as câmeras focaram o caixão de seu filho no velório coletivo no Centro Desportivo Municipal (CDM), políticos se posicionaram em frente ao caixão do filho.

“Vieram para fazer comoção para o mundo vê-los, usando a tragédia para se promover. Eu disse isso em Brasília [em viagem para exigir prevenção do Estado brasileiro a incêndios, em dezembro de 2013] à senadora Ana Nélia Lemos, que posou de boa senadora ao lado do caixão do meu filho”, acrescenta. Em dezembro de 2013, o professor Cabistani foi ao Senado com Adherbal, com o dr. Luiz Fernando Smaniotto e com Sérgio da Silva, a fim de exigir esclarecimento e justiça pela tragédia.

Cabistani relata ainda que o filho quase levou a irmã menor de idade, mas de última hora decidiu não a levar pela responsabilidade perante festa daquela magnitude. Segundo Ariane Floriano, mãe de Rogério Floriano, 25, cabo-armeiro do Exército santamariense e uma das 242 vítimas fatais da Kiss, é fato amplamente sabido na cidade que a entrada de menores de idade era constante naquela boate. Depoimentos de funcionários daKiss à Polícia Civil também confirmam que menores frequentavam a boate, e que ainda consumiam bebidas alcoólicas.

Enquanto famílias choravam as perdas no velório coletivo no CDM, esta reportagem recebeu a informação confidencial de que, na noite da tragédia, reuniam-se em uma sala a portas fechadas os jornalistas William Bonner e Sandra Annenberg, ambos da Rede Globo, o então prefeito Cezar Schirmer (PMDB) e dois secretários da Prefeitura. Questionado pelo apresentador do Jornal Nacional como se dava sua política fiscalizatória na cidade, o ex-prefeito responde: “Aqui, a Prefeitura é muito rígida. Tanto que quando recebi denúncia do Diretório Central dos Estudantes de Santa Maria (DCE), a Casa do Estudante, de que a coisa não estava boa, fechei a boate naquela mesma hora [em 8/1/2013]”.

Porém, o jornalista William Bonner tinha a informação de que o DCE havia sido interditado por ordem do Ministério Público Federal, e que o prefeito só soubera da interdição através dos jornais conforme ele mesmo confirmou a esta reportagem. Assim, o jornalista desmentiu o prefeito e, segundo a fonte desta reportagem, retirou-se aborrecido da sala, em companhia da colega Sandra.

Perguntado sobre a conversa seguida de aborrecimento com jornalistas da Rede Globo na noite do incêndio, dia 27, o prefeito disse que não se lembra do fato, o qual será amplamente discutido na reportagem desta série mais adiante, específica sobre a liberação de alvarás á boate Kiss.

Ainda na noite infame de 27 de janeiro, foi montado um Comando de Gerenciamento de Crise para atender vítimas, criado pela Polícia, pelo Exército e pela Brigada Militar. E também o Centro de Atenção Psicossocial (CAPS) pela Prefeitura, que logo funcionaria 24 horas por seis meses pós-tragédia, e já no próprio ginásio onde se deu o velório coletivo, houve encaminhamentos. Retornaria a funcionar 24 horas por dia, e com 42 profissionais, em 16 de dezembro daquele ano.

Pós-Tragédia: Prefeitura

Afirma com exclusividade a esta reportagem o delegado Sandro Meinerz, que investiga o incêndio, conta:

Logo depois do incêndio, na segunda-feira [dia 28/1], a Policia Civil fez oficio à Prefeitura, a qual recebeu o documento no dia seguinte [29], solicitando verificar a situação de todos os estabelecimentos comerciais para ver as questões de segurança. Todo mundo teve que fazer adequação, porque estava todo mundo errado. Estavam todos reformando estabelecimentos depois disso. O prefeito foi, no mínimo, incompetente como gestor publico

Esta questão será profundamente analisada em outra reportagem da série, tratando especificamente da liberação de alvarás à boate Kiss. Quanto ao amparo às vítimas, há controvérsias entre o que dizem familiares de vítimas, sobreviventes, e as diferentes esferas do Poder Público – Federal, Estadual e Municipal. Além de contradições envolvendo os próprios números oficiais a que teve acesso esta reportagem.

Afirma também a esta reportagem Denise Darif:

Foram tantas promessas de apoio aos familiares, mas nem tudo foi cumprido, para nós que moramos longe de lá, nenhum auxílio foi  dado, nem translado dos corpos, nenhum auxílio funeral, nenhum auxilio médico ou psicológico… tudo por nossa conta. Abandono total!

Conforme a Prefeitura de Santa Maria informou e protocolou (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx73XRqnojS9czQ0V1hNSUg0LTg/view) com exclusividade a esta reportagem, para as despesas pela tragédia não recebeu verbas nem do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul nem do governo federal para funerais, transportes e assistência médica contrariando boatos espalhados na cidade, embora o Ministério da Saúde tenha agido no Hospital Universitário da cidade, instituição federal, em parte colaborado pelo governo do estado e pela própria Prefeitura.

Isso é confirmado pelo documento (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx73XRqnojS9a1NGVWZEWTNRYTg/view) enviado pelo Hospital Universitário de Santa Maria (HUSM), de competência federal, contrariando o que foi dito pelo Ministério da Saúde por meio de sua assessoria de Imprensa, de que o Município recebera verbas federais exclusivas para a tragédia.

Sobre as responsabilidades financeiras municipais, o prefeito santamariense à época afirma:

Arcamos com aquilo que é área de competência da Prefeitura. Pagaram funerais, não sei ao certo número, cerca de oitenta, além dos traslados. Havíamos fechado valor único com serviço funerário. Algumas famílias [cerca de 182, segundo os números implícitos do Prefeito] preferiram serviços funerais diferenciados. Pessoas entraram em contato com outros funerais. Quem se habilitou nos termos da Prefeitura, teve tudo pago.

Já a superintendente de Assistência Social, Ione Lemos, nos apresenta outra versão:

Foram atendidas 28 pessoas através dos serviços funerários conveniados pela Prefeitura. A situação de caos nos impediu  assistir a mais famílias; não dava para sair perguntando nos velórios e nas ruas, “você precisa [de serviço funerário]?”

Segundo Ione, o critério para arcar com as despesas funerais era o poder aquisitivo das famílias.

Diante disso, indigna-se Sérgio da Silva:

Isso porque a dona Ione era a representante da Prefeitura na AVTSM e não sabia quem precisava do dinheiro  do funeral [poderia posteriormente ressarcir famílias necessitadas], e era secretária de Assistência Social do  Município. Culpado sou eu, por votar nessa cambada de incompetentes!

Por sua vez, Walter Cabistani alega:

Houve verba à Prefeitura oriunda de pedágio solidário na cidade de Júlio de Castilhos. A Cruz Vermelha também  ajudou bastante. A Prefeitura deu R$ 200 para vítimas indigentes. A grande maioria das famílias acabou sozinha

Embora os gastos municipais mencionados acima tivessem sido voltados, teoricamente, a pessoas de baixa renda com limite de gastos funerais por vítima de 2,5 mil reais, a minoria das famílias que se enquadrava no quesito estipulado pela Prefeitura, acabou sendo beneficiada: apenas 28 delas.

Muitos não foram localizados nos momentos subsequentes à tragédia e nem souberam dos serviços por falta de comunicação, antecipando-se, assim, aos serviços funerais. “Em uma tragédia daquela dimensão não dá para perguntar, ‘você precisa?'”, explica a superintendente Ione Lemos, desde o início da tragédia natural referência a familiares de vítimas e sobreviventes, justificando que havia muita gente em estado calamitoso.

Posteriormente, a Cruz Vermelha abriria uma conta e civis depositariam dinheiro para ajudar famílias excluídas dos benefícios funerários. Se a Cruz Vermelha e cidadãos comuns foram capazes de identificar aquelas pessoas de baixa renda que deveriam arrumar um jeito de superar a pobreza e a dor extrema para enterrar os seus, por que a Prefeitura não conseguiu fazer isso com toda a sua equipe, considerando que as famílias estavam todas concentradas no CDM?

Se não havia preparação para tragédia daquela dimensão, o que é absolutamente aceitável, sem dúvida os agentes municipais foram, no mínimo, incompetentes senão mesmo negligentes, ao não poder localizar famílias que necessitavam de auxílio financeiro. Ou ainda, por que a Prefeitura não ressarciu as famílias posteriormente?

São perguntas, até hoje, sem resposta.

Por outro lado, afirmou o prefeito Schirmer que o Município deu duas casas para famílias pobres envolvidas na tragédia – segundo ele, política social que marca sua gestão em Santa Maria: uma beneficiada com a moradia perdeu o esposo, segurança da boate que, segundo a superintendente Ione “vivia muito precariamente e para piorar, quando faleceu no incêndio da Kiss, roubaram todos os móveis e a casa onde morava deveria ser entregue 20 dias após a tragédia”.

Saúde pública é sempre um macabro caso à parte no Brasil, envolvendo negligência e roubalheira indiscriminada sobre o erário. Pois o trágico cenário tem se repetido no que diz respeito à tragédia em Santa Maria, daí a razão de esta reportagem tratar da questão não apenas no que diz respeito aos dias subsequentes ao incêndio da Kiss, mas ao longo desses quase dois anos pós-tragédia.

Pós-Tragédia: Saúde

Desde o dia da tragédia, sobreviventes e familiares de vítimas em Santa Maria sofrem problemas de saúde e psicológicos tendo, em grande medida, que se ajudar entre si segundo afirmação de todos os envolvidos ouvidos por esta reportagem.

Segue as mesmas críticas o sr. Sérgio da Silva:

Desamparo total por parte das entidades. O Ministério da Saúde por falta de remédio aos sobreviventes. A Prefeitura  por ser responsável pela vinda e entrega dos remédios. O Poder Público esconde-se atrás das leis e de termos técnicos

André Lima, que ganhava mil reais como segurança e porteiro da Kiss, um dos sobreviventes da tragédia, recebe hoje 400 como auxilio doença, não consegue trabalho devido a problemas pulmonares. Está sendo tratado também por depressão e ansiedade excessiva, além de ser diabético. Ficava muito tempo em pé, o que causou problemas em suas pernas. Move ação trabalhista contra a Kiss.

“Consigo alguns remédios na Rede Popular, embora muitos receitados pelo médico não consiga comprar por falta de dinheiro. Na primeira receita não consegui comprar. Estou a ponto de explodir”, disse André a esta reportagem, e acrescentou: “Fiz teste para trabalhar em agosto, não fui aprovado, me deu tremedeira. No dia em que eu fazia teste no Bar Museu jogaram coqetel molotov, sobre o que sofre de trauma.

Rodrigo Moura Ruoso, outro sobrevivente de um total de 636, à época do incêndio segurança terceirizado da Kiss, afirma a esta reportagem:

A presidente Dilma veio à cidade, abraçou dois pais de vítimas em frente aos caixões e às câmeras de TV, foi embora e nunca mais se lembrou de nós; vivemos em abandono total até hoje

O dr. Smaniotto, por sua vez, afirma durante as dezenas de horas de conversa muito aberta e exclusiva com esta reportagem:

Seguem ser prestar assistência. Pessoas não conseguem trabalhar por problemas respiratórios.  No exame admissional acabam dispensados por incapacidade pulmonar

Declarou a esta série de reportagens o ex-prefeito Cezar Schirmer:

Remédios não são responsabilidade da prefeitura, nunca recebi nenhuma reclamação oficial. Fizemos Centro Psicossocial, com 42 profissionais hoje. em 16/12 voltará a ser 24h. Nunca recebi, para nada, nenhum centavo. O HUSM, tenho a informação que sim, mas para nada a Prefeitura foi ajudada, nem para o funeral. Não estou me queixando, apenas relatando a verdade. O Globo escreveu que veio dinheiro federal, não veio nada. Caiu do céu a informação de que minha administração recebeu verbas; isso, sim, é politicagem

A Prefeitura de Santa Maria, nas várias horas de entrevista a esta reportagem, defendeu-se, como nem poderia ser diferente, e protocolou parte do que afirmou – uma dessas importantes partes, através deste ofício protocolado pela secretária de Finanças do Município, Ana Beatriz de Barros: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx73XRqnojS9czQ0V1hNSUg0LTg/view.

Tal memorando desfaz os boatos de colaboração financeira do governo federal com o Município de Santa Maria, que tantas dúvidas e controvérsias têm gerado na cidade, especialmente entre envolvidos na tragédia, cuja consequência tem sido acusações levianas contra o prefeito Schirmer, a que pesem todas as falhas e/ou negligência de sua administração no que diz respeito especificamente ao incêndio, o que seguirá sendo investigado profundamente nesta série.

Porém, enquanto a Prefeitura encaminhava o documento, vinha à tona que R$ 15 milhões para a Saúde não estavam sendo utilizados, o que poderia impedir o Município de receber novas verbas da União e do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, por falta de projetos na área [reportagens aqui (https://claudemirpereira.com.br/2013/11/um-absurdo-prefeitura-tem-r-10-milhoes-para-a-saude-e-nao-usa-quem-diz-um-indignado-secretario/#axzz2pHE8LWUZ), aqui (http://videos.clicrbs.com.br/rs/tvcom/video/20-horas/2014/01/tvcom-horas-desperdicio-milhoes-disponiveis-para-investir-saude-santa-maria-deixam-ser-utilizados-bloco-01-12-2013/57705/) e aqui (http://www.f24.com.br/editorial/brasil/rio-grande-do-sul/01012014-70511-cerca-de-30-do-orcamento-de-saude-nao-foi-executado-em-santa-maria-rs)].

Outros importantes documentos enviados pela Prefeitura santamariense dizem respeito aos centros de atenção 24 horas oferecidos pela Prefeitura de Santa Maria aos envolvidos na tragédia, direta ou indiretamente conforme pode ser visto nos documentos a seguir [1. Prefeitura Municipal de Santa Maria:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx73XRqnojS9MHF6QVBQUFoyRHM/view, 2. Lei Profissionais da Saúde: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx73XRqnojS9UFVKVWNjOWVzY3M/view] (na imagem, o Centro de Atendimento Psicossocial 24 horas por dia, criado pela Prefeitura, logo após o incêndio).

Em janeiro de 2014, esta reportagem procurou o Ministério da Saúde em Brasília (cuja equipe era a mesma da época do incêndio da Kiss, tendo como ministro Alexandre Padilha), quem afirmou e enviou relatório afirmando fatos bem diferentes sobre o que, até hoje, é motivo de controvérsia na sofrida cidade gaúcha. Talvez porque os valores financeiros iniciais enviados à cidade gaúcha pode, muito bem de acordo com os números finais e todas as evidências, ter sido desviados no meio do caminho, prática peculiar no Brasil.

Nas semanas subsequentes à tragédia, o Ministério da Saúde enviaria a Santa Maria verbas, aquelas destinadas a todas as cidades do Brasil anualmente. Contudo, conforme declaração emitida com exclusividade a esta reportagem, aumentaria em 32,6% as verbas para Santa Maria em 2013. Todos os anos, para todas as cidades, há aumento proporcional, e o aumento para a cidade da tragédia foi significativo. A realidade é que, de qualquer maneira, sua parte o governo federal cumpriu – parcialmente – como a própria Prefeitura – parcialmente. Nisso reside o grande ponto de controvérsia, ou de distorção envolvendo uma suposta ajuda financeira por parte do governo federal, exclusiva ao Município de Santa Maria, a fim de cobrir gastos com a tragédia, o que nunca ocorreu.

O Ministério da Saúde, através de sua assessoria de Imprensa, fez esta declaração – claramente, com uma boa dose de má vontade em tocar no assunto:

O incêndio da boate Kiss em Santa Maria (RS), em 27 de janeiro, mobilizou a Força Nacional do SUS (FN-SUS) para o atendimento aos familiares e vítimas da tragédia. Para isso, o Ministério da Saúde deslocou, para a cidade, membros da FN-SUS e intensificou ações das Unidades de Suporte Avançado do Serviço de Atendimento Móvel de Urgência (SAMU), equipados com respiradores.

Foram abertos 64 leitos de UTI e 36 leitos de Semi-UTIS em Porto Alegre, mobilizando hospitais da rede pública e privada. Para a ação, a FN-SUS mobilizou 66 voluntários entre médicos, enfermeiros, fisioterapeutas, psicólogos e psiquiatras. Por meio da Força, o ministério enviou ao Estado 22 respiradores, sete ambulâncias de UTI do SAMU, 30 ventiladores, 30 oxímetros de pulso, 200 ampolas de imunoglobulina antitetânica, 140 kits de hidroxicobalamina e 15 monitores. Também foram disponibilizados 120 profissionais entre psicólogos e psiquiatras para atendimento a vítimas e familiares.

O Ministério da Saúde continua acompanhando os familiares e as vítimas do incêndio, incluindo ações de busca ativa e formulário de cadastramento realizado pelo Ministério da Saúde e disponibilizado no portal do MS. Nesta terceira fase do trabalho – desenvolvido pelo Ministério da Saúde em parceria com as Secretarias de Saúde do Estado do RS e dos Municípios de Santa Maria e de Porto Alegre, bem como com Hospital Universitário da Universidade Federal de Santa Maria – estão sendo realizados os atendimentos ambulatoriais dos pacientes, familiares e pessoas envolvidas na tragédia.

Os atendimentos ambulatoriais são realizados principalmente nas áreas de neurologia, pneumologia, atenção psicossocial, queimaduras e clínica médica, incluindo exames necessários para seguimento dos pacientes, conforme protocolo clínico específico e gravidade de cada caso. São priorizados os pacientes que foram internados com comprometimento pulmonar e ou queimaduras; as pessoas que tiveram contato com os gases e inalantes (incluindo amigos e familiares das vítimas que precisam de apoio psicológico) e os pacientes que ficaram internados em situação mais grave.

Além do atendimento continuado, o Ministério da Saúde realizou nos dias 09 e 10 de março e 16 e 17 de março, mutirões de atendimento no Hospital Universitário de Santa Maria (HUSM). Durante os mutirões foram realizados 1658 atendimentos, sendo 1309 consultas e 349 exames. Em relação aos números de atendimentos o AcolheSaúde da SMS de Santa Maria, que realiza atendimentos relacionados à saúde mental – realizou no período de fevereiro a julho de 2013, 5.525 atendimentos, destes 127 pessoas encontram-se em acompanhamento. Já o CIAVA/HUSM realizou de fevereiro a agosto de 2013, 24 atendimentos em psicologia, 415 em psiquiatria e 389 em serviço social.

FASES DO TRABALHO

I. Fase de Atendimento Emergencial – Fase definida como primeiro momento de assistência às vítimas no período inicial do incidente, no qual estiveram envolvidos os profissionais e serviços de urgência como SAMU e hospitais de Santa Maria/RS. II. Fase de Atendimento Hospitalar – Período imediato ao atendimento emergencial, caracterizado pela continuidade das ações e assistência dos pacientes internados nos diversos hospitais descritos no Relatório da FN SUS.

III. Fase de Acompanhamento Ambulatorial – Período definido como fase de atendimento ambulatorial por especialidades às vítimas do incidente para acompanhamento por longo período

[Questionado sobre antídoto contra intoxicação por gás cianeto, a hidrioxicobalamina,  inexistir no Brasil, o Ministério da Saúde respondeu o que será exposto mais adiante]

(…)

RECURSOS

· Portaria 700 de 26/04/2013 – Liberação de recursos do Programa Nacional de Reestruturação dos Hospitais Universitários Federais – REHUF, no valor de 702.480,00 para aquisição de equipamentos.

· Portaria 677 de 24/04/2013 – Estabelece recursos no valor de 950.000,00 do bloco de atenção da média e alta complexidade ambulatorial e hospitalar para remuneração de serviços do Hospital Universitário de Santa Maria.

Através dos recursos provenientes das portarias foram contratados 34 novos profissionais de saúde para o Hospital Universitário de Santa Maria: 04 Assistentes Sociais, 02 Enfermeiros, 05 Fisioterapeutas, 01 Fonoaudiólogo, 01 Médico Cirurgião Plástico, 03 Médicos Clínicos, 01 Médico Neurologista, 05 Médicos Psiquiatras, 05 Psicólogos, 04 Técnicos de Enfermagem, 02 Técnicos de Farmácia e 01 Terapeuta ocupacional. TOTAL: 1,6 MILHÃO

Além disso, cabe ressaltar que até o dia 22 de dezembro deste ano, o Ministério da Saúde repassou para o município de Santa Maria R$ 16,5 milhões, ou 32% a mais do que o repassado durante todo o ano de 2012, R$ 12,5 milhões.

Atenciosamente,
Lívia Nascimento
Jornalista

ASSESSORIA DE IMPRENSA DO MINISTÉRIO DA SAÚDE Tel.: + 55 61 3315.6246

Portanto, tem razão o ex-prefeito Schirmer quando alega que o Município não recebeu nenhum centavo do governo federal, nem estadual para arcar com gastos pela tragédia, mas que, segundo suas palavras, “caiu do céu em Santa Maria” tal informação. Contudo, a Prefeitura de Santa Maria, frente à maior tragédia da história da cidade, deixou de usar no ano de 2013 nada menos que R$ 15 milhões justamente à Saúde, conforme apontado mais acima, fazendo com que corra o risco de não receber verbas federais nos anos subsequentes por falta de projetos na área.

Sobre saúde pública, contesta a superintendente municipal Ione:

Se apontarem, através de documento, o que falta, reconheceremos. Deveriam fazer isso. Não há mais o que fazer. Se medicamento é de competência dos governos estadual e federal, por que não cobram estes? Se disserem o que falta por parte do Município, atenderemos. Eles têm psicólogos, neurologistas e clínicos gerais por conta da Prefeitura. Têm garantidos passagens de ônibus para irem aos cursos, R$ 2,80 por viagem, ida-e-volta

Como superintendente apoio grupos de mães. Presto atendimento às que se queixam de saúde. Atenção básica não tem faltado. Pego amostras grátis de medicamentos com o vice-prefeito, dr. Farret [José Haidar], que é médico [condenado em dezembro de 2014 pela Justiça local a um ano e nove meses de prisão, por estelionato].

Não procede a justificativa da Prefeitura da cidade, generalizada entre seus funcionários e inclusive pelo próprio prefeito, de que remédios, grande motivo de reclamação na cidade, não são de sua competência: o Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), de âmbito fdederal no Brasil, prevê, sim, responsabilidade municipal também na provisão de medicamentos à sociedade.

A assessora de Imprensa do Ministério da Saúde, Amanda Costa, afirma com exclusividade a esta reportagem:

Há dois tipos de compras medicamentos por parte dos municípios: a centralizada, no atacado, e a descentralizada. A Prefeitura faz a lista para licitação, e o Ministério da Saúde envia remédio ou dinheiro. Existe o Fundo Nacional de Saúde Municipal, através do qual a verba federal é repassada às secretarias de Saúde estaduais e municipais. Em muitos casos, o repasse se dá pelos governos estaduais, que distribuem aos municípios. A Prefeitura tem compromisso com remédios através do SUS. E no caso da tragédia, o Município teria que fornecer remédios, até porque o Ministério da Saúde os fornece aos Municípios e Estados como já disse. O valor passado pelo Ministério da Saúde ao município de Santa Maria em 2013 pode ser ainda maior que o que consta nesse relatório enviado a você, já que o Estado do Rio Grande do Sul repassou mais verba. Isso, devido à parceria do SUS entre Federação, Estados e Municípios

O dr. Leandro Canavarros, jurista da cidade de Florianópolis, informou a esta reportagem que:

O Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) é constituído pelo ‘conjunto de ações e serviços de saúde, prestados por órgãos e instituições públicas federais, estaduais e municipais’, conforme disciplina a Lei n. 8080/90 (lei do SUS e lei 8142/90). Portanto, todas as esferas do Poder Público são responsáveis pelo funcionamento do serviço de saúde, sendo que a própria lei determina o repasse federal de verbas aos estados e municípios a serem aplicadas na saúde, sendo que essas são quantificadas de acordo com as características de cada região e necessidades específicas. Dessa forma, apenas a análise pormenorizada das prestações de contas municipais poderia determinar o total aplicado à saúde decorrente de verba federal, estadual ou mesmo a municipal

Em meio a este fogo cruzado das informações e das contrainformações, dois dias antes do recebimento do relatório do Ministério da Saúde, Ogier Rosado, coordenador de Eventos da Prefeitura de Santa Maria e pai de Vinícius Rosado, 26, estudante de Educação Física da Universidade Metodista, uma das 242 vítimas fatais da Kiss, havia trazido a esta reportagem importante informação, confirmada por mais um documento (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx73XRqnojS9ZTBRUlRQZFp1X0U/view) enviado pelo HUSM:

Houve uma reunião entre União, Estado e Município, ficando estabelecida a competência de cada um desta maneira: a União ficaria  com o atendimento médico; o Estado, responsável pelo envio de medicamentos; e o Município, pelo atendimento psicossocial

O Ministério da Saúde ficou de dar ajuda. Os envolvidos na tragédia teriam atendimento diferenciado, sem necessidade de fila. Veio dinheiro ao HUSM mas não houve contratação de profissionais a mais. O HUSM já havia muitos pacientes, e com o passar do tempo, não haveria atendimento diferenciado. Cumprimento não feito.

O acordo que o municípios que tivesses vítimas nunca assumiriam sua parte, não aconteceu. Aqueles que conseguiram comprovar que não tiveram condições, a Prefeitura [de Santa Maria] assumiu. O Município contratou 30 funcionários para atender casos psicossociais. O Estado, quanto aos medicamentos, a princípio liberou, mas hoje todos devem entrar fila comum para a obtenção deles, o que acaba levando três, quatro, cinco, seis meses, assim como no HUSM.

O Ministério da Saúde não cumprira aquilo que deveria fazer. Devem, os evolvidos com a tragédia, entrar na fila do SUS hoje.

Às afirmações do sr. Ogier, que acusou também a AVTSM de inércia e de se preocupar apenas em acusar ao prefeito por motivações politicas, algo completamente infundado segundo investigações desta reportagem, rebate o sr. Adherbal, presidente da AVTSM:

Alguns não sabem nada do que fizemos, e realmente querem desqualificar nosso trabalho. Quanto a filas para atendimentos, sim, existiam, mas após nossa ida a Brasília ao Ministério da Saúde, tudo mudou: hoje o diretor de assistência social da AVTSM, João Luiz Cechin, vai à reunião semanal e outra quinzenal para ver como está essa situação, e cobra os responsáveis quando necessário. Quanto a medicamentos, nós da AVTSM fomos e estamos em direto em contato com a 4ª Coordenadoria, com reuniões quinzenais”.

A 4ª Coordenadoria é onde existe a distribuição dos medicamentos. Lá são feitas reuniões para ver como esta o andamento das medicações e faltas, pois conseguimos detectar onde está as falhas mas só dos que reclamam que agora não há reclamação após o diretor João Luiz ter assumido a assistência social da AVTSM.

A AVTSM, com quase três mil membros entre familiares de vítimas e sobreviventes, presta assistência social ímpar na cidade: apoia 30 famílias em necessidades financeiras e com problemas de saúde, através de cestas básicas e acompanhamento psicológico, e desde 2014 fornece dinheiro a esses familiares e sobreviventes carentes.

A realidade é que, em termos de saúde, há acertos municipais, mas de um modo geral, segundo familiares de vítimas e sobreviventes que necessitam de apoio psicológico e sobretudo de medicamentos, deixa muito a desejar, por parte do Município e sobretudo no que diz respeito às responsabilidades do governo federal. “Abandono total” foi a frase mais ouvida por esta reportagem por parte dos mais diversos envolvidos.

Mais de cem sobreviventes encontravam-se em condições clínicas altamente delicadas. Sobreviventes como os seguranças André de Lima e Rodrigo Ruoso, que possuíam trabalhos formais, passaram a ser beneficiados com auxílio-desemprego, enquanto os que trabalhavam sem registro em carteira perderam o emprego devido a sequelas respiratórias e até por descaso dos empregadores. O segurança André se queixa por não poder consumir todos os remédios que necessita, por falta de dinheiro e por falta nos Postos de Saúde.

Um sobrevivente acabou demitido simplesmente porque, segundo o patrão (que cumpre à risca o vezo popular que diz que de médico e louco todo mundo tem um pouco), “nunca mais voltaria a ter uma vida normal, e os problemas ainda poderiam se agravar”. Por estes também se engaja a AVTSM.

Enfim, o Poder Público, de todos os lados, afirma estar fazendo sua parte conforme visto inclusive nos relatórios enviados: os serviços de saúde realmente têm sido oferecidos. Mas também é identificada diminuição, vertiginosa em muitos casos, da procura de cidadãos por estes serviços públicos, em meio a muitas reclamações enquanto os envolvidos com a tragédia, em grande parte, ajudam-se mutuamente.

O que isso tudo traz em si é a inequívoca evidência de que o atendimento às vítimas, senão em sua totalidade, ao menos parcialmente tem deixado a desejar, ou qualitativa ou quantitativamente – ou em ambos os casos, e em todas as esferas do Poder Público.

Pós-Tragédia: Antídoto

A realidade é que, embora seja assunto proibido na Imprensa brasileira, o Ministério da Saúde atua como outra vergonha nacional à parte quando o assunto é tragédia em Santa Maria, causador direto de algumas vítimas fatais o que será visto a seguir, envolvendo a lamentável questão dos antídotos.

A hidroxicobalamina, antídoto contra cianeto, chegou seis dias depois após a tragédia – exatamente no sábado, 2 de fevereiro de 2013. Tal demora foi fator decisivo para as sete mortes nas semanas subsequentes, segundo a dra. Solange Garcia, toxicologista formada docente pela UFSM.

A dra. Solange faz revelações da mais alta importância a esta reportagem:

Fiquei sabendo que os pacientes não estavam sendo atendidos adequadamente. A dra. Rosa Wolfgang, médica do Centro  Estadual de Vigilância da Saúde do Trabalho, esteve no hospital [Clínicas de Porto Alegre] dois dias depois da tragédia em  Santa Maria. Tentou avisar aos médicos, o que eu também tentava fazer, que o que estava havendo era intoxicação por  cianeto sem os devidos medicamentos. Ela não foi ouvida, mas desdenhada, assim como eu. Os médicos foram advertidos  que os sobreviventes não estavam sendo bem tratados, e que estavam intoxicados com cianeto

Na quarta-feira, 30 de janeiro, a fim de elucidar o caso através de exame de sangue nas pessoas, contatei o Hospital  Universitário de Santa Maria e Clínicas de Porto Alegre. Notei claramente que os médicos estavam muito ocupados  com as entrevistas à Imprensa, e não tinham tempo para mim

Adverti inclusive o chefe do atendimento que, se não fossem tomadas providências, mais pessoas morreriam. Após fortes pressões junto às equipes médicas tanto de Santa Maria quanto de Porto Alegre, os médicos permitiram a coleta de sangue e o envio para minha análise

Após os primeiros laudos dos níveis sanguíneos de cianeto dos sobreviventes, na quarta à tarde iniciei o movimento de sensibilização  para importar antídoto inexistente no Brasil, a hidroxicobalamina. Isso só ocorreu porque me ligaram do gabinete do Planalto na sexta  à tarde. Durante o período que se estendeu de quarta à sexta ao meio dia, houve total descaso do Ministério da Saúde, tão notificado quanto os médicos-chefe de cada casa, Santa Maria e Porto Alegre. Total descaso

Segundo os médicos-chefe do Hospital de Santa Maria e de Porto Alegre, o ministro [da Saúde, Alexandre Padilha] não tinha  interesse em importar antídoto. Havia no Brasil 5mg, mil vezes menos do necessário, 5g. Os sobreviventes não iriam melhorar nunca

Acredito que o ministro achava que o problema era outro. Não havia toxicologista naquele trabalho. Em qualquer tragédia envolvendo agentes tóxicos, teremos novamente a tragédia e o pós-tragédia idêntico ao de Santa Maria. Podemos evitar uma nova pós-tragédia tendo o antídoto adequado. Não temos profissionais no país

Muitas crianças morrem anualmente por inalar cianeto. Não há central de registros no país do número de crianças. Perdura no país o mesmo sistema de 1991, criado para tratar contra animais peçonhentos. Devemos ter um sistema para agentes tóxicos também. As vítimas deveriam ter recebido antídoto imediatamente após a inalação do cianeto. O fato de terem recebido o antídoto uma semana depois, aumentou a sobrevivência de alguns, mas não diminuiu as sequelas O ministro afirmou que participou de uma teleconferência com pesquisadores internacionais demonstrando a importância do medicamento [antídoto] sem mencionar qual foi essa teleconferência na sexta-feira [1/2], uma semana depois da tragédia e após minha insistência na questão, sem ter sido levada em consideração até aquele momento A hidroxicobalamina chegou dos Estados Unidos doada pelo governo daquele país, sábado à tarde.

O governo brasileiro pagou apenas o transporte

Foi uma semana muito difícil. Ninguém me dava ouvidos. Vários pesquisadores da UFRGS que tinham conhecimento na política, ajudaram na conscientização da necessidade de se importar o antídoto. Mas continuamos não tendo…

No incêndio no quartel de Cruz Alta [cidade próxima a Santa Maria, fato ocorrido em 6/5 que deixou dois soldados feridos] com sobreviventes, soldados, foram tratados com o que sobrou dos antídotos de Santa Maria

Tragédias de grandes proporções se repetirão, como a da Kiss. Temos que ter, imediatamente, política nacional de antídotos para evitar novas tragédias. Poderíamos ter importado na quinta, dois dias antes, e termos melhorado a saúde dos sobreviventes

O que ocorreu em Santa Maria foi uma grande tragédia, que sinaliza que muitas coisas precisam ser mudadas no país

Sobre tal antídoto, o Ministério da Saúde à época, procurado em 2014 por esta reportagem, justificou-se da seguinte maneira, vazia, através deste comunicado (parte do exposto mais acima):

HIDROXICOBALAMINA

O Brasil possui o medicamento, mas a apresentação que possui registro na Anvisa tem menor concentração da Vitamina B12.  O Ministério, que já vinha ofertando as melhores opções de tratamento disponíveis para a assistência desses pacientes,  resolveu trazer esse medicamento como forma de ampliar suas ações de assistência

É importante esclarecer que o uso da medicação aos pacientes vítimas do incêndio de Santa Maria dependeu da avaliação e  decisão de cada médico assistencial a partir da condição clínica respiratória e dos parâmetros metabólicos do paciente internado.

A decisão de submeter o paciente ao exame que detecta a exposição do paciente ao cianeto é uma decisão de cada clínica assistencial, a depender também da condição clínica e evolução do paciente internado. Em geral, os pacientes com complicação respiratória e que não apresentaram melhora foram submetidos ao exame para detectar a presença da substância. Em outros, foi optado iniciar o tratamento sem dosagem inicial, apenas com controle posterior.

É preciso esclarecer que de todos os pacientes que chegaram ao hospital, a grande maioria teve evolução favorável durante o processo de acompanhamento e assistência médica. A intoxicação por cianeto não é comum no Brasil, mas a hidroxicobalamina está em fase de estudo pela ANVISA para a liberação no país

Sobre a ausência da hidroxicobalamina, indigna-se repetidas vezes o dr. Smaniotto, do início a fim das inúmeras entrevistas pronta e gentil e prontamente concedidas:

Como se libera, via Anvisa, a comercialização da espuma de poliuretano, se é que foi mesmo liberada, sem haver antídoto contra cianeto em nenhum estado brasileiro? Sendo que a FISPQ [Ficha de Informação de Segurança para Produtos Químicos] informa que a ingestão de cianeto gera colapso cardiorrespiratório

Havia código da FISPQ na embalagem do produto? Uma vez autorizada comercialização do produto, junto da venda deveria ser informado também que libera cianeto se queimado, e o antidoto deveria estar disponível no pais. O fabricante deveria ter averiguado tudo isso. Não há no Brasil políticas de prevenção de catástrofes para este material

A explicação do Ministério da Saúde, conforme exposto mais acima, não foi nada convincente, jamais pontual. Nem se mostrou interessada em aclarar as controvérsias e nem em justificar as reclamações em Santa Maria. Em diversos momentos, os contatos desta reportagem com o Ministério da Saúde foram tensos, um clima desnecessariamente causado pelo referido órgão.

A Anvisa foi procurada por esta reportagem, eximindo-se de responsabilidade, passando-a ao Inmetro, também ouvido. Ambas as respostas serão assunto de uma das próximas publicações desta série, tratando da estrutura da Kiss e, especirfcamente, da espuma de poliuretano liberadora de gás cianeto.

Santa Maria: Dor de Pai e de Mãe

Todos os pais procurados por esta reportagem, disseram que não passam um dia sem se lembrar dos filhos, da tragédia, e chorar. Afirmam que aquele dia não passou, e acreditam que jamais passará.

Carina Correa lamenta, entre muita dor e choro diante deste autor: “Não aceito a morte da minha filha daquela maneira estúpida, como as vitimas dos nazistas na II Guerra Mundial”.

A odontologista Denise Darif relata com exclusividade a esta reportagem como foram os dias pré-tragédia, seus e da filha Thaís:

Cerca de duas semanas antes da tragédia, comecei a ler o livro Colecionador de Lágrimas de Augusto Cury, não conseguia parar de ler, e este mexeu muito comigo; houve momentos do livro que chorei muito como se fosse minha aquela dor, cheguei a comentar com a Thaís sobre o livro… Naqueles mesmos dias, comecei [em Guaraciaba] a sentir uma coisa estranha que me apertava o peito de tanta saudade dela [em Santa Maria], uma coisa sem explicação, visto que tínhamos estado juntas à poucos dias. Ela também me falou por várias vezes que estava com uma saudade absurda… E ela não era de se queixar… Falei prá ela vir prá casa, mas como tinha muitas provas ela achou melhor esperar pelas tão esperadas férias que já tínhamos planejado

No dia 26 fomos [o esposo, Rogério Darif, a filha menor, Giovanna, 6, e a dra. Denise] para Quilombo [SC] comemorar o aniversário do meu cunhado. Foi um dia agradável, meu sogro e sogra também estavam, conversamos muito, mas o assunto principal foi a Thaís. Falei muito dela, até eu mesma estranhei aquela vontade de falar tanto dela. Comentamos as tantas qualidades dela, o tanto que era uma filha querida, amiga, companheira e sempre tão presente na família… Naquele dia ela fez falta, pois sempre nos acompanhava… mal sabíamos nós que nunca mais ela estaria presente em corpo para nenhuma reunião familiar

No final da tarde falamos [Thaís e dra. Denise] por telefone, ela queria saber o telefone do dindo André que estava na praia para dar os parabéns para o afilhadinho Lucca. Este foi o último da família com quem ela falou. Meu irmão ainda comentou depois que ela foi a única pessoa com quem ele quis falar naquele dia

Estranhamente, passei muito mal naquela noite, vomitei muito sem motivo aparente e fui dormir cedo. Minha sogra depois comentou que passou a noite em claro, com uma agonia estranha…. Foram tantos avisos que não soubemos interpretar…

De manhã fomos acordados pelo celular pelo Beto, pai da Isabella que morava com a Thaís e também estava na boate [vítima fatal], avisando do incêndio… Daí por diante se instalou o desespero, tentativas inúteis de entrar em contato pelo celular dela… sem resposta. Neste momento pensei que realmente algo grave havia acontecido pois ela jamais deixaria de nos dar notícia numa situação destas…

Mas enquanto nos dirigíamos para Santa Maria, minha esperança era encontrá-la com vida em algum hospital… Foi um inferno, muitas notícias desencontradas… Algumas de que ela se encontrava em hospitais de cidades vizinhas… Até o momento em que entramos naquele ginásio e a reconhecemos entre os mortos… Daí por diante você sabe ou pode imaginar o nosso desespero…

De minha parte, posso dizer que ainda estamos vivendo porque precisamos criar nossa outra filha, ela não merece sofrer mais do que o óbvio… Mas vivemos numa gangorra violenta. Tem dias muito difíceis de suportar

Rogério Darif, pai de Thaís, conta o quanto a filha era doce e carinhosa através de histórias realmente surpreendentes, especialmente nos dias de hoje. Uma delas, de que a universitária andava sempre de mãos dadas com o pai pelas ruas: “As pessoas pensavam, ‘mas o que essa gatinha está fazendo com esse coroa?’ Ela nem dava bola. Era de uma doçura, de um apego à família, aos amigos… Todos, todos diziam que a Thaís não era deste mundo”, emociona-se Rogério Darif.

Thaís havia passado em cinco vestibulares, entre eles o da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, e no da UFSM, escolhendo o interior gaúcho por não ter se adaptado à capital catarinense. Thaís era apaixonada pelos animais, quem defendia de todas as maneiras que podia, e por isso escolheu a carreira de Medicina Veterinária: “O sonho dela era aperfeiçoar o Grupo Amigo Bicho, jurou que cuidaria de tantos animais quanto pudessem”, relata a dra. Denise.

Paulo de Carvalho indigna-se em várias ocasiões a exemplo de todos os pais, evidentemente, e uma delas se deu quando recorda:

No dia seguinte a tragédia o Jader [Marques, advogado do sr. Spohr] já veio declarando que ‘meu cliente” é inocente, a casa está regular, foi um acidente’, e mais um monte de bobagens. Ele não teve o mínimo respeito pelas vítimas, só pensou em seu cliente. E esse mesmo cliente foi para casa e postou no Facebook ou Twitter, que estava bem, que perdeu o negócio da vida dele mas estava bem, e respondeu aos seus amiguinhos que não se preocupassem, pois iria dormir e ver como faria…

País do Imponderável

As causas do incêndio da Kiss vão muito além de péssima estrutura da boate e da bem conhecida incapacidade organizacional neste país: dizem respeito ao excesso de irresponsabilidade, à ganância, ao descaso com vidas humanas e corrupção indiscriminada. Esta cadeia criminosa envolvendo os donos do poder, políticos, empresariais e midiáticos, seguirá sendo esmiuçada na série de reportagens que aqui se inicia, e ficará totalmente claro nas próximas reportagens o que está por trás da tragédia em Santa Maria, a qual vai muito além de acidente.

Algo que a “Justiça”, até agora, não quis enxergar por nada, muito pelo contrário: arquivou processos, reabertos em algumas ocasiões (logo encerrados no calar da noite) apenas por pressão popular na cidade da tragédia. E, não por mera coincidência, a mídia em geral – jornalões, jornalecos e saitecos, alguns destes dois últimos “alternativos” apenas no tamanho nanico e no tendencionismo politiqueiro – não exerce a mínima cobrança sobre o Poder Público e o empresariado que não enxerga nada em seus horizontes que não sejam cifras.

Mídia brasileira serventuária dos podres poderes que a sustentam, a qual jamais praticou a natureza jornalística neste caso do incêndio da Kiss: investigar seria e duradouramente as implicações do segundo incêndio mais mortal da história do Brasil, o mais mortal dos últimos 50 anos no país. E nem sequer tem noticiado, jamais, a pressão popular em Santa Maria, muito pouco as questões jurídicas, quase nada as implicações da tragédia a não ser os mesmos gráficos da boate de sempre envolvendo, rasamente, sua estrutura – posição do palco, da porta de saída, o teto incendiado, as vítimas.

Em sua cobertura da tragédia de Santa Maria, a norte-americana CNN afirmou que o mundo não havia aprendido com os erros do passado. Hoje, o Brasil do jeitinho, da ausência de memória e de mobilização não aprendeu rigorosamente nada, nem se mostra, um ano depois, disposto a aprender com o incêndio de tais proporções.

Enquanto isso em Santa Maria, o novo inquérito com o intuito de apontar pontos desconsiderados no anterior, dois meses após a tragédia, foi concluído em 18 de julho de 2014, indiciando a 22 pessoas. Onze por falsidade ideológica, uma por prevaricação, uma por fraude processual, três por falso testemunho e seis por crime ambiental, sendo três deles funcionários públicos: o ex-secretário e o secretário-adjunto do Meio Ambiente de Santa Maria, e um ex-servidor da pasta (reportagem Polícia Civil Indicia Mais 18 Pessoas por Tragédia na Boate Kiss).

Nenhum culpado está condenado pela “Justiça” brasileira, quatro anos após a tragédia. Neste sentido, indigna-se Paulo de Carvalho:

Não é interessante termos que lutar por algo tão óbvio? Temos que mostrar a juízes e promotores: Olha! A prova esta aqui, na sua frente.

De que mais a justiça precisa? Essa pergunta é crucial. O inquérito policial foi exemplar, levantou e apurou as denúncias em 55 dias, incriminou 28 pessoas, todas pelo inquérito deveriam estar presas e muitas outras apareceriam, fariam uma limpeza na cidade. Mas a Justiça, ah, a justiça… Sempre ela!

Edu Montesanti

edumontesanti.skyrock.com

Ver fotos: http://blogoosfero.cc/luciocabral/bomjardimpe.com/fotos-e-video-do-velorio-da-tragedia-da-boate-kiss-santa-maria-rs

Edu Montesanti  é autor do livro Mentiras e Crimes da “Guerra ao Terror” (2012). Escreve para a revista Caros Amigos (Brasil), Pravda Brasil, Pravda Report (Rússia) e Global Research  (Canadá). Escreveu para Truth Out (Estados Unidos), Diário Liberdade (Espanha), Observatório da Imprensa (Brasil) e Nolan Chart (Estados Unidos). É professor de idiomas, tradutor do sítio das Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo (Argentina) e da Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan. Foi tradutor do sítio da ativista e escritora afegã Malalaï Joya, ex-parlamentar expulsa injustamente do cargo pelos senhores da guerra.  Ex-atleta de futebol – equipe juvenil do São Paulo F.C. campeã paulista de 1991, entre outras com curtas passagens pelo futebol profissional de Paraguai e Argentina -, realizou trabalho voluntário de natação e auxílio em hidroterapia em favor do Centro para a Integração Esportiva do Deficiente Físico (Ciedef), na Academia Companhia Athlética e no Centro Olímpico de Treinamento e Pesquisa de São Paulo, onde realizou curso de Medicina Esportiva. Fez trabalhos evangelísticos com Atletas de Cristo através de palestras e jogos beneficentes em institutos, escolas, igrejas e na extinta Casa de Detenção – Carandiru de São Paulo. Tem sido palestrante sobre Mentiras e Crimes da “Guerra ao Terror” www.edumontesanti.skyrock.com 

America in Turmoil: From Deep State Insurgency to Deep State Spying – WikiLeaks’ Vault 7

By Joachim Hagopian, March 10 2017

The latest CIA crimes constitute an unprecedented assault allowing deep state to infiltrate and attack us through malware embedded in our iPhones, Android computer applications as well as smart TVs in order to listen in and shockingly violate every last vestige of our decimated privacy.

WikiLeaks, “Year Zero” and the CIA Hacking Files

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, March 10 2017

The releases have also seen a rapid scramble on the part of app companies to claim that the Vault and Zero Year coverage by WikiLeaks reveals a crude reality: you simply cannot rely on the security of your messaging format.

CIA Leak Shows We’re “Sliding Down the Slippery Slope Toward Totalitarianism, Where Private Lives Do Not Exist”: Dennis Kucinich

By Washington’s Blog, March 10 2017

Before you label Kucinich as being overly-dramatic, you may want to note that  Bill Binney – the high-level NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information, the 36-year NSA veteran widely who was the senior technical director within the agency and managed thousands of NSA employees – told Washington’s Blog that America has already become a police state.

Wikileaks Reveals: CIA’s UMBRAGE Allows Agency to Carry out ‘False Flag’ Cyber Attacks

By Whitney Webb, March 10 2017

While most coverage thus far has focused on the CIA’s ability to infiltrate and hack smartphones, smart TVs and several encrypted messaging applications, another crucial aspect of this latest leak has been skimmed over – one with potentially far-reaching geopolitical implications.

The WikiLeaks Revelations and the Crimes of US Imperialism

By Andre Damon, March 10 2017

The WikiLeaks documents expose the United States as the world’s greatest “rogue state” and “cyber criminal.” The monstrous US espionage network, paid for with hundreds of billions in tax dollars, uses diplomatic posts to hide its activities from its “allies,” spies on world leaders, organizes kidnappings and assassinations and aims to influence or overturn elections all over the world.

Even those not following the latest evidence of the tyrannical noose tightening around our necks, know something has gone terribly wrong in America.

Through NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s revelations four years ago, we learned that US citizens as well as foreign countries are the most spied upon in human history. But this week’s latest massive WikiLeaks’ release, aka Vault 7, amounts to almost 9,000 pages of CIA documents collected from 2013 through 2016 that disclose highly classified hacking secrets.

With this largest dump of confidential CIA files ever published, the world is beginning to realize just how far gone our privacy rights are, becoming virtually nonexistent under traitor Obama’s second term in office.

On the heels of last week’s bombshell revelations that outgoing president Obama illegally wiretapped and surveilled all of President Trump’s communications (both domestic and overseas) including his pre-administration officials, now we’re learning that the Orwellian nightmare of myopic control over us as a national population is far worse than ever imagined.

These back-to-back, very much related unfolding events only demonstrate that not only is the legitimately elected American president apparently in the process of an overthrow attempt by treasonous subversive forces for the first time in US history, but through the ruling elite’s private army – the CIA, it has extended its technologically invasive beta test control over the most spied upon population ever on its way to imprisoning every human on earth with a one world crime cabal government.

Americans are not the only victims of deep state cyber aggression. The CIA data dump also reveals that the NSA and CIA have been conducting a large scale covert operation out of the Frankfurt, Germany American Consulate, largest in the world, busily hacking targeted individuals, groups and national entities throughout Europe, the Middle East and China. Granted immunity and top secret identities, individuals comprising deep state America employed in Frankfurt have developed a massive digital hacking arsenal smack dab in the middle of Europe as Empire’s vassal.

In recent years during the Bush-Obama regime, US citizens have witnessed their civil rights – once guaranteed under their no longer upheld Constitution, eroded away into complete oblivion. Under the nefarious pretense of national security, the powers-that-shouldn’t-be have opportunistically stolen both our legal rights as well as literally our property rights in the form of our homes, our cars, our cash, and bank account assets under the grossly unlawfulcivil forfeiture laws regardless of whether any crimes have been committed. Currently US law enforcement steals more annually from us than the totality of all burglars. Also with bail-in laws now well in place, personal life savings will be devoured by large banks, falling like dominos when the global economy collapses. Theft by a predatory elitenever ends.

Rampant violation of our Fifth Amendment right that protect citizens from unreasonable government seizure of private property has also been additionally abused under eminent domain law, where again increasingly our homes are being illegally confiscated by local, state and federal governments. A dozen years ago the US Supreme Court made the decision granting government the right to steal our property based on land use for “economic development” even by a private developer.

The landmark Kelo vs. New London, Connecticut case enabled the Big Pharma giant Pfizer to land grab without the consent of the private citizen as the legal property owner. At the government and pharmaceutical company’s disgrace after millions of taxpayer dollars unjustly displaced private citizens from what was rightfully theirs, all these years later the 90-acre property remains a desolate, vacant lot.

From our stolen constitutional property rights to our freedom of movement and travel now being usurped, increasingly US citizens flying from one domestic location to another are being asked to show “their papers,” reminding us how the German populace must have felt under Nazi authoritarian control.

Increasing military and law enforcement “random” checkpoints are rapidly popping up all over the United States to monitor and restrict our right to navigable access. Microchipped drivers licenses, passports, credit cards as well as backdoor installed GPS monitoring and spying devices in our cell phones have illicitly, secretly been in place for years now. Biometrics like facial and voice recognition and implanted microchips are all New World Order population control mechanisms.

But the latest CIA crimes constitute an unprecedented assault allowing deep state to infiltrate and attack us through malware embedded in our iPhones, Android computer applications as well as smart TVs in order to listen in and shockingly violate every last vestige of our decimated privacy.

Even while Samsung Smart TVs are turned off, the monitoring device is still secretly turned on and eavesdropping on our conversations. Another insidiously dangerous feature to this CIA malware is that it can extract usernames, passwords, and Wi-Fi keys expanding invasive access to the victim’s shared network and other connected devices.

As far back as a half decade ago, then CIA Director retired General David Petraeus was touting how hi tech advances facilitated a myriad of ways Americans can be spied on in a Wired article entitled “CIA Chief: We’ll Spy on You through Your Dishwasher.”

With the rise of the “smart home,” you’d be sending tagged, geo-located data that a spy agency can intercept in real time when you use the lighting app on your phone to adjust your living room’s ambiance.

You can easily see where the centralized controllers envision smart meters, smart phones, smart TVs and a plethora of smart household devices installed in every hopelessly dumbed down American’s home to permit voyeuristic deep state criminals complete invasive access to raping you in your un-private, unsafe sanctuary you call home.

With Big Government both watching and listening wherever we are and go nowadays, virtually nothing escapes totalitarian reach and absolute control anymore.

Additionally, the massive proliferation of closed circuit TV cameras shooting us from every angle at virtually every urban street corner traffic light and every business location, along with the global deployment of countless surveillance drones of all shapes and sizes, invasively capable of covertly observing and recording our every move and even armed to kill us from both inside and outside our own no longer private homes, conclusively confirm that we are living within the nightmarish horror of “you can run but cannot hide” from the diabolical authoritarian state. And thanks to Obama, the alarming precedent’s been set for a US president to engage in extrajudicial killing of his own citizens on or off American soil.

On a minor positive note, the Oklahoma state legislature has recently introduced a bill making it legal for homeowners to destroy drones flying less than 400 feet over their private property, as long as it’s not an aircraft regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). So in other words, if it’s Big Government invading your privacy by operating a drone (predator or otherwise), violating and endangering your personal space, apparently by law you must simply remain a targeted passive victim. But if it’s your nosy neighbor, then in Oklahoma you’ll be authorized to neutralize it when flying too low over your private property residence. Although 45 states are considering laws that restrict unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s), especially when risking safety of first responders or the public, the FAA maintains jurisdiction over all US airspace.

Growing conflict between citizens’ personal and privacy rights, violated at the expense of authoritarian government overreach, will no doubt be played out on a far larger scale as divided America continues to fracture, be it over property rights, gun rights, bodily rights vs. mandatory vaccines, microchips or potentially outlawed abortion, or basic 1^st Amendment free speech, free press, protest and religious rights. Right now the United States is a powder keg with anti-Trump opposition forces determined to trigger a violent US insurrection that could easily lead to civil war.

The WikiLeaks Vault 7 dump strengthens the case against John Brennan, the CIA director that Stratfor stated was on a witch hunt against journalists when Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings was suspiciously killed after his late model car was almost certainly remote controlled to speed up to near 100 MPH prior to it exploding in June 2013. Hastings had been under surveillance by intelligence agencies while working on his latest project exposing their crimes.

With the simultaneous breaking news story that Obama was on the warpath against truth telling journalists as well, directing the FBI to monitor press phone records and remotely hack Sharyl Attkisson’s computer, the likely Hastings assassination and blatant aggression against the free press were tyrannical shots across the bow, overtly threatening any and all whistleblowers and journalists who dared exposing Obama’s crimes. The just released CIA documents prove beyond all question or doubt that all modern vehicles driven today can easily be electronically hacked and remote controlled for sinister murderous purposes, leaving virtually no evidence of a crime ever committed.

No doubt to head off the usual disinfo shills and left-leaning morons at the pass from issuing yet more groundless, mindless “the Russians did it” accusations, WikiLeaks specified that a whistleblowing insider from within the CIA leaked the latest documents. WikiLeaks also stated that the CIA is no longer in control of its own hacking arsenal, as the huge “archive appears to have been circulating among former US government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner,” one of them handing a portion over to WikiLeaks.

But rather than immediately launch an investigation on the crimes committed by the CIA’s illegal spying on every American, the culprits themselves – the CIA and FBI – are reflexively announcing that they will begin a criminal probe into the WikiLeaks dump in order to go after and punish the whistleblowing messenger and not the real criminals, similar to chomping at the bit to fry Snowden for bravely doing America the invaluable service of alerting citizens of deep state’s unconstitutional crimes and gross wrongdoing.

Let’s look at another response from an important government insider. Vice chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Diane Feinstein whose very job function is to exercise much needed oversight over deep state America, feebly muttered on CNN the obvious “duh” response – “maybe there should be more” congressional oversight limiting the CIA spying on Americans.

Essentially she’s admitting her own incompetence at failing to reel in the CIA’s long known, abusively out of control power. But with the CIA in actuality the ruling elite’s private army and Congress its public servant puppets, the bottom line is Congress only allows, promotes and protects crime cabal tyranny and abuse in this classic “fox guarding the henhouse” case. And so is that CIA/FBI probe.

As an integral part of the treasonous cabal, senators like Feinstein are the last persons to expect to act in the genuine best interests of American citizens. Recall three years ago her going through a similarly disingenuous, feeble motion when reacting to illegal CIA torture propagated by the Cheney-Bush administration and then only seamlessly continued under Obama and her “oversight” watch. Feinstein epitomizes the lackey, impotently dishonest role of Congress never really standing up for human rights of anyone on the planet in this age of over-the-top oppression. Instead, she expressed her hypocritical outrage toward her previously coddled CIA only after learning the CIA was secretly monitoring her private communications as well.

Additionally, this latest batch of documents providing indisputable proof that deep state America’s gone awry, renders the Democrats’ nonstop mantra that “the Russians did it” a complete farce, since the CIA has developed the devious means to pull off false flag cyberattacks that can then be conveniently blamed on designated enemies like Putin. Because the Central Intelligence Agency stole malware from other countries, CIA malware under the codename Weeping Angel absolves the Criminals In Action of all guilt, leaving no fingerprints behind, thus delivering false evidence then used to deceitfully charge foreign nations of cyberwarfare crimes and deceptively justify war against any targeted opponent.

And with virtually every war in American history the result of a false flag, and more false flags being perpetrated by the CIA and FBI now than ever before, at some point in the relative near future, you can bet that the US government will claim a false flag scenario, one probable example being an enemy launching a devastating cyberattack against the US banking industry, posing a serious breach to our national security. Suddenly a banker’s holiday is declared and you cannot withdraw cash from your local ATM or for that matter even pump gas into your car. Deep state headed by Homeland Security has been quietly drumming up and prepping for this type of false flag operation for well over a decade.

And as US deep state’s egregious crimes against humanity have never been more exposed than right now, the increasing likelihood of this kind of manufactured crisis and national emergency to occur sooner than later at the behest of demonic planetary controllers, growing desperate to hang onto their centralized power and control, is more imminent now than ever. But armed with truth, an empowered world citizenry can ultimately hold the evildoers accountable. The global masses must awaken and begin rejecting the lies and start thinking for themselves, and for their own survival, actively opposing the deep state’s matrix.

Constitutional attorney John Whitehead expressed his sobering yet truthful conclusion regarding our stolen liberties:

Not only do we no longer have dominion over our bodies, our families, our property and our lives, but the government continues to chip away at what few rights we still have to speak freely and think for ourselves. If the government can control speech, it can control thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.

It’s time to seek, speak and share the truth. Before all our freedoms are permanently lost, including all access to the truth (i.e., Facebook just began flagging “disputed” fake news), and humanity is victimized by the brutal killing force of globalized genocide, shake off the shackles of enslavement and destructive doom and let your voice and conviction be counted, heard and demonstrated through nonviolent civil disobedient action.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. In recent years he has focused on his writing, becoming an alternative media journalist. 

His blog site is at http://empireexposed.blogspot.co.id/.

16-year congressman Dennis Kucinich writes:

That the CIA has reached into the lives of all Americans through its wholesale gathering of the nation’s “haystack” of information has already been reported.

It is bad enough that the government spies on its own people. It is equally bad that the CIA, through its incompetence, has opened the cyberdoor to anyone with the technological skills and connections to spy on anyone else.

The constant erosion of privacy at the hands of the government and corporations has annihilated the concept of a “right to privacy,” which is embedded in the rationale of the First, Third, Fourth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

It is becoming increasingly clear that we are sliding down the slippery slope toward totalitarianism, where private lives do not exist.

We have entered a condition of constitutional crisis that requires a full-throated response from the American people.

Before you label Kucinich as being overly-dramatic, you may want to note that  Bill Binney – the high-level NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information, the 36-year NSA veteran widely who was the senior technical director within the agency and managed thousands of NSA employees – told Washington’s Blog that America has already become a police state.

And Thomas Drake – one of the top NSA executives, and Senior Change Leader within the NSA – told us the same thing.

And Kirk Wiebe – a 32-year NSA veteran who received the Director CIA’s Meritorious Unit Award and the NSA’s Meritorious Civilian Service Award – agrees (tweet via Jesselyn Radack, attorney for many national security whistleblowers, herself a Department of Justice whistleblower):

Amid sharply rising tensions on the Korean Peninsula, the Trump administration has flatly rejected a Chinese proposal for negotiations with North Korea despite warnings from the Chinese foreign minister, Wang Yi, that Washington and Pyongyang were on a collision course. A confrontation looms as huge South Korean-US military exercises are underway, involving over 300,000 troops backed by an US aircraft carrier strike group, stealth fighters and strategic bombers.

China is clearly alarmed at the prospect of war on its doorstep. Speaking in uncharacteristically blunt terms in Beijing yesterday, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi warned:

“The two sides are like accelerating trains coming toward each other with neither side willing to give way,” he said. “The question is: Are the two sides really ready for a head-on collision? Our priority now is to flash the red light and apply the brakes on both trains.”

US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley emphatically rebuffed the Chinese plan for the US and South Korea to halt their annual Foal Eagle war games in return for a freeze by North Korea on its nuclear and missile programs. Speaking after an emergency UN Security Council meeting yesterday, Haley not only rejected China’s “dual suspension” scheme but provocatively declared that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un was “not a rational person,” effectively ruling out any future negotiations.

Haley told the media that the US was revaluating how to deal with North Korea. “We are not ruling anything out and we’re considering every option that’s on the table,” she said, in a thinly veiled threat that the US could attack North Korea. To emphasise that time was running out, Haley warned: “We are making those decisions now and will act accordingly.” The US ambassador was flanked by her South Korean and Japanese counterparts to highlight their support for Washington’s aggressive stance.

After coming to office, the Trump administration initiated a “comprehensive rethink” of US strategy toward Pyongyang. According to the Wall Street Journal, deputy national security adviser K.T. McFarland called for proposals, including those “well outside the mainstream”—ranging from talks with North Korea to “regime-change” and military strikes. Given Haley’s comments yesterday, the White House appears to have ruled out any negotiations and is preparing to embark on a reckless course of action that could potentially plunge Asia and the world into a catastrophic conflict.

The New York Times reported on Tuesday that three meetings of National Security Council deputies concluded that “a dramatic show of force, like attacks on the North’s missile and nuclear sites, would probably start a war.” Chillingly, the article did not say that, as a result, the White House had ruled out military strikes.

The US is exploiting North Korean missile launches this week to justify its military build-up in North East Asia, which is primarily directed against China. Foreign Minister Yang yesterday opposed the installation that began on Monday of a US Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile system in South Korea. “It’s common knowledge that the monitoring and early warning radius of THAAD reaches far beyond the Korean Peninsula and compromises China’s strategic security,” he said.

However, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime’s response to the danger of war—seeking a deal with Washington, on the one hand, and expanding its own military capacities, on the other—only heightens the danger of conflict. A commentary in the official Xinhua news agency warned that THAAD would result in a regional arms race and suggested China would build more nuclear missiles to counter the US anti-missile systems.

The immediate pretext for the escalating US confrontation with North Korea was Monday’s test firing of four intermediate-range ballistic missiles, which flew about 1,000 kilometres before splashing down in the Sea of Japan. The missile launches, which coincided with the war games underway in South Korea, were accompanied by a militarist statement from North Korea. It declared it would “reduce the bases of aggression and provocation to ashes with its invincible Hwasong rockets tipped with nuclear warheads” if its territory were attacked. Such reckless threats do nothing to defend the North Korean people. They play directly into the hands of US imperialism and only heighten the danger of war.

Washington’s primary target is not North Korea, but China. During the presidential election campaign, Trump deliberately whipped up anti-Chinese xenophobia, accusing China of stealing American jobs and “raping America.” The White House fired the first shot in trade war measures on Tuesday, by slapping a record $1.19 billion fine on the Chinese technology giant ZTE for allegedly breaching US sanctions.

Having previously made menacing statements over the South China Sea and threatened to tear up the “One China” policy, the Trump administration seems to have settled on North Korea as the means for exerting intense pressure on China. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is heading for Asia next week for meetings in Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing that will focus on “the advancing nuclear and missile threat” from North Korea. The State Department said the discussions would “try to generate a new approach to North Korea.”

Tillerson’s trip will seek to further concretise Japanese and South Korean support for US war planning and exploit the mounting crisis over North Korea to bully the Chinese government into making major concessions—not only over Pyongyang, but the entire range of US demands. The overriding aim of the Trump administration, which is accelerating Obama’s confrontational “pivot to Asia” against Beijing, is to halt the historic decline of US imperialism and subordinate China to its economic and strategic interests.

The risk of war is compounded by the political and economic crisis wracking the US and its allies in North East Asia. The South Korean government is mired in a corruption scandal that has resulted in the impeachment and possible removal of President Park Geun Hye and could lead to an early election. Seoul is backing a belligerent approach to North Korea as a welcome diversion from its domestic strife. Similarly, the Japanese government is exploiting the confrontation with Pyongyang to deflect attention from its stagnant economy and justify its own military rearmament. Senior government figures have called in recent days for Japan to acquire the military hardware to conduct pre-emptive strikes against North Korea or any other potential enemy.

However, the most explosive factor in the profoundly unstable situation is the United States, where the entire political establishment and state apparatus is mired in bitter infighting and recriminations over foreign policy and tit-for-tat hacking allegations. The danger is that the Trump administration, which is guided by fascistic figures such as Stephen Bannon on the National Security Council, will choose the path of provocations and military action against North Korea to distract from the profound crisis at home, and to advance its plans for a confrontation with China, regardless of the potentially disastrous consequences.

It is now up to the device and OS manufacturers, like Apple, Google, or Samsung, to fix their volcanoes back into mountains. -Telegram Statement, Mar 8, 2017

The paradox with information releases that expose a supposedly grand internal stratagem is that they merely provide the food of confirmation otherwise lacking.  Such food is potent.  It blows the lid off the suggestion that a conspiracy theorist was merely a Cassandra in the wilderness chewing fingernails in fear that something hideous was afoot. It provides nutrients for those seeking greater scrutiny over the way state security, otherwise deemed the domain of closeted experts, is policed.

The entire profession (for it has now become one) of mass disclosures of secret or classified documentation has reached a point where its normality can hardly be questioned.  Be it the juicy revelations of Edward Snowden in 2013, the work of WikiLeaks in this decade and the last, and the Panama Papers, whistleblowing, still punished and frowned upon, remains indispensable to the conversation about transparency and the inner operations of the Dark State and its accessories.

That Dark State was given a further lighting up on Tuesday with the release, by WikiLeaks, of its CIA Vault 7 and Year Zero series that has caused the usual flutter in the intelligence community and governments.

These comprise the machinery of hacking and cyber war tactics, an overview of methods that suggest, according to WikiLeaks, a loss of control by the agency over a good deal of its hacking arsenal (“malware, viruses, Trojans, weaponized ‘zero day’ exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation”).[1]

The releases reveal aspects of the internal functions of the organisation, including the works of its Engineering Development Group (EDG), dedicated to the development of software within the Center for Cyber Intelligence.

As WikiLeaks revealed, the sophisticated nature of surveillance is now such as to draw comparisons with George Orwell’s 1984 “but ‘Weeping Angel’, developed by the Embedded Devices Branch (EDB), which infests smart TVs, transforming them into covert microphones, is surely its most emblematic realization.”[2]Samsung has figured prominently in such attacks jointly conducted with Britain’s MI5/BTSS.

Even of more concern is that such methods, similar to the hoovering techniques of trawler surveillance, tend to hamper, rather than sharpen, discrimination regarding targets of value. Malware, in making its way into a range of devices (iPhones, Android, smart TVs), lingers like an innocuous, odourless smell.

This makes suggestions of ‘targeted’ surveillance, or surveillance against countries other than those of the Five Eyes, absurd. (Vide the opinions of Australia’s insipid Christopher Pyne, who assumes with school boy innocence that Washington would never have an interest in spying on Australian subjects.)

Controls over the nature of who receives or uses such devices or operating systems are less relevant than the nature of the devices, adjusted and cooked to the right level of surveillance. So called “smart” devices are hardly discerning in that regard.

The releases have also seen a rapid scramble on the part of app companies to claim that the Vault and Zero Year coverage by WikiLeaks reveals a crude reality: you simply cannot rely on the security of your messaging format.

“To put ‘Year Zero’ into familiar terms,” the statement from Telegram instructs with confidence piercing clarity, “imagine a castle on a mountainside.  That castle is a secure messaging app. The device and its OS are the mountain.  Your castle can be strong, but if the mountain below is an active volcano, there’s little your engineers can do.”[3]

The statement by Telegram goes on to charmingly remind users that it would not matter “which messenger you use. No app can stop your keyboard from knowing what keys you press.  The focus, then, is on “devices and operating systems like iOS and Android” not on the level of apps.  “For this reason,” the app company insists, “naming any particular app in this context is misleading.”

What is not misleading is the effect of such surveillance, the insecurity it inflicts on customers, and the rampant breach of privacy. The intelligence agencies find themselves running out of breath, bloated and spread.  Their outsourcing of services through less secure channels – namely contractors – has also unleased a demon they can barely control.

Defenders of such methods spring back into a default mode that assumes WikiLeaks has done something terrible, emboldening enemies of the United States as defender of the now poorly described “free world”.  Pundits and former members of the security coven fear that the disclosure of the CIA playbook on this is somehow tantamount to giving away the family silver to a suicide bomber in search of martyrdom.   The pertinent question here, surely, is defending that world from within as a matter of course.

Even the most dyed-in-the-wool establishment type has to concede that the intelligence community, puffing and out of breath, is there for the trimming, a vigorous pruning that just might ensure its reinvigoration and relevance.

The CIA is a beast in maturation, adjusting, and flexing its muscles in accordance with circumstance.  It is to be watched, accordingly cleaned and overseen by diligent groundsmen and women.  Sadly, the members of Congress are not necessarily the most able, or willing, to do that watching.  An external impetus, miraculously supplied, might well do the trick.

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

Notes

[1] https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/#ANALYSIS

[2] https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/#ANALYSIS

[3] http://telegra.ph/Wikileaks-Vault7-NEWS

With increasing frequency, aggressive foreign policy moves by Washington have been palmed off by the media and political establishment as defensive responses to “hacking” and “cyber-espionage” by US imperialism’s geopolitical adversaries: Russia and China.

For months, news programs have been dominated by hysterical allegations that Russia “hacked” the Democratic National Committee in order to subvert the 2016 election. As the print and broadcast media were engaged in feverish denunciations of Russia, the US and its NATO allies moved thousands of troops and hundreds of tanks to the Russian border.

Not content to allege interference only in the American election, the US media and its international surrogates have alleged Russian meddling in elections in France, Germany and other far-flung countries. Prior to the current furor over Russian “hacking” of the election, the Obama administration used allegations of “hacking” and “intellectual property theft” to justify the trade sanctions and military escalation against China that accompanied its “pivot to Asia.”

Whenever the State Department, the CIA or unnamed “intelligence officials” proclaim another alleged “cyber” provocation by Washington’s geopolitical rivals, news anchors breathlessly regurgitate the allegations as fact, accompanying them with potted infographics and footage of masked men in darkened rooms aggressively typing away at computer keyboards.

But the official narrative of a benevolent and well-intentioned US government coming under attack from hordes of Russian and Chinese hackers, spies and “internet trolls” was upended Tuesday with the publication by WikiLeaks of some 9,000 documents showing the methods used by the Central Intelligence Agency to carry out criminal cyber-espionage, exploitation, hacking and disinformation operations all over the world.

The documents reveal that the CIA possesses the ability to exploit and control any internet-connected device, including mobile phones and “smart” televisions. These tools, employed by an army of 5,000 CIA hackers, give the agency the means to spy on virtually anyone, whether inside or outside the United States, including foreign governments, “friend” and foe alike, as well as international organizations such as the United Nations.

The WikiLeaks documents expose the United States as the world’s greatest “rogue state” and “cyber criminal.” The monstrous US espionage network, paid for with hundreds of billions in tax dollars, uses diplomatic posts to hide its activities from its “allies,” spies on world leaders, organizes kidnappings and assassinations and aims to influence or overturn elections all over the world.

On Tuesday, former CIA director Michael Hayden replied to the revelations by boasting, “But there are people out there that you want us to spy on. You want us to have the ability to actually turn on that listening device inside the TV to learn that person’s intentions.”

One can only imagine the howls of indignation such statements would evoke in the American press if they were uttered by a former Russian spymaster. In his comments, Hayden barely attempts to cover up the fact that the United States runs a spying and political disruption operation the likes of which Russian President Vladimir Putin or Chinese President Xi Jinping could only dream of.

The WikiLeaks documents show that the United States seeks to cover up its illicit operations by planting false flags indicating that its geopolitical adversaries, including Russia and China, bear responsibility for its crimes.

Cybersecurity expert Robert Graham noted in a blog post, for example, that

“one anti-virus researcher has told me that a virus they once suspected came from the Russians or Chinese can now be attributed to the CIA, as it matches the description perfectly to something in the leak.”

The revelations have already begun to reverberate around the world. German Foreign Ministry spokesman Sebastian Fischer said Wednesday that Berlin was taking the revelations “very seriously,” adding, “issues of this kind emerge again and again.” Meanwhile Germany’s chief prosecutor has announced an investigation into the contents of the documents, with a spokesperson telling Reuters,

“We will initiate an investigation if we see evidence of concrete criminal acts or specific perpetrators…We’re looking at it very carefully.”

The documents expose the CIA’s use of the US consulate in Frankfurt, Germany as a base for its spying and cyber operations throughout Europe, employing a network of intelligence personnel including CIA agents, NSA spies, military secret service personnel and US Department of Homeland Security employees. Many of these operatives were provided with cover identities and diplomatic passports in order to hide their operations from the German and European governments.

Wednesday’s rebuke by the German government followed the revelations in 2013 by Edward Snowden that “unknown members of the US intelligence services spied on the mobile phone of Chancellor Angela Merkel,” as Germany’s top prosecutor put it in 2015.

The US media, true to its function as a propaganda arm of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, immediately sprang into action to minimize the significance of the revelations and to accuse Russia, entirely without substantiation, of having released the documents in an effort to subvert US interests.

NPR quoted favorably the statements of Hayden, who declared, “I can tell you that these tools would not be used against an American,” while the Washington Post quoted a bevy of security experts who said there is nothing to worry about in the documents. It favorably cited one such “expert,” Jan Dawson, who declared, “For the vast majority of us, this does not apply to us at all … There’s no need to worry for any normal law-abiding citizen.”

Such absurd statements, made about a security apparatus that was proven by Snowden’s revelations to have spied on the private communications of millions of Americans, and then lied about it to the public and Congress, were taken as good coin by the US media.

Just one day after the WikiLeaks revelations, the media spin machine was already busy portraying them as part of a Russian conspiracy against the United States, and indicting WikiLeaks for acting as an agent of foreign powers. “Could Russia have hacked the CIA?” asked NBC’s evening news program on Wednesday, while another segment was titled “Could there be a [Russian] mole inside the CIA?”

The types of spying and disruption mechanisms revealed in the documents constitute a key instrument US foreign policy, which works to subvert the democratic rights of people all over the planet in the interest of US imperialism. No methods, whether spying, hacking, blackmail, murder, torture, or, when need be, bombings and invasion, are off the table.

Today (March 8) is International Women’s Day. No doubt there will be numerous articles about women’s issues, women’s struggles and women’s triumphs. In this article I take a different route and address an issue that is rather taboo and off-limits, but ought to be discussed.

Before I do, I want to stress that women in the west have come a long way and have a lot to be proud of. Western women have fought hard and bravely for rights and privileges that were denied to generations of women before them and have made vast strides towards greater equality and representation in society. For this, western women and traditional feminism should be applauded.

At the same time, the version of feminism that presently functions in the west—liberal, consumer, mainstream feminism—has become problematic. That is what I wish to address in this article. I want to honestly address the issue of women. I don’t mean “women’s issues”; those have been discussed at length. I mean the issue with women, meaning the problem with certain segments of the female population in the west, namely: liberal, mainstream, consumer feminists. Before you bring out the PC (politically correct) lynch mob, please read on to understand what I mean by this.

There is a segment of the female population in the west today that is very puzzling and frustrating, especially to traditional or former left-wingers, such as myself.1 I am referring to the slut marching, pussy rioting, liberal consumer feminists that fancy themselves progressive or liberal or “left wing,” today. These are the women that fight the sexual objectification of women by sexually objectifying themselves (topless FEMEN protestors anyone).2 Or the women that talk about ‘girl power’ then turn around and applaud when a Woman of the Year Award is given to a male-turned-female woman. Or the women that think revering and emulating cheesy, female pop stars—like Madonna or Beyonce or Niki Manaj—makes them ‘fierce feminists.’

While they may think themselves politically avant guarde, many of these women come off as rather apolitical and seem to have purchased ‘feminism’ as a media constructed/promoted lifestyle; hence the term consumer feminists. Their ‘feminism’ or girl power is reflected largely in the products they purchase or the lifestyle choices they make. These consumer feminists mistake buying Activia yogurt (a product marketed solely to women) or practicing yoga (in stylish and expensive yoga outfits) for being political or “progressive.” Newsflash ladies: these are lifestyle choices, not political acts or movements.

Western Liberal Feminism and the US Presidential Election

And when these liberal, consumer feminists do attempt to tackle politics or political issues, it is often done through reactionary identity politics, which substitutes the personal—personal identity, personal feelings, etc—for the political in a manner that negates broader politico-economic understanding and analysis. For instance, women that support candidates like Hillary Clinton simply because she is a woman—despite her many political and geopolitical crimes and blunders. Mired in identity politics, their femaleness forces them to support a female candidate simply because of her sex, while ignoring her political actions and behaviour; however heinous it may be.

This reflects one of the many follies of identity politics: It excuses the crimes of people like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama–which includes the slaughter of innocent women and people of colour all over the world–based on their gender or race. As I argue elsewhere, it is not rational to support a president or presidential candidate simply because they are a racial minority or a woman. And I say this as a female racial minority.

Nor is it constructive to build a “political” protest movement centred mainly on feelings of personal offense.  A few days ago I was offered a pink hat with cat-shaped ears on it (the “pussy hat,” as it is being called), to wear as a symbol of “women’s resistance to Trump.” The pussy hat is part of the Pussyhat Project, a project begun by two American women following the 2016 US election. According to Business Insider, the hat’s name was inspired by Trump’s 2005 comments in the Access Hollywood audio leaked in October 2016, “in which he bragged about grabbing women by their genitals.”3

According one of its co-founders, the Pussyhat Project is “about women refusing to be erased from political discussion,” reports Business Insider.  While I am not sure exactly what she means by this, it seems to suggest that given that Hillary Clinton is a woman, and given that she lost the election, women—especially those women that voted for Hillary Clinton—are now being “erased” from political discussion. That does not make much sense. Are we to believe that Hillary Clinton lost the election because she is a woman? Last year in the UK, a female Prime Minister, Teresa May, was voted in and replaced the former male Prime Minister, David Cameron. Does that mean that men in the UK are being “erased” from the political discussion?

While there is a disproportionate amount of men in western politics in general, this did not begin with the 2016 US election, and statements about women being erased from political discussion need to be politically and historically situated and qualified. The Pussyhat Project and the sea of pink at the “Women’s March on Washington D.C.” on January 21 (the day after Trump’s inauguration), with thousands of women adorned in fuzzy pink ‘pussy hats,’ served to confirm something I have thought for many years now: That western women—especially liberal, consumer ‘feminists’—are extremely conformist and easy to manipulate as well as contradictory.

Where was the female indignation during the eight years of the Obama administration, when Obama and a female Secretary of State (in the first four years) repeatedly and systematically war mongered and deployed drones to kill scores of innocent people overseas, many of them minorities and women? Where was their women’s march on Washington, D.C. then? It simply did not exist. There were no mass women’s marches or female protest movements against the previous US administration, despite its myriad political, economic, and geopolitical crimes and atrocities.

While the Obama administration was among the most imperial and war mongering in US history, continuing and intensifying many of the policies of the George W. Bush era. And while Obama failed to keep any of his campaign promises, such as his promise to close Guantanamo Bay or to end the war on terror, there was no mass female uprising against him and his administration. Of course, during the Obama administration, the mainstream media were its biggest cheerleaders. The media was not helping to “trigger” women and rile them up as they are at present.

But protesting topless or wearing a pink hat does not, in and of itself, make you political. At best it makes you a cliché and, at worst, it makes you controlled (or fake) opposition. For there is nothing genuinely political or oppositional about following a herd trend, even if that trend is said to be a political statement or a “symbol of political resistance.”

Identity Politics is a Diversion From Bigger Issues

Identity politics is a form of political capitulation that gives into the establishment. It is a distraction from, and substitution for, a failed economy and a failed political system. Identity politics replaces political and economic power and choice, or lack there of, with personal choice and personal empowerment. The personal freedoms granted under identity politics—for instance, the freedom to choose among the ever-growing number of genders, etc—can mask how politically and economically un-free and powerless we are.

Under the present global neocon/neoliberal politico-economic mono-culture, people are increasingly politically and economically disenfranchised and dis-empowered. Rather than focus on the ever-creeping economic collapse, escalating unemployment, political dis-empowerment, the growing police and surveillance state, and the general economic despair that plagues much of the world’s population, identity politics (and contemporary progressives in general) points our attention towards differences, personal identity and personal choice. How convenient for the global power structure/elites. This is especially true among that segment of the western female population—liberal, consumer ‘feminists’—that I describe above.

Western Liberal Feminists are Largely Apolitical

While Donald Trump’s misogynistic comments may  warrant criticism, the problem with pussyhat wearing mainstream/consumer feminists is that they protest against him largely because they are personally offended. These women are apolitical in the broader, general sense. While they are raging against the pussy-grabbing Trump, they are silent on—if not oblivious of—the myriad other political, economic and, geopolitical problems and crises that plague humanity at present.

If these women were truly politically or critically minded, they would not have rallied behind the likes of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. This is not about “defending Trump,” but about pointing out that a lack of political perception and critical analysis makes many ‘feminists’ blind to the crimes of the previous US administration as well as to the globalized, militarized, neoliberal/neocon politico-economic power structure in general.

Western, liberal mainstream/consumer feminism is different than radical feminism, socialist feminism, and, especially, third world feminism. This topic is too complex to address here. For now I merely wish to note that much of what passes for ‘feminism’ in the west today would potentially be questioned by veteran feminists and/or more political and class-based understandings of feminism as well as by third world feminism.

For instance, unlike many western feminists, who tout gender neutrality and the “anything you can do, I can do better” mentality, “African feminists do not attempt to rob the man of his value and worth. They simply want to be given value and worth, as well.” As Dr. Hildra Tadria of Uganda, member of the African Women Leaders Network (AWLN) and co-founder of the African Women’s Development Fund explains, “For us, the fight is to dignify what the African woman does, not to try to get her to do what the African man does.” 4

For African feminists one of the most curious aspects of western liberal feminism is its emphasis on “sexual liberalization” or hyper-sexuality. Most third world feminism is not about sexual freedom but freedom from over sexualization and over objectification. While mainstream western feminists often use the term “rape culture” to describe the west, there are many countries in the world wherein women do indeed live under the constant threat of rape–where rape and sexual violence are rampant and ignored by the state. For these women, feminism includes the desire and struggle to be less sexualized.

Ironically, while contemporary western ‘feminists’ also claim to oppose the sexual objectification of women, they often employ sexual objectification as a tool to fight or denounce it (see the slim and sexy FEMEN protesters in the picture above). While this tactic may be aimed at reclaiming the female form and female sexuality, it is ultimately counter-productive in a society where the naked form (both male and female) is still seen as sexual. Protesting topless or naked takes attention, especially media attention, away from the issues these women are protesting, and focuses it instead on bare breasts and naked bodies. Here, the image ultimately distracts from—and upstages—the message.

I am aware that criticizing these types of women may be seen as catering to the divide and conquer tactics of the power establishment on some level; since we should seek to unite with others, not criticize them. But the liberal feminism of the fake left has reached a point of absurdity and counter-productiveness that simply cannot be ignored. And western women have to have the courage to call it out.

While wearing a fuzzy ‘pussy hat’ or slut marching topless may be said to be a symbol of ‘resistance;’ I ask, resistance to what? It most certainly is not resistance to globalist power or the US establishment. Let us not forget that, prior to Trump’s victory, there was very little anti-government dissent among so-called feminists and progressives in the US. Nor was there much resistance or opposition among them to the imperial war machine and western interventions abroad, which was as robust as ever—if not more robust—under the supposed feel-good regime of Barack Obama and his sidekick, Hillary. Indeed many on the new/fake left (including liberal feminists) support these imperial, regime change interventions, in the name of liberating oppressed women or protecting human rights,etc.

Final Thoughts

It appears that second and third wave western feminism has degenerated into something that is at once apolitical (or faux political), consumerist, and a service to the global establishment. In the midst of the feel-good, reactionary spectacle of contemporary western feminism, there seems to be very little that is political or left wing in the traditional sense, meaning politics and protest that is critical of hegemonic power, Empire, imperial wars, economic collapse and despair, unemployment, and class issues.5 You know, all those “old fashioned” and un-hip issues that the left used to care about before identity politics took over and/or forced its way in.

It also appears that contemporary ‘feminists’ have been manipulated through marketing and mainstream media and sold a clichéd lifestyle as politics and political opposition. Yet, as mentioned above, their form of politics—i.e., identity politics—actually serves the establishment inasmuch as liberal feminists, and liberals or ‘progressives’ in general, readily support imperial wars, policies and interventions. In this way, these groups have (unwittingly) become pawns and proxies of the global politico-economic power structure.

While the personal may be political, it will never be more political than actual politics and political consciousness. In reality, identity politics is the opposite of politics, in that, traditionally, politics or public engagement dealt with common issues, whereas identity politics further fragments consensus and is extremely divisive. Identity politics–women competing with men or racial groups pitted against one another–reflects the divide and conquer desires and strategy of the elite, since the masses are always weaker when they are divided. It forces a false polemic that stands in the way of consensus building, collective identity, and unity. As the old activist saying goes, “the people united will never be defeated.” Identity politics flies in the face of this and does the exact opposite; it divides people at a historical juncture when unity is most urgently needed.

Western liberal feminism has succumbed to the divisive and diversionary agenda of identity politics. I for one am not moved by the media-driven, diversionary spectacle of women in pink hats or topless FEMEN protestors, which is reactionary and provocative but lacking in deeper political thought and analysis. Like so much else on the establishment or fake left, it reeks of simulacra, or, put another way, it is more spectacle than substance.

So you can keep your pussyhat, ladies, this woman has more on her mind than what’s between her legs.

 Notes

1 I no longer use the term left wing due to identity politics. It should also be noted that I do not identity as a feminist. If I had to use a label it would be anti-imperialist humanist.

2 I am not “shaming” women for going topless but simply pointing out the contradiction of doing so in order to oppose the sexual objectification of women.

3 While misogynistic comments—such as those made by Trump—may warrant criticism, he made those comments privately. As Hillary Clinton once told a group of Wall Street banking executives in an email exchange leaked on wikileaks, “you need both a public and private position.” I’m sure Hillary’s husband Bill’s private “position” on women would be even more shocking than Trump’s. Bill is a notorious womanizer and his private comments on women and their bodies would likely leave many horrified.

4http://www.newdmagazine.com/apps/articles/web/articleid/76478/columnid/default.asp

5 Today class is not just about money or income, nor is it simply about the means of production. Today class it is equally about, if not more about, similarities in the way people live and the things they do.

WINTER

It is now winter in Kabul, end of February 2017. At night the temperature gets near zero. The mountains surrounding the city are covered by snow.

It feels much chillier than it really is.

Soon it will be 16 years since the US/UK invasion of the country, and 16 years since the Bonn Conference, during which Hamid Karzai was “selected” to head the Afghan Interim Administration.

Almost everyone I spoke to in Afghanistan agrees that things are rapidly moving from bad to rock bottom.

Afghans, at home and abroad, are deeply pessimistic. With hefty allowances and privileges, at least some foreigners based in Kabul are much more upbeat, but ‘positive thinking’ is what they are paid to demonstrate.

Historically one of the greatest cultures on Earth, Afghanistan is now nearing breaking point, with the lowest Human Development Index (2015, HDI, compiled by the UNDP) of all Asian nations, and the 18^th lowest in the entire world (all 17 countries below it are located in Sub-Saharan Africa). Afghanistan has also the lowest life expectancy in Asia (WHO, 2015).

While officially, the literacy rate stands at around 60%, I was told by two prominent educationalists in Kabul that in reality it is well below 50%, while it is stubbornly stuck under 20% for women and girls.

Statistics are awful, but what is behind the numbers? What has been done to this ancient and distinct civilization, once standing proudly at the crossroad of major trade routes, influencing culturally a great chunk of Asia, connecting East and West, North and South?

How deep, how permanent is the damage?

During my visit, I was offered but I refused to travel in an armored, bulletproof vehicle. My ageing “horse” became a beat-up Corolla, my driver and translator a brave, decent family man in possession of a wonderful sense of humor. Although we became good friends, I never asked him to what ethnic group he belonged. He never told me. I simply didn’t want to know, and he didn’t find it important to address the topic. Everyone knows that Afghanistan is deeply divided ‘along its ethnic lines’. As an internationalist, I refuse to pay attention to anything related to ‘blood’, finding all such divisions, anywhere in the world, unnatural and thoroughly unfortunate. Call it my little stubbornness; both my driver and me were stubbornly refusing to acknowledge ethnic divisions in Afghanistan, at least inside the car, while driving through this marvelous but scarred, stunning but endlessly sad land.

KABUL

One day you and your driver, who is by then your dear friend, are driving slowly over the bridge. Your car stops. You get out in the middle of the bridge, and begin photographing the clogged river below, with garbage floating and covering its banks. Children are begging, and you soon notice that they are operating in a compact pack, almost resembling some small military unit. In Kabul, as in so many places on earth, there is a rigid structure to begging.

After a while, you continue driving on, towards the Softa Bridge, which is located in District 6.

Where you are appears to be all messed up, endlessly fucked up.

You were told to come to this neighborhood, to witness a warzone inside the city, to see ‘what the West has done to the country’. There are no bullets flying here, and no loud explosions. In fact, you hear almost nothing. You actually don’t see any war near the Softa Bridge; you only see Death, her horrid gangrenous face, her scythe cutting all that is still standing around her, cutting and cutting, working in extremely slow motion.

Again, as so many times before, you are scared. You were scared like this several times before: in Haiti, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Timor Leste, Iraq, and Peru, to name just a few countries. In those places, as well as here in Kabul, you are not frightened because you could easily lose your life any moment, or because your safety might be in danger. What dismays you, what you really cannot stomach, are the images of despair, those of ‘no way out’, of absolute hopelessness. Lack of hope is killing you, it horrifies you; everything else can always be dealt with.

People you see all around can hardly stand on their feet. Many cannot stand at all. Most of them are stoned, laying around in rags, sitting in embryonic positions, or moving aimlessly back and forth, staring emptily into the distance. Some are urinating publicly. Syringes are everywhere.

Drug dealers living in holes

There are holes, deep and wide, filled with motionless human bodies.

First you drive around, photographing through the cracked glass, then you roll down the window, and at the end, you get out and begin working, totally exposed. You have no idea what may happen in the next few seconds. Someone begins shouting at you, others are throwing stones, but they are too weak and the stones just hit your shoulder and legs, softly, without causing any harm.

Then a bomb goes off, not far from where you are. There is an explosion in the 6^th District, right in front of a police station. You cannot see it, but you can clearly hear the blast. It is a muffled yet powerful bang. You look at your phone.

Explosion in District 6

It is March 1^st, 2017, Kabul. Later you learn that several people died just a few hundred meters from where you were working, while several others perished in the 12^th District, another few kilometers away.

The smoke begins rising towards the sky. Sirens are howling and several ambulances are rushing towards the site. Then countless military Humvees begin shooting one after another in the same direction, followed by heavier and much clumsier armored vehicles. You are taking all this in, slowly; photographing the scene, and then snapping from some distance a monumental but still semi-destroyed Darul Aman Palace.

And so it goes.

*

Tall concrete walls are scarring, fragmenting the city. In Kabul, almost anything worth protecting is now fenced. Some partitions and barriers are simply enormous, almost unreal. There are walls sheltering all foreign embassies and government buildings, palaces, military bases, police stations and banks, as well as the United Nations compounds, even most of the private schools and hotels. The Hamid Karzai international airport is encompassed by perimeters that could put to shame most of the Cold War lines: from the parking area one has to walk almost one kilometer to the entrance of the international terminal, with luggage and through the countless security checks.

Of course Western institutions and organizations have the most impressive fences, as well as the Afghan military and military bases and government offices.

Enormous surveillance drone-zeppelins are levitating above the city.

It could all be seen as thoroughly grotesque, even laughable, but no one is amused. It is all very serious, damn serious here.

Afghanistan has been gradually overtaken by something absolutely foreign: by the Western-style security apparatus. Tens of thousands of highly paid North American and European ‘experts’ have been getting extremely busy, fulfilling their secret wet dream: fencing everything in sight, monitoring each and every movement in the capital city, building taller and taller barriers, while installing the latest hi-tech cameras at almost every intersection, and above each gate.

*

Not far from the Embassy of the United States of America (or more precisely, not far from the Great Chinese Wall-size fence encompassing it), I noticed a familiar complex of buildings, reminding me of those that used to be constructed in all corners of Eastern Europe and Cuba. I asked my friend to drive into one of the compounds.

This is how I entered “Makroyan”.  We killed the engine, and everything around us was suddenly quiet, almost dormant. Time stopped here. There was a certain mild decay detectable all around the area, but upon a closer look, those old apartment buildings were still looking decent and strong, with very impressive public spaces in between them. Here I felt that I was allowed a rare glimpse of an old, socialist Afghanistan.

I stopped in between two entrances of Block 21: No.2 and No.3. I looked up to the 4^th floor. Who is living there now? Who used to live here before, some 25, even 30 years ago?

Makroyan Block 21

A destroyed office chair was standing aimlessly in the middle of a parking lot, and an old, disabled man was crawling desolately on all fours, moving away from the block. There was a Soviet-built school right next to Block 21. It used to be known as Dosti primary school, and I was told that during the war, it was bombed a couple of times and lots of kids died inside it. Now the school is private and it has a new name – it is ‘Alfath’, a high school.

Apart from a few loose, rusty wires and fences, everything looks decent and semi-neat. This is where many members of the diminishing Kabul middle class still prefer to live. Blocks of Makroyan are reassuring; they radiate safety and permanency, while being surrounded by a volatile and frightening universe.

All of a sudden, I imagined a boy and a girl, who perhaps used to live here, so many years ago. As children in all other parts of the world do at that age, they were just slowly beginning to discover life, starting to formulate their dreams and expectations. In those days, the new leafy neighborhood would have been like a promise of a brighter future, of a much better country.

Then suddenly, full stop.

A war. A sudden end to all that the future was promising. Collapse of optimism, or enthusiasm, of confidence. Only death and destruction, and shattered dreams, remained. For those who were at least somehow lucky: a bitterness and then a hasty flight, instead of ultimate misery and death. Full stop. Total reset. Everything collapsed. But life never stops, it goes on, it always does. Things re-composed, somehow, not idyllically, but they did.

For a long time, I kept staring at Block 21. Memories kept coming, as if I used to live there myself, many years ago, when I was a child. I hardly noticed that it was getting very cold. I began to shiver. I didn’t want to leave, but I had to. Fresh pomegranate juice at a local street stall brought me back to reality, it woke me, but it didn’t managed to warm me up.

GREAT HISTORY, CHANGING CULTURE, AN ON-GOING OCCUPATION AND FEAR

A renowned Afghan intellectual, Dr. Omara Khan Masoudi, who used to be, among many other things, the former head of the National Museum, is now bitter about the changes invading the culture of his country:

In the past, we had also many ethnic groups living in this country, but they used to coexist in harmony. Then, our culture got influenced by conflicts and violence.

Before the war, it was the culture that used to represent us in the world. However, during and after the war, our cultures were used to justify the conflict.

Dr. Masoudi told me that he thinks it is wrong when culture falls into the hands of divisive politicians. “If culture is politicized, it loses its essence”, he declared.

I asked him whether he thinks it also applies to Latin America, to the former Soviet Union and China, where (at least to a great extent) ‘politicized culture’ has been playing an extremely important role, determining the course of development. He smiled, replying:

To be precise, politicizing cultures is not always such a bad thing… When it’s done, for instance, in order to achieve social progress or equality, I have nothing against it. But I am outraged when people like some religious leaders; Shia, Sunni or even some extremists, do it… Culture is very broad, and religions are only a part of it. But in Afghanistan, religious leaders have been using the culture for their narrow-minded interests.

In a coffee shop, which is lost somewhere inside the wilderness of an international and United Nations compound called ‘The Green Village’, my Japanese friend and Head of the Culture Unit of UNESCO, Mr. Masanori Nagaoka, explained:

Afghanistan or Ancient Ariana, as many ancient Greek and Roman authors referred to the region in antiquity, can be acknowledged as the multi-cultural cradle of Central Asia, linking East and West via historically significant trade conduits that also conveyed ideas, concepts and languages as a cultural by-product of fledgling international commerce. As a result, contemporary Afghanistan is a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual society with a complex history stretching back many millennia. The numerous civilizations are attested to in the archaeological record, both indigenous and foreign….

However, he is well aware of the complexities faced by the country and the culture torn apart by lethal conflicts of the last decades and centuries.

Afghanistan is unfortunately also a nation fragmented by a history of protracted conflict, exacerbated by geographic isolation for many communities and limited or unequal access to infrastructure and resources, both regionally and demographically. As a nominal starting point, the ongoing rehabilitation process in Afghanistan needs to address these issues if the nation is to unify under a common objective, fostering a veracious society free from conflict and where ethnic diversity is recognized for its social, cultural and economic benefits rather than, as is often the case, seen as a hindrance to particular developmental objectives. Part of the solution to this problem lies in the campaign of a positive public discussion to promote inter-cultural understanding and to raise awareness of the potential that such discourse has to contribute to the broader goals of rapprochement, peace-building and economic development in Afghanistan.

I flew to the city of Herat, where I witnessed tremendous masterpieces of architecture, from the marvelous and recently restored Citadel (as valuable as the citadels of Aleppo and Erbil), to the Friday Mosque and amazing, unique minarets rising proudly towards the sky.

How familiar all those architectural treasures appeared! On several occasions I approached Nasir, my local friend who was always eager to share the impressive history of his region: “Look, this could be in Delhi… and this in Samarkand!”

Sure enough, the most visited world heritage site in India, Qutub Minar, situated right outside New Delhi, is perhaps the greatest symbol of the Indo-Islamic Afghan architecture, while both Herat and Samarkand were connected by the Silk Road and historically kept influencing each other.

In Afghanistan, the history, the occupation and the on-going conflict: everything seems to be thoroughly intertwined.

Italian troops took over ancient Citadel in Herat City

During my work there, the Citadel of Herat was literally taken over by Italian troops. I was told that some high-ranking NATO officer was visiting the site, and with no shame, a fully armed Italian commando was roaming around, “securing” every corner of the vast courtyard. As if Afghans had lost control of their own country! 

De-mining work in Herat

On closer examination, the madrassa of Hussein Baiqara is, in reality, still a minefield. In between four stunning minarets, a de-mining team from local “Halo Trust” was manually searching for unexploded ordinances. I was allowed to enter, but only as a war correspondent and at my own risk, definitely not as a ‘tourist’.

“On this site, we already found two mines and 10 unexploded ordinances”, I was told by one of the Halo Trust experts. “Now this entire area is off-limits to the public. Not long ago, one child was badly injured here; he lost his leg.”

Nothing is peaceful in Afghanistan, not even ancient historic sites.

*

Not much is questioned here.

Positive talk about the ancient history and culture is generally encouraged, but to discuss dramatic changes in modern Afghan culture, those that occurred as a result of the US/UK invasion and the present on-going NATO occupation of the country, is almost entirely off-limits. In fact, even the word itself – ‘occupation’ – could hardly be heard. Instead, such jargons as ‘protection’, ‘defense’ and ‘international help’ have been implanted deeply and systematically into the psyche of most Afghan people.

The culture that was known for long centuries for its passion for freedom and independence seems broken. While Afghans resisted heroically against all past British invasions, while some of them fought the Soviet incursion, there is presently no organized and united (national, not religious) opposition against the Western occupation of the country.

I met academic Jawid Amin, from the Academy of Social Sciences of Afghanistan, in a small guardroom in front of the Museum of Modern Arts in Kabul.

I asked him, whether there is any art, or any group of intellectuals openly critical of the United States, and of the occupation. He replied, sincerely:

We don’t have anyone openly critical of the US or the West here, because it is simply not allowed by the government. I personally don’t like the Americans, but I can’t say more… Even I work for the government. My brother and sister are living in the United States. And about critical arts: nothing could be exhibited here without permission from the government and since Karzai, the government is controlled by the West…

A prominent Afghan intellectual, Omaid Sharifi, explained over the phone: “In the provinces, you can still see paintings depicting killing of civilians by the US drones… but not in Kabul.”

I’m trying to work as fast as possible, meeting people who are helping to shed light on the situation. Eventually, a dire picture begins to form.

I met a Japanese reporter who has been living in Afghanistan for almost a quarter of a century. Her assessment of the situation was to a large extent pessimistic:

Afghans had very little choice… It is 100% true that behind Karzai’s government was the US… Afghans didn’t want to accept foreign intervention, but soon they learned how money plays an important role.  The entire Afghan culture is now changing, even some essential elements of it like hospitality: people don’t want to spend money on it, or they don’t have any that they can spare…

I asked Dr. Masoudi why Afghan culture did not accept Soviets and their egalitarian, socially oriented ideals, while it seems to be tolerating the Western invasion, which is spreading inequality, desperation and subservience. He replied, passionately:

The biggest mistake the Soviet Union made here was to attack religion out rightly. If they’d first stick to equal rights, and slowly work it up towards the contradictions of religion, it could perhaps work… But they began blaming religion for our backwardness, in fact for everything. Or at least this is how it was interpreted by the coalition of their enemies, and of course by the West.

Now, why is the Western invasion ‘successful’? Look at the Karzai regime… During his rule, the US convinced people that Western intervention was ‘positive’, ‘respectful of their religion and cultures’. They kept repeating ‘under this and that UN convention’, and again ‘as decided by the UN’… They used NATO, a huge group of countries, as an umbrella. There was a ‘brilliantly effective’ protocol that they developed… According to them, they never did anything unilaterally, always by ‘international consensus’ and in order to ‘help Afghan people’. On the other hand, the Soviet Union had never slightest chance to explain itself. It was attacked immediately, and on all fronts.

“Opposition to Western occupation? Anti-Western art?” A Russian cultural expert in Kabul was clearly surprised by my question.

First of all, the Taliban destroyed most artistic traditions of this country. But also, the economic and social situation in this country is so desperate, that hardly anyone has time to think about some larger picture. More than 60% of Afghans are jobless. One thing you also should remember: Afghan people are very proud and very freedom loving, as the history illustrated, but they are also extremely patient. Go and see The British Cemetery. It was built in 1879 to hold the dead of the second Anglo-Afghan War, but despite all that the UK did to this country, and despite all recent wars and conflicts, it was never attacked, never damaged.

It is true. I never heard anyone discussing this topic. All horrid British crimes committed on the territory of Afghanistan seem to be forgotten, at least for now.

But that’s not all: nobody here seems to have any appetite for recalling those horrors of the last decades, triggered by Western imperialism. Not once I observed any discussion addressing the main topic of modern Afghan history: how the West managed to trick the Soviets into invading Afghanistan in 1979, and how it created and then armed the vilest bunch of religious fanatics – the Mujahedeen. And how, subsequently, both countries – Afghanistan and the Soviet Union – were thoroughly destroyed in the process.

All was done, of course, with “great respect” for the Afghan nation, for its culture and traditions, as well as (how else) religion.

I’d love to be an invisible witness in a modern history class at the American University of Afghanistan, a ‘famed’ institution that is literally regurgitating thousands of collaborators, manufacturing a new breed of obedient pro-Western ‘elites’.

As we drive past Jamhuriat Hospital (Republic Hospital), which had a new 10- story building, with capacity for 350 patients, constructed by China in 2004, my driver, Mr. Tahir, sighs: “This was really a great gift from China to us… the Chinese really work hard, don’t they?”

“They have plenty of zeal and enthusiasm”, I uttered carefully. “Socialist fervor, you know. They sincerely believe in building, improving their country and the world. It is quite contrary to Western nihilism and extreme individualism…”

“They must love their country…”

“They do.”

“Afghanistan is poor”, Mr. Tahir’s face became suddenly sad. “Our people don’t love their country, anymore. They don’t work to improve it. They only work for themselves now, for their families…”

“Was it different before? You know…” I made an abstract gesture with my hand. “Before all this…”

“Of course it used to be very different”, he replied, grinning again.

NOTHING SOCIAL LEFT, NOTHING SOCIALIST WANTED

I stopped several people who were just walking down the street, in various parts of Kabul. I wanted to understand some basics: was there anything social left in Afghanistan? Did Western ‘liberation’ bring at least some progress, social development and improved standards of living?

Most answers were thoroughly gloomy. Only those people who were working or moonlighting for the Western military, for the embassies, the NGOs or other ‘international contractors’, were to some extent optimistic.

I was explained that almost everyone in the countryside and provincial cities were out off work. Unemployment among university graduates stood at over 80%.

In Herat, a city of almost half a million inhabitants, a long and depressing line was winding in front of the Iranian embassy. I was told that tens of thousands have already migrated to the other side of the border. Now Afghans who were attempting to visit their relatives living in Iran were told to leave a 300-euro deposit, in case they decide not to return.

I asked what Herat is producing, and was told, without any irony: “mainly just some washing powder and biscuits”. Tourism from Iran stood at only about 150 people a year! The area between the city and the border has been dangerous, and there are frequent kidnappings.

In most provincial cities, a regular family has to get by on 2.300 – 2.500 Afghanis per month, which is not much more than US$30.

Government supplies run water mainly to the government housing projects. People living elsewhere have to dig their own wells.

Electricity is expensive, and an average family in Kabul is now expected to pay around US$35 per month. Even in the capital, many people have to get by without electricity. Indian ‘investors’ are in partnership with the government. Electricity supplies, and even water, are perceived as ‘business ventures’, not as basic social services.

Counting on a decent public transportation in the past, Kabul is now forced to rely on private vehicles, and on those few ‘city buses’ that are ‘pro-profit’ and mainly privately owned and operated.

There are government schools in Afghanistan, and in theory they are free, but books, pencils, uniforms and other basics are not.

In fact, perhaps the most impressive modern structure in Kabul, is actually the 10-story building to Jamhuriat Hospital, a gift from the People’s Republic of China, not from the West.

One wonders where is that fabled great ‘assistance’ from the United States and Europe really going? Perhaps to the millions of tons of concrete, used for construction of the massive fences? Perhaps money sponsors’ purchases of high-tech cameras and surveillance systems, as well as the high-life of thousands of Western ‘contractors’ and ‘security experts’?

I spoke to more than hundreds of Afghan people. Almost no one was ready to mention socialism. As if this wonderful word disappeared, was erased from the local lexicon.

“They actually remember socialism very fondly”, my Japanese acquaintance based in Kabul once told me. “However, talking about it is not encouraged. It may cause all sorts of problems.”

WESTERN (TEMPORARY) VICTORY

While in Kabul, I was told by one of the local experts working for an international organization:

The National Education Strategic Plan (NESP) for Afghanistan was just drafted… The funding came from the West. Many meetings were held directly at the US embassy and at the offices of the World Bank. The Afghan Ministry of Education had very little say about the curriculum, which was basically dictated by the Western countries…

I cannot quote the source of this information, as she would most probably lose her position for expressing such views.

She later clarified further:

The policy decisions on education are proposed by donor parties, which are mostly Western countries. The Ministry of Education, with limited capacity, has a lesser role in drafting the NESP III policy. Instead of building the capacity of the government, donor countries are taking the leading role in changing the education system and this does not ensure a sustainable education for Afghanistan whatsoever.

As in all client states of the West, education in Afghanistan is manipulated and geared to serve the interests of the West. It is expected to produce obedient and unquestioning masses. Instead of determined and productive patriots, it is regurgitating butlers of the regime, which is in turn serving predominately foreign interests.

Almost all information flows through the channels that are at least to some extent influenced from abroad: social media, television networks as well as the printed media.

The fabled Afghan spirit of resistance and courage has been (hopefully only temporarily) brutally broken, under the supervision of highly professional foreign indoctrinators and propagandists.

Those who are willing to collaborate with the occupation forces are suddenly not even hiding it, carrying their condition proudly as if a coat of arms, not as a shame. Many are now delighted to be associated with the West and its institutions.

In fact, the occupation is not even called occupation, anymore, at least not by the elites who are well rewarded by the system for their linguistic and intellectual somersaults and pirouettes.

And Afghan people keep leaving.

Afghanistan is shedding its most talented sons and daughters, every day, every month, irreversibly.

Ms. Yukiko Matsuyoshi, a former Japanese diplomat, presently a UN education expert, is worried about the current trends in Afghanistan, a country where she spent several years:

Now the social classes have been re-created after the fall of Taliban, but the country seems to have no ideology. People just follow trends that are thrown their way. There is corruption, there is that huge poppy business, and there are palaces. And there is misery in the countryside, hardly any access to information. Afghans are leaving their country. Whoever can, goes: good people, government people…it seems like everyone tries to escape.

All of a sudden, the West is perceived like some Promised Land. Those who make it there are bragging about their new ‘home’, sending colorful images through social media: Disneyland, Hollywood, German castles…

I have seen the other side of the coin, in terrible refugee camps in Greece, in the French Calais camps; people drowning while attempting to cross the sea from Turkey to the European Union.

There is no discussion whether Afghanistan should be capitalist or socialist, anymore. Debate has stopped. The decision has been made, somewhere else, obviously.

The faces of Northern Alliance leaders are ‘decorating’ (or some would say, ‘scarring’) all major roads on which I drove. Ahmad Shah Massoud became a national hero, during the Karzai regime.

I travelled more than 100 kilometers north, to see Massoud’s grave, or a thumb, or whatever that monstrosity they erected above the splendid Panjshir Valley really is. Hordes of people drive there on weekends, some all the way from Kabul, and there are even those who pray to the ‘leader’.

The former “anti-Soviet” and anti-Communist fighter, he is certainly a perfect ‘hero’, whose memory is groomed by the pro-Western regime.

Driving through the Panjshir Valley, I saw several Soviet tanks and armored vehicles, rotting by the side of the road. I also saw a destroyed village, an eerie reminder of the war. It is called Dashtak. Clay houses look like a cemetery, like a horrid monument.

Village in the North destroyed during the war

I took photos and sent them to Kabul, to my friends, for identification. I want to know, I felt that I had to know, who razed this town by the river, surrounded by such stunning mountains.

The answer came in a just few minutes: “I think it was in 1984, by the Soviet Union”. What followed was a link leading to a book published in the West, quoting some former Ukrainian, Soviet adviser to an Afghan battalion commander. The name of the book was “The Bear Went Over the Mountain”.

The quote did not sound too convincing. “Let’s go back”, I asked my driver and translator. “Let’s talk to people on the other side of the river’.

We found three inhabitants, in three different parts of the village; three people old enough to remember what took place here, some 30 years ago. All three testimonies coincided: Massoud’s forces brought refugees from several other parts of the valley. Before the battle began, all of them left. During the combat, clay houses were destroyed, but no civilians died inside.

There are always many different interpretations of the historic events. However, the analyses of modern Afghan history disseminated by the West and the Afghan regime among the Afghan people, are suspiciously unanimous and frighteningly one-sided. I am definitely planning to revisit this point during my next trip to the country. I see it as essential. The future of Afghanistan certainly depends on understanding the past.

*

There are huge zeppelin-drones, vile-looking airborne surveillance stuff, hovering over the US air force base near Bagram. The same drones could be seen levitating over Kabul, but in the Bagram area, with the dramatic backdrop of the mountains, they look particularly dreadful.

The air force base is huge. It appears even bigger than Incerlik near Adana in Turkey. It is an absolute masterpiece of military vulgarity, with watch towers everywhere, with barbed wire, several layers of concrete walls, surveillance cameras and powerful lights. If this is not an occupation, then what really is?

Again, my driver is totally cool. I want to photograph this monstrosity, and he drives me around, so we can identify a truly good spot. I’m ‘calculating light’, looking for the correct angle, so during the sunset, those who would be observing us from inside the ‘castle’, would be blinded, and we could get at least a few decent images.

I’m aware of the fact that in Afghanistan, the Empire often kills anything that moves, at the slightest suspicion or without any suspicion at all, as for them human lives of the local people count for almost nothing.

Once the sun goes down, I begin working fast.

Somehow I feel that my visit to Afghanistan would be incomplete, without getting at least some images of the base – one of the most expressive symbols of the occupation.

So this is what Afghanistan became under the Western ‘liberating’ boots! Barbed wires, foreign jet fighters, concrete walls everywhere, battles with the religious fundamentalist elements (invented and manufactured by the West), grotesque savage capitalism, ignorant or shameless collaboration, and guns, guns and guns, as well as misery in almost every corner, and one of the lowest life expectancies and standards of living on Earth! And of course, people escaping, leaving this beautiful country behind – a country, which is suddenly unloved, humiliated, abandoned by so many!

This is all happening only roughly four decades after the heroic attempts to build some great social housing projects, after the implementation of a well-functioning public transportation network, public education and medical care, as well as an attempt to introduce secularism, while building a decent, egalitarian society.

The glorious victory of Western imperialism over one of the oldest and greatest cultures seems to be complete. The Brits tried, on several occasions; they murdered and tortured, but were defeated. They never forgave. They waited for decades, and then returned with their muscular and aggressive offspring. And here they are, all of them, now!

Afghanistan appears to be exhausted and defeated. It is badly injured, and it has been dragged through unimaginable dirt.

But I don’t think it is crushed, by the West or by the religious fundamentalists, or by these two historical allies.

Deep inside, Afghanistan knows better. It already experienced many years of hope; it knows the taste of it. During long centuries and millennia of its existence, it survived several dreadful moments, but it always stood up again, undefeated and proud. I’m certain that it will rise again.

Flying, driving or walking through its magnificent mountains, I often felt that Afghanistan is like a living organism, it was winking at me, letting me know that it is alive, that it sees everything that goes on, that it is not futile at all to struggle for its future.

*

I watched the stubs of the electric contacts that used to hold, some decades ago, those long wires used by the legendary Kabul trolley bus network.

“Those beautiful vehicles came from former Czechoslovakia”, a man, an office worker, whom I stopped in the center of the city, told me. “They were beautiful, and do you know who used to drive them? Some young girls; optimistic women who were for some reason always in a good mood.”

Apparently Kabul had three trolleybus lines, one of them originating (or ending) at the ‘Cinema Pamir’. What color were Kabul trolleybuses? I saw some photos, but those I could find were black and white. When I was a child, growing up in Czechoslovakia, ours were red. The ones in Leningrad, the city where I was born, were blue and green, some red as well. When they were accelerating, it was as if they’d be singing a simple song, or whining, complaining mockingly about their hard life.

I imagined a strong-minded, professional woman, boarding these trolleybuses. Perhaps eager to catch one of those old great Soviet movies at the Cinema Pamir, perhaps “the Dawns are Quiet Here”, or going to work or to visit different parts of the city.  She would snuggle into a comfortable seat in the electric vehicle. It was getting dark, but the city was safe. A woman behind the wheel was really smiling. There were flags flying all around the city. There was hope. There was a future. There was a country to build and to love.

Afghanistan can still fly

I had suspected that the Kabul trolleybuses were actually light blue. I have no idea why. It was just my intuition.

*

Suddenly I heard a loud bang, and then the squeaking of brakes.

“Roll up the window!” my driver was shouting. We were getting into a slum inhabited by IDPs. We left the road. Dust everywhere, absolute misery. Bagrani town, now Bagrani slums, just a few kilometers east from Kabul, on the Jalalabad Highway.

I grasped the heavy metal body of my professional Nikon.

My dream about Afghanistan of the 70’s, a gentle and enthusiastic country, abruptly ended. Now all around me were children suffering from malnutrition. I heard excited, accusatory voices of men and women who were forced to come from all corners of Afghanistan. We drove on a bumpy road, towards numerous half-collapsed clay structures and dirty tents.

“We escaped fighting in Shinwar, Helmand Province, from around Jalalabad and Kandahar”, several internally displaced persons living in Bagrani were shouting at me:

We have 1.000 families from Helmand and more than 1.000 families from Kandahar, living here. We lost our houses back in our villages and towns… People around Jalalabad lost their homes, too. Daesh (ISIS) is operating in several parts of the country… Taliban fighters are frequently changing sides, joining Daesh. There is fighting going on everywhere: Daesh, Taliban and the government forces confronting each other.

How involved is NATO in general and the US in particular, I ask, through my interpreter.

Americans are there, of course. Mostly they are fighting from the air, but sometimes they are on the ground, too.

Do they kill civilians?

“Yes, they do… Our sons, our husbands are regularly murdered by them”, shouts a woman clothed in a blue burqa, holding a small child in her arms.

Misery is everywhere, destroying the country, I’m told. And there is almost no help coming from the corrupt and the near bankrupt state.

Ms. Sidiqah, an elderly lady, is shouting in desperation and anger: “We have nothing left, but no one helps us! We don’t know what to do.”

As I photograph, a small cluster of people begin to rock the car. Things are getting tense, but I don’t feel that we are facing any immediate danger. I continue working. This is all becoming very personal. I don’t understand why, but it is…

Then, silently, a small group of people approaches us. Among them are a man with a very long beard, and a girl, with a beautiful and tragic face. She is wearing a t-shirt depicting several cute white mice, but the right sleeve is empty. She is missing her entire arm.

A girl without arm

Her face is striking. She stares directly into my camera, and when I lower the lens, I feel her eyes begin to pierce mine. Without one single word uttered, I sense clearly what she is trying to convey:

“What have you done to me?”

I try to hold her glance for at least a few seconds, but then I lower my eyes. Now I‘m in panic. I want to embrace her, hold her, take her away from here, somewhere, somehow; to adopt her, airlift her from here, give her a home, but I know that there is no way I would be allowed to do it. My glasses get very foggy. I mumble something incoherent. I am tough, I witnessed dozens of wars, I faced death on various occasions. I try to keep calm whenever I’m in places like this; whenever working. What is happening to me here and now happens very rarely, but it does happen.

It is March 4th 2017, Afghanistan. My flight is schedule to depart the next day, late in the afternoon. I know that I will take it. But I also realize, and I silently make my pledge to this tiny girl with the cute mice and an empty sleeve, that I will never fully leave her country.

*

What will happen later is predicable: yet another sleepless night. Everything will be back, play itself like a film inside my brain. Bagrani provisional camp, another camp that is housing evacuees from Kunduz, some active mine fields in the middle of Herat, those hundreds of living corpses vegetating in the middle of District 6 in Kabul, then several explosions, innumerable rotting carcasses of Soviet tanks, the eerie and enormous US air force base near Bagram, Massoud’s bizarre grave, white zeppelin-drones, concrete walls, watch towers, security checks, and hollow muzzles of various types of guns pointing in all directions.

Air force Bagrani base

I’ll be tired, exhausted, but I’ll be well aware that I have no right to rest, not now, not anytime soon.

I’ll keep thinking about Cinema Pamir, about Kabul trolleybuses, and Block 21 in the socialist-style neighborhood of Makroyan … 4^th floor, entrance 2 or perhaps 3… I’ll keep imagining what could have taken place there, if life had not been so abruptly and so brutally interrupted.

Afghanistan, a stunning but terribly scarred and injured land has been suffering from a concussion. It has been dizzy and disoriented. It can hardly walk. Still it being Afghanistan, it has been walking anyway, against all odds!

Later that night, I’ll recall what one great Cuban poet and singer Silvio Rodriquez once wrote about Nicaragua. And at one point, only a few moments before the dawn would begin returning bright colors to the world, I’ll replace Nicaragua with Afghanistan, and suddenly realize that it is exactly what I feel towards this beautiful and shattered nation: “Afghanistan hurts, as only love does.”

It hurts like love…

It hurts… terribly. Therefor, it is love.

All that would happen later, hours later. At the end I’ll stop fighting it, and simply accept.

But now, the old Toyota climbs back on the paved road. I can hardly keep my eyes open. The last several days I slept very little.

Mr. Tahir, my driver and now my comrade, looks surprisingly composed and unworried. After all this time working with me, he is clearly ready for any adventure, or any nightmare.

He hands me a bunch of tissues. My left wrist is bleeding, although not too badly. Most likely I hit or scratched something in the slums, without realizing it. My cameras feel increasingly heavy and my notebook looks filthy; I keep dropping it on the floor. My clothes look dirty, too. But we are going, we are moving forward, and that is good!

“It is all fucked up, Mr. Tahir”, I inform him, politely.

“Yes, Sir”, he replies, with an equal doze of respect. We are a good team.

“But we are going”, I remind him and myself.

“We are going, sir.”

Again my head drops on my chest. I open my eyes just a few minutes later. It is already very dark. Kabul all around me; Afghanistan. It feels good to be here. I’m glad I came.

“Where to now, sir?”

“Jalalabad, Mr. Tahir.”

“Sir? Jalalabad is behind… And at this hour…”

He is not saying no. He never says ‘no’ to any of my requests, during all those days. He is just informing me. If I was really crazy enough and insisted, he’d just take me. He knows we’d get fucked, perhaps even killed, but he would not refuse. He’s my comrade and I feel safe with him.

“Sorry, I fell asleep… What I mean: we’ll go to Jalalabad soon, when I return to Afghanistan.”

I am thinking for a few seconds. This drive, just being here, all of it feels right, exactly as it is supposed to be. I’m not certain where exactly I want to go right now, but one thing I know for sure: I have to keep going.

“Please, just drive, Mr. Tahir.”

“Forward?” He asks, intuitively. I know that he knows. We both know, but it doesn’t hurt to ask.

“Yes, please. Drive forward. Always forward!”

Text and Photos: Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are revolutionary novel “Aurora” and two bestselling works of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and  “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. View his other books here. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Al-Mayadeen. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo. After having lived in Latin America, Africa and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter.

On 9 March 2017, Douglas Chin, A federal judge in Hawaii, challenged the new executive order of President Donald Trump, dated 6 March 2017, in which he blocked citizens of six predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States.

Attorneys for the state have prepared a new request on 7 March asking a federal judge to suspend the new presidential order. Douglas Chin has stated that sections 2 and 6 of Trump’s executive order were contrary to the constitution and the laws of the US, and the president, issuing the order, has exceeded his authority.

Apparently, the reason of the issuance of the order, as has been explicated in section one thereof, is to protect the US from the terrorist attacks by foreign nationals.

Before the issuance of the new order, Trump had also issued, on 27 January 2017, executive order 13769 according to which he imposed an immigration ban on the citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, and Somalia.

In reaction to the executive order 13769 issued by president Donald Trump, District Judge James Robart of the United States District Court for Western District of Washington issued a ruling temporarily blocking major portions of the executive order. Although as a result of order 13769, and contrary to basic rules of human rights, hundreds of travellers entered into the US have been in detention for hours in the US international airports deprived from accessibility to their own families as well as from legal assistances, and more than 60,000 visas have temporary been annulled, it appears that president Donald Trump does not want to back down from his position.

Last time, although Trump administration tried to reverse Robart’s ruling, the Court of Appeal rejected the request of the Justice Department unanimously on February 9. Therefore, Trump decided to plan a new executive order banning immigrants from six countries, excluding Iraq this time for her cooperation, as has been expressed in the order, with the US-led coalition to fight against ISIS. The new order has less limitations than the order 13769.

In 2011, Obama’s state department suspended the processing of Iraqi refugee requests for six months. Also, according to H.R.158, Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, signed by Obama, the Visa Waver Program allows citizens from 38 countries to enter the US without a visa up to 90 days. Under the Program, citizens of those 38 countries who had travelled to Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Sudan after March 2011 were no longer eligible for the visa waver. Libya, Somalia, and Yemen were later added to the list.

Although the Trump administration recurrently claims that their policy is similar to that of president Obama, it seems to be fallacious for two reasons: firstly, in 2011, there was a specific threat, and secondly, Obama’s order was so much narrower in scope.

According to the section 2(c) of the new order, the entry of nationals of the above mentioned six Muslim-majority countries into the US is suspended for 90 days. It has been contended that the restrictions, as well as additional procedures, in the executive order have been taken to impede threats to the national security and welfare of the United States.

But According to a report published by Charles Kurzman, Department of Sociology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (hereafter referred to as “the report”), on 26 January 2017, terrorism by Muslims constitutes one-third of one percent of all murders in the US.

Whereas the population of Muslims in the US is about 3.3 million people, according to the report, 46 Muslim-Americans were associated with violent extremism in 2016, which has been 40 percent drop from 2015. It should be noted that according to the report, 20 percent (9 of 46) of these individuals had family background for seven countries which was subject to the limitation of the order 13769. It is worth noting that whereas Iraq has been removed from the limitations, the percentage of those individuals is less than 20 percent at the moment. Of those 46, only 24 were actually implicated in a concrete terrorist plot. On the contrary, 11000 US nationals were murdered in gun homicide, in 2016, and Trump has never issued an order to limit that violence. Hence, statistic shows that the new executive order of the US president is discriminatory.

Therefore, it seems that the new executive order, although milder than executive order 13769 with regard to the limitations, is not different to the latter, and both of them are against fundamental human rights and democracy.

According to article 4(1) of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), of which the US also is one of the members,

“In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.”

Although it is doubtful that the US is in time of public emergency, even if she was in such a situation, the order would be contrary to article 4(1) of ICCPR for its being political motivated and discriminatory against Muslim-majority countries.

Also, if the US has problems with the governments of those 6 countries, she has no logical base to create limitations against their nationals, the majority of them are not involved in politics.

It seems that once more the judiciary of the US will be exposed to another great trial. It remains to be seen how far it can withstand against Mr Trump’s support for his recurrent immigration bans, this time on the citizens of six Muslim-majority countries.

Amir Abbas Amirshekari, PhD in International Law (University of Tehran, Iran), Advocate (Iran Bar Association)

[email protected]

After six years of constant conflict between the great powers in and around Syria, the US, Russia and Turkish military leaders have gathered in Antalya, Turkey to discuss how best to coordinate their operation to drive the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham/Levant (ISIS/ISL) from Raqqa. Discussions also include operations in Iraq. Some are calling this summit a potential game changer, but that really depends on whether the new game is any improvement to the situation. 

This high-level meeting included General Staff, Turkish Chief of General Staff Gen. Hulusi Akar, Russian Chief of General Staff Gen. Valery Gerasimov, and Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford.

On the surface, it’s certainly good to see the top US, Russian and Turkish brass at the same table. Granted, this development is a direct result of the change in government in Washington, even while back home Capitol Hill is engulfed in a fit of anti-Russian hysteria where any overture or bilateral meeting between a US and Russian official is being billed as a prelude to treason. Indeed, no military dialogue with Russia would have been possible under President Obama, who seemed to be married to his Administration’s stated policy of regime change in Syria and arming and supporting Sunni extremist militant groups, many who are designated as terrorists, in Syria – both policies that are vehemently opposed by Moscow.

According to one Turkish official, speaking on condition of anonymity, the results of this trilateral meeting “could change the whole picture” in Syria. Will it be a change for the better?

That all depends of course, on the sincerity of Turkey, which, since the very beginning of this conflict in 2011, has been the number one facilitator for the war across its southern border, by allowing its country to provide safe haven to tens of thousands of terrorist fighters, as well as maintaining continuous supply lines in and out of Syria.

For nearly six years, Turkey has allowed its border city of Gaziantep to be used as the main ISIS supply center for terrorist commerce, including the trafficking of stolen goods, antiques – and also children and human organs too. It’s also the central terrorist hub for ‘opposition fighters’ – a place for recruiting, housing, training, dispatching and providing medical triage for terrorists wounded in Syria.

All this has been done under the watchful eye and supervision of NATO member state Turkey. A number of dubious western-funded ‘NGOs’ like the White Helmets are based in Gaziantep. Likewise, the joint US-NATO military facility at Incirlik Air Base is nearby, which has been used for various special training, equipping and deployment operations involving ‘rebel’ fighters. Without Turkey’s facilitation in these matters, the Syrian War might have ended years ago, with countless lives saved.

In addition, despite hollow denials by the government, Turkey has provided ISIS its main financial lifeline by trafficking in oil, stolen by ISIS from Syria, and laundered through Turkey for sale on the open market.

Meanwhile, the US military has begun its roll-out of ground assets into Syria. You wouldn’t know it if you were watching CNN though, who kept mostly busy covering ‘Women’s Day’ this week, along with labouring over idiosyncratic aspects of Obama-Trumpcare. This week reports suggest that the Pentagon just deployed a 3rd Ranger US battalion based out of Fort Benning, Georgia… inside of Syria. You would think this would be headline news, if nothing else but to ignite what is left of the liberal anti-war movement in the US who should jump at the chance to attribute this latest military action to their symbol of evil, President Donald Trump. Even FOX News passed-up on the patriotic scene of an armoured convoy of M1126 Stryker Armoured Vehicles flying Old Glory while parading through the northern Syrian countryside.

The US forces were heading for the outskirts of Manbij where they’ll be joined by Kurdish YPG forces, camped there under the latest US-sponsored militia banner de jour, a confab known as the ‘Syrian Democratic Forces’ (SDF). If the US media kept mostly quiet e about this deployment, aside from a few casual media and web references, then that’s probably what the Pentagon wanted.

Here’s where the tension lies: the United States may also have sent in ground assets as show of force in support of its allies the YPG (Kurdish People’s Protect Units in Syria). This is a potential spat between the two NATO member states –  which is a major problem for Turkey. The Turkish government considers them a terrorist organisation, an appendage to its nemesis the Kurdish PKK. It’s also a problem for Russia too, insofar as Russia is attempting détente with Turkey by coordinating military operations as they pertain to fighting ISIS in northern Syria, and with the eventual joint siege of Raqqa.

It gets worse – in addition to the Rangers armoured regiment, on Thursday the US also announced that additional US Marines from an amphibious task force have also been deployed to Syria from their ships in the Middle East, setting up artillery positions in range of Raqqa. So, that’s it – Trump is now busy putting American boots on the ground inside Syria, and meanwhile the US media and liberal establishment are still too busy obsessing over baseless Russian Hacking conspiracy theories. If there was ever a moment in history that demonstrates just how useless the Fourth Estate in America has become, this is that moment.

According to one Turkish official, this US alliance with the YPG would be an unacceptable obstacle to Turkey’s ambitions in Syria:

“… It appears that the U.S. may carry out this operation with the YPG, not with Turkey. And at the same time the U.S. is giving weapons to the YPG,” the official said.

Reuters also reports:

“Ankara has been pressing the United States to change its strategy for fighting Islamic State in Syria by abandoning the YPG and instead drawing on Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebels to retake Raqqa. Turkey views the YPG and its political affiliate the PYD as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which is waging an insurgency against the Turkish government.”

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan maintains that his military’s next target is Manbij, but the only problem is the town is already controlled by the SDF. To make matters worse for Turkey, after battling with Turkish-backed FSA rebels west of Manbij at the beginning of March, the Manbij Military Council (SDF and related militias) quickly struck a deal, apparently brokered by Russian officials, to hand over front-line villages to Syrian government control – effectively preventing the area from coming under Turkish control. This move has reportedly incensed Erdogan who hoped to keep the area under Turkish control. The situation is already complex, and therefore highly risky for the diverging interests of US and Turkey. Suffice to say, if there’s no serious coordination between all parties, not just the US, Russia and Turkey, but also the Syrian army and its allies – then the chances of success drop dramatically. That said, Manbij could easily end in tears for everyone.

Back in August 2016, western media blotted-out another important story – when Turkey invaded Syria. As usual, crickets from CNN, FOX and the rest of the press corps. At the time, Turkey was supposedly working with “Allied Syrian rebels” backed by both the United States and Turkey – to seize the ISIS-held border town of Jarabulus in Syria, allegedly to cut off ISIS’s last supply intoTurkey. Looking at Turkey’s longstanding interaction with ISIS to date, this seemed improbable. The “allied rebels” working with Turkey included the ‘Free Syrian Army’ and Faylaq al-Sham; both are known radical militant terrorist groups whom the West spuriously lists as “moderates.” This terrorist joint force then proceeded to march through the streets of Jarabulus flying their “Syrian Independence Flag” (the infamous green, black and white flag adopted by the Syrian ‘opposition’). Shortly after Turkey’s illegal invasion, it was reported that ISIS had actually left the town a week or so earlier indicating that it was most likely tipped-off in advance (by whom?) and had evacuated the border town up before Turkey’s ‘surprise’ invasion. A possible cover story for this was that US airstrikes ‘drove ISIS out.’ Bear in mind, Turkey is doing all of this inside Syrian territory, without any invitation from Damascus.

In terms of fighting ISIS in this part of Syria, only the Kurdish forces have a proven track record of fighting – and winning – against ISIS. Compare this to Turkey’s matador-style relationship ISIS, which does not have a track record of effectiveness, and who could blame them, afterall, Turkey is host enough of them within its own borders. The last thing Ankara would want to do is to get on the bad side of its house guests. If anything, Turkey seems to favour ISIS, particularly if they prove useful in achieving Ankara’s own containment objectives against both the Kurdish YPG and the Syrian Army, but also in assisting with Turkey’s other stated objective which is the ouster of Bashar al Assad.

It should also be noted that in August 2015, PKK leader Cemil Bayik based in Iraqi Kurdistan, told the BBC that Turkey is protecting ISIS by attacking Kurds. Based on the events on the ground over the last 18 months, and not the rhetoric of the Erdogan government, this statement appears to be factually true.

In grand Ottoman style, Turkey is calling their regional conquest “Operation Euphrates Shield“. Turkish military claims it is fighting terrorists, but all evidence suggests that it is undermining the Syrian government forces at every turn.

Czech-born American journalist Andre Vltchek recently spoke to one resident who aptly described the farce along the Turkish-Syrian border:

““Jarabulus is under the control of the Turkish military. Just imagine: the Turkish government doesn’t allow Syrian President Assad to send fighter jets nearer than 3 kilometers to the border, but it allows ISIS to come as close as 3 meters. We should have never interfered with the domestic policy of Syria, and there would be peace!”

One thing that Turkey and the US agree on is to freeze out the Syrian Army and its allies as much as possible, presumably, so they can broker the eventual carving-up of this part of Syria into semi-autonomous ethnic cantons (sowing the seeds for a future territorial dispute, in the great colonial tradition) and other hackneyed constructs like ‘Safe Zones’ and certain refugees camps which will certainly grow out out of the eventual multi-nation attack on Raqqa. How does Damascus feel about the Turkey, the US and its ‘Coalition’, alongside Russia – all making plans that will most likely end up in Syria losing significant chunks of its territory and natural resources? In that sense, Russia is playing a key role here, and can possibly act as a mediator between Turkey and Syria.

Like the operation to retake Mosul in Iraq, the operation to retake Raqqa in Syria will likely result in at least half of the city’s 200,000 population fleeing towards Turkey, and so the US and Turkey would like nothing more than to play the saviour for the global media, taking credit for “saving countless lives” and looking after all of those poor ‘victims of war.’ Already in Mosul, the US-led Coalition is responsible for killing hundreds of civilians through its airstrikes, and who knows how many more from artillery and crossfire. Considering the relative success of the retaking of East Aleppo by the Syrian Army, in conjunction with the Russian military and its ground partners, Lebanese Hezbollah militias and Iranian Special Forces, liberated a large urban area from four and half years of terrorist occupation under Al Nusra Front and its assorted ‘rebel’ (terrorist) affiliates like Arar al Sham and others – it would make sense to bring in the Syrian Army, Russia and their ground partners into the fold to help defeat a common enemy – ISIS, but that is not what is happening. This is a segregated affair.

Whatever Turkey’s interests are in this story, one thing is for sure it is not publicising them to the world. Divergent interests and fundamental goals might result a serious fracture in how this delicate operation will be negotiated and executed, and this could mean more unintended consequences, not just for Turkey, US, Russia, and let’s please not forget Syria, but for the entire region, and possibly the world. Turkey will most certainly use this opportunity to take control of that which it believes is its rightful booty, and use this result to help reshape the region as part of its own ‘Great Middle East Project’, Ankara’s overlay to the US-NATO blueprint of a similar name.

Below is a segment from earlier this week with Press TV, where we discussed some of the dynamics at play with the current trilateral strategy negotiations between Russia, Turkey and the US:

Turkey has staked a tremendous amount of military and also political capital in the facilitation of ISIS and other terrorists fighting in Syria since as early as 2010-2011, so one might suspect whether or not Turkey has plans to use its buffer zone to safely evacuate elite ISIS fighters to safety in Turkey, allowing them to fight another day, after safely disperse back to their respective countries of origin – back to China’s Xinjiang province, in the case of the fierce Uyghur militants, along with battle-hardened NATO-friendly fighters hailing from Kosovo, Dagestan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, France, the UK and the list goes on.

Why Turkey insists on being in control of a situation that it has played a founding role in creating – is beyond analysis at this point. It seems that events and geopolitical outcomes may have overtaken any possibility of adjudicating the crimes of the sponsors of this horrific war against Syria. If that’s the case, then this will be an even greater tragedy because, as was the case with NATO member states’ sponsorship of extremist brigades in Kosovo, no one will be held to account, which increases the chances of another repeat in the future.

For the United States and Trump, it’s still all about “Defeating ISIS”. How they square this with Turkey’s regional hegemonic designs may determine how the final act of this tiresome epic eventually plays out.

An American-born writer, global affairs analyst, Patrick Henningsen is founder and Executive Editor of 21st Century Wire and is a regular guest commentator for RT International and host of the successful SUNDAY WIRE weekly radio show broadcast globally over the Alternate Current Radio Network (ACR), and on AM terrestrial radio in the US with ‘Patrick Henningsen LIVE’ on Independent Talk 1100 KFNX in Phoenix. His work has appeared in a number of international publications including the UK Column, The Guardian and Consortium News.

NOTE: As turned out, I had to go to a Russian news agency, RT’s video outlet RUPTLY in order to first see images of this US military deployment in Syria. If we had to rely solely on the US media, we’d all be extremely under-informed (it would be great to see someone make this point at the upcoming March 20th US Congressional Hearings on alleged ‘Russian meddling’ into the US elections).

From 1958 up until Chávez’s presidency began in 1998, Venezuelan politics rigidly conformed to U.S. political and economic interests on all strategic issues. For nearly 40 years, Venezuela was at the U.S.’ beck and call – following Washington’s lead in breaking off relations with Cuba, supporting U.S. invasions of other Latin American nations and backing U.S. counter-insurgency policies throughout the region.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Venezuelan government moved to make the nation’s economy subservient to U.S. interests by committing to programs promoted by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that privatized the majority of the nation’s resources  and introduced drastic austerity programs.

While U.S. corporations reaped massive profits,Venezuela’s inflation hit triple digits, its unemployment rate spiked and poverty rates hovered around 50 percent. As a result, these policies fostered caustic resentment against U.S. domination of Venezuela’s political and economic structures, resulting in the rise of Hugo Chávez.

Chávez, upon becoming president, worked to unchain Venezuela from U.S. influence, passing numerous reforms and nationalizing key utilities that had been privatized decades earlier. These efforts, which translated into dwindling U.S. influence, earned him the ire of the Bush administration, whose efforts to oust Chávez culminated in the failed coup attempt of 2002.

Emboldened by the U.S.’ failed regime change efforts, Chávez then moved to nationalize Venezuelan oil and even more utilities, ejecting numerous U.S.-based multinational corporations in the process. Though the U.S. refrained from attempting to overthrow him, the Venezuelan government has accused them of being responsible for Chávez’s untimely death in 2013 – claiming that they induced the cancer that claimed his life as a covert means of assassination.

In the years since Chávez’s death, his successor Maduro has been fighting wave after wave of destabilization attempts. Most of these efforts have manifested economically, including widespread shortages of goods and basic necessities. However, on more than one occasion, Venezuelan authorities have caught businesses hoarding food, medicine and other goods in order to create the appearance of scarcity while raising profits through massive price increases and the smuggling of goods to Colombia.

The Venezuelan government has also accused these businesses of intentionally creating scarcity with the goal of fueling unrest that could destabilize the government. If history is any indication, this is quite likely, considering the same tactics were used against the Allende government in Chile in the 1970s.

However, the most destabilizing influence of all has been lower global oil prices. Venezuela’s economy is largely dependent on oil exports, which represent 90 percent of its total exports. Thus, the decline in oil prices has done a number on the nation’s economy – even forcing them to import oil due to the financial difficulties plaguing the country’s refineries.

This decrease in oil prices has not been based on the whims of the market, but rather a concerted effort led by the U.S. and its ally Saudi Arabia. The artificial lowering of oil prices has several benefits for the U.S.-Saudi alliance due to the economic harm it inflicts on the Saudi’s oil-producing competitors – chief among them Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. These are also countries that the U.S. aims to contain.

Maduro was well aware of the situation when he asked rhetorically: “What is the reason for the United States and some U.S. allies wanting to drive down the price of oil? To harm Russia.” But Venezuela has arguably been much harder hit than any other country targeted by the price drop.

Another tactic employed by the U.S. to force Maduro out of power has been the imposition of sanctions. In 2015, the Obama administration imposed sanctions on Venezuela, asserting that the South American nation was a direct threat to U.S. national security, despite no evidence offered to support this claim. At the time, many journalists and analysts noted that the timing was odd, as it coincided with the Obama administration’s attempts to normalize relations with Cuba.

“President Barack Obama … has personally decided to take on the task of defeating my government and intervening in Venezuela to control it,” Maduro said in a televised address soon after the sanctions were announced.

Despite Venezuela’s resilience against U.S.-led sabotage for nearly two decades, they may not be able to hold out for much longer. Venezuela’s cash reserves have dwindled to a mere 10.5 billion dollars, 7.2 billion of which they must use this year just to pay off outstanding debts. These latest figures, based off of data recently released by the nation’s central bank, show that the South American nation’s reserves have declined dramatically. For instance, in 2015, Venezuela had 20 billion dollars in reserves and, in 2011, it held over 30 billion dollars.

Venezuela is running out of time, as the country is set to run out of cash within a year or two. But the day of reckoning could come sooner if the U.S. and the Saudis choose to collude once again in slashing global oil prices, as this would further crippling Venezuela’s economy.

Some of Venezuela’s more powerful allies may try to keep the Maduro-led government afloat. But if Venezuela’s government were to run out of funds and subsequently collapse, it would only be the latest leftist government to fall in a nearly century-old U.S. government effort to eradicate socialism and democracy in Latin America.

Jack sits down with his pint in the Fielden Arms in Mellor, and contemplates his latest shift making Typhoon warplanes for the Saudi air force.

Tucking into steak and chips, the 25-year-old talks of moving in with his girlfriend, his good pay at the nearby BAE factory – £40,000, almost twice the local average – and the security it brings.

And then he thinks of the people those planes will be sent to kill.

“You see the children in Yemen starving on the 10 o’clock news,” he tells Middle East Eye. “But you try to not pay attention and just get on with it.”

His friend, Harry, interjects: “It’s really weird and there is no way to describe it, because you are in essence building a weapon of mass destruction.”

So why don’t they quit? “Good pay and job security,” Jack responds, taking another sip of his beer. “If the military contracts go, 7,000 people go with them.”

Jack is like thousands of others who works at the BAE Systems factory in nearby Samlesbury, outside Preston in Lancashire, making parts that will be assembled in nearby Warton to create Typhoons, the most advanced jet fighters operated by the Saudis over Yemen.

There, the Saudis have contributed to a civil war with the most terrible violence: bombing civilians, blowing up hospitals, and imposing a siege that has condemned millions of Yemenis to slow starvation and poverty.

And Britain, in its wisdom, has sold the Saudis the hardware to do it. Since the war began in 2015, the UK has approved arms sales to Riyadh worth more than $3.3bn. Many of those weapons have come from BAE factories like Samlesbury, built by workers like Jack.

This prompted anti-arms trade campaigners to launch a judicial review in February to stop arms exports to the Saudi government until it stops committing human rights atrocities in Yemen. The decision on that review is due in the coming months.

St Oswald’s church in Warton (Wikipedia)

All the while, BAE continues to expand its operations in the north-west of England, and the contracts keep coming. It is building a solar farm the size of nine football fields, creating hundreds of new apprenticeships, and is already Preston’s largest employer with 9,000 staff. Under the £40bn al-Salam deal, signed in 2007 to a 25,000-strong celebration in Preston, BAE has delivered 68 of 72 Typhoons ordered, and another 48 may soon be agreed.

And in the surrounding villages, where the quiet life is punctuated by the sonic booms of jets and the rumble of lorries on narrow roads, the business is welcomed, even venerated. BAE is woven into the fabric of a local life, where generations have manned BAE’s machine rooms.

There is pride in what they do. “Lancashire has a strong history of building fighter jets, and we are proud to be building them,” said Mike Harris, who has worked as an electric fitter in Samlesbury. “We produce the best in the world.”

“We can’t build washing machines because we have a history of building fighter planes,” Harris said. “That’s what we do and want to carry on doing.”

And a block on that expertise would be devastating.

Audrey Charnley sits in the old church opposite BAE’s Warton factory, the main assembly site for Typhoon jets, and speaks of the “problem” for locals if it was to close or lose business due to the efforts of anti-war activists.

Many villagers like Audrey have family who have worked for there. She doesn’t like the “idea” of Warton building fighter jets – “but somebody would be building the jets if Warton wasn’t”.

As to the war in Yemen, “we want peace, just like the peace we feel in this church”, she says.

The same thought is echoed across the way at the local village hall, which Lynn Shuttleworth helps run. “If they didn’t do it here they would do it somewhere else,” she says, before commenting on a more pressing local issue: “Does cause a lot of traffic I must admit.”

Britain has sold Saudi Arabia dozens of Typhoon fighter jets (wikimedia)

And at the Clifton Arms, next to Warton’s factory, Taylor James pulls pints for the workers emerging from their shifts. He knows that victory for the judicial review will hit him and his family’s pub hard.

He’s never really heard of Yemen, or its current catastrophe, and neither – he says – have many people in the area.

“Because it’s not personally affecting me, I don’t really get involved or have an interest in what the planes are used for.”

Politics by other means

Politics may not be the concern of some locals, but it plays a central part in the world in which they live. What is made by BAE has local, national and international repercussions, and has turned parties and traditional allies against each other.

Many in Samlesbury and Warton are members of Unite, the union that helped propel anti-war activist Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the Labour Party. Twice.

He is opposed to Britain’s relationship with Saudi Arabia and its bombing campaign in Yemen. Union representatives say opposition to Saudi exports is “misguided”.

Simon Brown, who represents thousands at Warton, rationalises that position. He says maintaining trade with Saudi Arabia ensures Britain has a say in what it does.

“Trading gives us influence to talk about the things we’re not happy about in these regimes,” he said at a discussion at the Unite HQ in Salford. “If we left them on their own, we won’t have influence.”

Another senior Unite official, who spoke to MEE anonymously, skips the platitudes for a more succinct answer: it’s about the jobs.

“Of course our members don’t agree with what Saudi are doing in Yemen, it’s barbaric,” says the official.

However, he absolves his members of responsibility: “The government’s created a situation where people can do nothing but work for BAE.”

Andy Clough, a Unite union spokesman at Warton and worker since 1979, agrees: “I’ve seen whole families work there,” he says. “It’s still like that now. There are fathers and sons. That’s the sort of culture that we have.”

Nigel Evans, the local Conservative MP for the Samlesbury factory, has been a staunch defender of BAE systems in parliament.

His last appearance in parliament described the presence of BAE systems in Lancashire as “important” and providing “thousands of jobs for the Ribble Valley and Lancashire” area.

Their loss, he said, would be devastating.

But Andrew Smith from the Campaign Against the Arms Trade disagrees. He says that the arms trade is, in fact, a very small part of the British economy.

“Arms companies enjoy a huge influence in the corridors of power, which has bought them a lot of power,” he says.

“We want to see an industrial strategy that puts the skills of industry workers to good use and focuses on positive, substantive jobs and not those dependent on war and conflict.”

According to the Oxford Economics group, BAE in 2013 exported £3.8bn worth of weapons, including missiles, naval systems and jets – 69 per cent of which was sent to countries in the Middle East and North Africa.

But that £3.8bn represents just one percent of all the British economy’s exports.

Smith’s group has another option – last year it launched its “arms to renewables” campaign, which argues skilled engineers could be moved into industries that can build a new future, rather than destroy it.

Skilled engineers will always be in demand, it says.

The Lightning that stands outside the Samlesbury factory (screengrab)

Back in Samlesbury, such high-minded thinking is just that.

When the shifts change, workers file in and out of the steel gates of the 700-acre site, guarded by a life-sized model of a Lightning, a famous cold war fighters built by English Electric, a forerunner of BAE.

A real one used to stand here – in active service, it was flown by the Saudis in the 1970s.

Workers who take a moment to speak to MEE have the unmistakable pride of decades of excellence, while conceding their concerns about where their jets end up.

But that’s just the way it is.

And the BAE of the future will continue to build expert killing machines: The company has recently signed a multi-million contract to develop a new generation of armed drones, another weapon common in the skies of Yemen, and beyond.

Jack, in the pub in Mellor, is aware this is where his future may lie: building robots for foreign states to kill foreign people in foreign lands.

“There’s nothing we can do,” he says. “We’re caved in, making it impossible to work anywhere else, because we’ve all got specific skills.”

The Syrian Army’s Tiger Forces, supported by the Syrian and Russian air forces, have continued making impressive gains against the ISIS terrorist group in the province of Aleppo.

The Tiger Forces further advanced along the Euphrates River and entered the Jirah Airbase.

Now, when the ISIS-held town of Dier Hafer is de-facto cut-off from the rest of the ISIS-held area in central Syria, its liberation will become the main short-term goal of government forces.

Experts believe that after Deir Hafer government forces will likely advance along the Deir Hafer-al-Tabaqah road, expanding the buffer zone east of Khanasser and putting additional pressure on ISIS units operating in the area of Raqqah.

The hidden Russian-US cooperation in Syria was already proven with the Manbij case when Moscow and Washington acted together in order to prevent the Turkish army and pro-Turkish militant groups from attacking Kurdish forces in the area.

There is a chance that the US and Russia will act jointly in order to retake the ISIS self-proclaimed capital of Raqqah even if this is not promoted openly in the mainstream media. If government forces reach al-Tabqa, they will isolate Raqqah from the southern flank and US-backed forces will be able to avoid the need to cut across the Euphrates River in the area. In this case, the fall of Raqqah will take place much faster then it’s expected by experts.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is preparing to expand the military force deployed to Syria. The US military is expanding the Kobani Airport runway in order to be able to receive large transport aircraft, the Basnews agency, based in the capital of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, reported on Monday, citing a source in the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

“The source explained that “the airport runway in the past was 1,100 meters long with the width of 60 meters, and it is expected to be expanded to 1,700 meters long and 110 meters wide,” adding that a four-meter-tall wall will also be erected around the airport,” the article reads.

The Kurdish People’s Protection Units, which are the core of the SDF, have been allegedly discharged from protecting the area. The airport is now guarded by US troops.

The intensification of the operation to retake Raqqah will push Washington to increase its military presence in Syria, deploying more troops, artillery pieces and other military equipment. These forces will likely be redeployed from Iraq after the end of the anti-ISIS operation in the western part of Mosul.

On Wednesday evening, humanity lost redoubtable civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart. Cancer and complications from a massive stroke days days earlier, followed by mini-strokes, took her at age 77.

I and many others who knew and loved her mourn her passing. She now belongs to the ages. I first met Lynne at a National Lawyers Guild gathering in Chicago to honor her dedicated human and civil rights work.

I was the only non-lawyer there. I spotted her instantly when she arrived, spoke to her briefly, thanked her for extraordinary work, embraced her, then entered an area where others were seated.

Everyone stood and applauded, including some notable Chicago attorneys. It was a riveting moment I’ll never forget.

Lynne was a people’s lawyer, a human and civil rights champion, a justice warrior, targeted by the Bush/Cheney administration for defending a client they wanted imprisoned – Sheik Abdel Rahman, framed for seditious conspiracy in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing he had nothing to do with.

Lynne served as a member of a court-appointed defense team at the request of former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark.

She was unjustly charged under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act with with four counts of aiding and abetting a terrorist organization, along with violating Special Administrative Measures (SAMS) imposed by the US Bureau of Prisons.

She was never one to back off from or shun controversy. For 30 years, she championed the rights of the poor, underprivileged and others rarely afforded due process unless lucky to have an advocate like her.

Where other attorneys feared to tread, she honorably defended Weather Underground’s David Gilbert, Richard Williams of the United Freedom Front, Sekou Odinga and Nasser Ahmed of the Black Liberation Army, and many others like them.

She knew the personal risks and courageously took them. On April 9, 2002, her ordeal began when FBI agents unjustly arrested her, searched her office, removing her case files and other materials.

Her show-trial was a travesty of justice. Prosecutors demonized her to pressure jurors to convict. It was part of an orchestrated witch-hunt process inside and outside court to intimidate other attorneys not to defend clients the DOJ wanted convicted.

At the time, then-National Lawyers Guild President Michael Avery said the Justice Department “was resolute from day one in making a symbol out of Lynne Stewart in support of its campaign to deny people charged with crimes of effective legal representation.”

In pronouncing sentence Judge John Koeltl said “(s)he has represented the poor, the disadvantaged and the unpopular (and she had) enormous skill and dedication (earning little money for it). It is no exaggeration to say that Ms. Stewart performed a public service not only to her clients but to the nation.”

Her case was precedent-setting, chilling, and according to former Center for Constitutional Rights President Michael Ratner, sent “a message to lawyers who represent alleged terrorists that it’s dangerous to do so.”

Her attorney Michael Tigar called her conviction and imprisonment “an attack on a gallant, charismatic and effective fighter for justice,” adding: “I have never seen such an abuse of government power.”

At a news conference preceding her November 2009 imprisonment, Lynne said “I’m too old to cry, but it hurts too much not to.”

She criticized the ruling against her, occurring “on the eve of the arrival of the tortured men from offshore prison in Guantanamo,” adding:

“If you’re going to lawyer for these people, you’d better toe very close to the line that the government has set out (because they’ll) be watching you every inch of the way, (so those who don’t) will end up like Lynne Stewart.”

“This is a case that is bigger than just me personally.” She vowed she’d “go on fighting.”

On December 31, 2013, she was freed by a compassionate release order because of her terminal breast cancer diagnosis, at the time given months to live.

On New Year’s day 2014, she returned home to loved ones, friends and supporters. “It’s just really wonderful. I’m very grateful to be free. We’ve been waiting months and months and months,” she said, explaining she’d work to help other political prisoners.

America punishes its best, honors its worst, revealing its merciless dark side at home and abroad.

Lynne is survived by her human rights champion husband Ralph Poynter, daughters Zenobia Brown, Brenna Stewart, son Geoffrey, sister Laurel Freedman, brother Donald Feltham and six grandchildren.

Once asked why she became a lawyer, she said “I wanted to change things.”

Her “love struggle” continues!

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.

Trump Invades Syria

By Daniel McAdams, March 09 2017

Although the Syrian army, with its ally Russia, has made significant gains against ISIS over the past week or so, the Washington Post is reporting tonight that President Trump has for the first time sent regular US military personnel into that country in combat positions. This is an unprecedented escalation of US involvement in the Syrian war and it comes without Congressional authorization, without UN authorization, and without the authorization of the government of Syria. In short it is three ways illegal.

Civilians in Iraq “Die by Mistake” as a Result of US Air Raids, Humanitarian Catastrophe in Mosul

By Firas Samuri, March 09 2017

According to the official figures, 220 people have been killed by the International Coalition strikes in Iraq and Syria since 2014. It’s obvious that the coalition intentionally hides the real number of victims in order to avoid criticism by international human rights organizations. The situation in Mosul can only be described as a humanitarian catastrophe.

Erdogan: The Sultan Of An Illusionary Ottoman Empire

By Dr. Alon Ben-Meir, March 09 2017

In many conversations and encounters I had over the years with former Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, he emphatically echoed his boss President Erdogan’s grandiose vision that by 2023 (the 100th anniversary of the Turkish Republic), Turkey will become as powerful and influential as the Ottoman Empire was during its heyday. Under the best of circumstances, Turkey cannot realize Erdogan’s far-fetched dream.

Why is the Trudeau Government Escalating its Belligerence Towards Russia?

By Yves Engler, March 09 2017

For Washington and Ottawa the Ukraine is a proxy to weaken Russia, which blocked western plans to topple the Assad regime in Syria. As part of this campaign, 1,000 Canadian military personnel, a naval vessel and fighter jets will soon be on Russia’s border. Where will this lead? A new cold war against a capitalist Russia? Or a much hotter war involving direct confrontation between Canadian and Russian troops?

Anti-Imperialism, Pan-Africanism and Nkrumah’s Ghana. The Historic Role of Shirley Graham Du Bois

By Abayomi Azikiwe, March 09 2017

With March 6 representing six decades of statehood for the West African nation of Ghana provides an excellent opportunity for a political, economic and historical assessment of post-colonial developments on the continent.

“Deadly Facts”: How So-Called “Objectivity” Created a Culture of Conformity

By Greg Guma, March 09 2017

The rulers of the modern world may disagree about ideology or economics, but they have apparently reached a consensus on at least one matter – that the conditioning of humanity is highly desirable. The social contract, in the US and elsewhere, may have been initiated with the ideal of individualism, but it has been amended considerably over time, leaning progressively and dramatically toward order and uniformity.

Yesterday it was confirmed that 200 Canadian troops would remain in the Ukraine for at least two more years. This “training” mission in the Ukraine is on top of two hundred troops in Poland, a naval frigate in the Mediterranean and Black Sea and a half dozen CF-18 fighter jets on their way to locations near Russia’s border. Alongside Britain, Germany and the US, Canada will soon lead a NATO battle group supposed to defend Eastern Europe from Moscow. About 450 Canadian troops are headed to Latvia while the three other NATO countries lead missions in Poland, Lithuania and Estonia.

From the Russian point of view it must certainly look like NATO is massing troops at its border.

Canada’s military buildup in Eastern Europe is the direct outgrowth of a coup in Kiev. In 2014 the right-wing nationalist EuroMaidan movement ousted Viktor Yanukovych who was oscillating between the European Union and Russia. The US-backed coup divided the Ukraine politically, geographically and linguistically (Russian is the mother tongue of 30% of Ukrainians).

While we hear a great deal about Russia’s nefarious influence in the Ukraine, there’s little attention given to Canada’s role in stoking tensions there. In July 2015 the Canadian Press reported that opposition protesters were camped in the Canadian Embassy for a week during the February 2014 rebellion against Yanukovich. “Canada’s embassy in Kyiv was used as a haven for several days by anti-government protesters during the uprising that toppled the regime of former president Viktor Yanukovych,” the story noted.

Since the mid-2000s Ottawa has actively supported opponents of Russia in the Ukraine. Federal government documents from 2007 explain that Ottawa was trying to be “a visible and effective partner of the United States in Russia, Ukraine and zones of instability in Eastern Europe.” During a visit to the Ukraine that year, Foreign Minister Peter MacKay said Canada would help provide a “counterbalance” to Russia. “There are outside pressures [on Ukraine], from Russia most notably. … We want to make sure they feel the support that is there for them in the international community.” As part of Canada’s “counterbalance” to Russia, MacKay announced $16 million in aid to support “democratic reform” in the Ukraine.

Ottawa played a part in Ukraine’s “Orange Revolution”. In “Agent Orange: Our secret role in Ukraine” Globe and Mail reporter Mark MacKinnon detailed how Canada funded a leading civil society opposition group and promised Ukraine’s lead electoral commissioner Canadian citizenship if he did “the right thing”.

Ottawa also paid for 500 Canadians of Ukrainian descent to observe the 2004-05 elections. “[Canadian ambassador to the Ukraine, Andrew Robinson] began to organize secret monthly meetings of western ambassadors, presiding over what he called ‘donor coordination’ sessions among 20 countries interested in seeing Mr. [presidential candidate Viktor] Yushchenko succeed. Eventually, he acted as the group’s spokesman and became a prominent critic of the Kuchma government’s heavy-handed media control. Canada also invested in a controversial exit poll, carried out on election day by Ukraine’s Razumkov Centre and other groups that contradicted the official results showing Mr. Yanukovich [winning].”

For Washington and Ottawa the Ukraine is a proxy to weaken Russia, which blocked western plans to topple the Assad regime in Syria. As part of this campaign, 1,000 Canadian military personnel, a naval vessel and fighter jets will soon be on Russia’s border.

Where will this lead? A new cold war against a capitalist Russia? Or a much hotter war involving direct confrontation between Canadian and Russian troops?

What would the US response be to Russian troops massed on its border? The last time Russian missiles came within 90 miles of American soil, the world came very close to nuclear war.

Canada is participating in a “game” of brinksmanship that could end very badly.

As President Trump issues a revised executive order on immigration, the media is almost certain to get many things wrong in its reporting; they did with the earlier order in late January. After 24 years of doing visa and immigration work for the Department of State, here’s what I think you need to know.

Although the Syrian army, with its ally Russia, has made significant gains against ISIS over the past week or so, the Washington Post is reporting tonight that President Trump has for the first time sent regular US military personnel into that country in combat positions.

This is an unprecedented escalation of US involvement in the Syrian war and it comes without Congressional authorization, without UN authorization, and without the authorization of the government of Syria. In short it is three ways illegal.

The Marines on the ground include part of an artillery battery that can fire powerful 155-millimeter shells from M777 Howitzers, two officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the deployment. The expeditionary unit’s ground force, Battalion Landing Team 1st Battalion, 4th Marines, will man the guns and deliver fire support for U.S.-backed local forces who are preparing an assault on the city. Additional infantrymen from the unit are likely to provide security.

On March 5th, RT ran footage of a US military convoy entering Syria near Manbij. The US mainstream media initially blacked out the story, but the Post today confirmed that the troops were from the Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment in Stryker vehicles.

What is important to understand about this sudden escalation of US involvement is that if this “race to Raqqa” is won by the US military rather than by Syrian government forces, the chance that the US will hand the territory back to the Assad government is virtually nil. In other words, this is an operation far less about wiping ISIS out from eastern Syria and much more about the United States carving out eastern Syria as a permanent outpost from where it can, for example, continue the original neocon/Israeli/Saudi plan for “regime change” in Syria.

The United States is making a military bid for a very large chunk of sovereign Syrian territory. Something even Obama with his extraordinarily reckless Middle East policy would not dare to do.

How will the Russians react to this development?

How will the Russians react if increased US military activity on the ground in Syria begins to threaten Russian military forces operating in Syria (with the consent of that country’s legal government)?  With President Trump’s “get along with Russia” policy lying in the tatters of a Nikki Haley at the UN and a Fiona Hill at NSC Staff, how differently might the Russians see US actions in Syria than they might have only a month or so ago?

Make no mistake: this is big news. And very bad news.

The Syrian army’s Tiger Forces, backed by Russian warplanes, reached the Euphrates River in the province of Aleppo, liberating a large chunk of the area from ISIS.

The town of Khafsah and the nearby Water Treatment Station were the most important gains.

The liberation of the Khafsah Water Treatment Station will allow the Assad government to restore water supplies to the city of Aleppo which had been disrupted when ISIS terrorists [supported covertly by US-NATO] damaged the station.

The ISIS-held Jihar Military Airbase will likely become the next target in the province. While the airbase has a strategic value itself, controlling this site government forces will de-facto encircle the ISIS stronghold of Deir Hafer. This will allow to successfully retake this town from the terrorist group soon.

Russian and US military servicemen closely cooperate in the outskirts of the city of Manbij controlled by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the Times reported.

According to spokesman for the Pentagon, Jeff Davis, the both forces know about the location of each other in the area but have no desire to enter into a conflict with someone other than ISIS terrorists.

Syrian troops and some Russian military servicemen entered a number of villages west of Manbij, but the official list of these villages remains unclear. Photos show servicemen of the Russian Military Police near Manbij are also available online.

The Syrian army units took control over the al-Amiriyah mountain and the nearby hills located 5km north of the Palmyra Airbase in the province of Homs.

Ahrar Al-Sham and Tahrir Al-Sham reached a ceasefire deal which is aimed to end the infighting between rival terrorist factions in Idlib and Aleppo provinces.

The sides have to remove the recently created checkpoints and to release fighters captured in clashes. The groups are also creating a joint body to coordinate military actions against government forces.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

With March 6 representing six decades of statehood for the West African nation of Ghana provides an excellent opportunity for a political, economic and historical assessment of post-colonial developments on the continent.

In 1957 there were very few liberated areas in Africa. Egypt had been considered independent for many years although prior to 1952, Cairo was largely a neo-colony of Britain as a result of its control over the Suez Canal. President Gamal Abdel Nasser, a co-leader in the Free Officers Movement which seized power on July 23, 1952, after consolidating power some two years later in 1954, nationalized the Canal in 1956.

In response Britain, France and the State of Israel invaded the North African state with the intent to remove the Nasser government. The United States under the-then President Dwight D. Eisenhower viewed the British-led intervention as an effort to reassert London’s imperialist project which had been severely curtailed as a result of World War II, threatened to withdraw Washington’s underpinning of their national economy if the intervention was not halted.

The action taken by Nasser represented the emerging assertiveness of African and other oppressed nations during the 1950s. It was in 1954 that the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) launched its armed struggle against French colonialism which had dominated the country since 1830. It has been estimated that one million Algerians died during the liberation war however the movement prevailed over the conventional military superiority of Paris.

Sudan gained its independence from Britain in early 1956. The people had engaged in anti-colonial revolts since the latter years of the 19^th century.

During the European colonial period the nations of Ethiopia and Liberia were considered independent.  Nonetheless, with these states being surrounded and under the economic dominance by the imperialist countries they could in no genuine sense be considered sovereign nations. Ethiopia was invaded by Italy in 1896 and 1935 by Italy. Libyans fought a three decades-long war against Rome in the early years of the 20^th century before being subsumed by imperialism.

The African Diaspora and the Anti-imperialist Struggle

Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois (February 23, 1868-August 28, 1963) was described by Dr. Kwame Nkrumah as the “Father of Pan-Africanism” due to his involvement in African affairs dating back to the late 19^th century. In 1896, Dr. Du Bois completed his doctoral dissertation at Harvard University on the Suppression of the African Slave Trade, 1638-1870.

By 1900, Du Bois had traveled to London to participate in what is considered to be the First Pan-African Conference organized by Trinidadian Barrister Henry Sylvester Williams. Du Bois recalled that he was secretary of the Conference and drafted its resolutions.

Later he would convene a series of similar meetings known as the Pan-African Congresses from 1919 to 1923. By 1927, when the Fourth Pan-African Congress was held in New York City, it was being structured, organized and funded by the women’s organization the Circle for Peace and Foreign Relations headed by Addie W. Hunton, a prominent African American who had intervened in support of Black soldiers during their deployment in France for the U.S. at the conclusion of World War I.

Hunton and her predecessor Anna J. Cooper were instrumental in the rise of independent African organizational culture emanating from the late 19^th, early 20^th centuries. Both Cooper and Hunton were internationalists in their outlooks and had definite views on the essential role of women in social transformation and political development.

Lola Shirley Graham was born on November 11, 1896 in Indianapolis, Indiana, the daughter of an African Methodist Episcopal minister. She had initially met W.E.B. Du Bois through her father while she was a child.

Shirley Graham Du Bois with Malcolm X in Ghana, May 1964

Graham Du Bois attended the Sorbonne in France to study music and later enrolled at Oberlin College in Ohio, renowned for its training of African American women dating back to the pre-Civil War period. She obtained both a bachelor’s and master’s degree at Oberlin in music during 1934 and 1935 respectively.

Graham Du Bois became a prolific writer, composing plays, musicals and publishing biographies. She would spend decades in the theatre while maintaining an interest in political movements as well. She became an organizer for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), where her future husband was a co-founder, serving as the editor of the Crisis Magazine from 1910-1934.

Her politics moved more to the Left resulting in her joining the Communist Party of the U.S. during the 1940s and serving on a high level within its structures and concomitant mass groups and coalitions that were either controlled or influenced by the Marxist-Leninist Party. With the passing of W.E.B. Du Bois’ first wife Nina Gomer in 1950, Graham Du Bois became closer to the retired professor and prodigious author.

Her burgeoning personal relationship with Du Bois moved him further into left-wing circles becoming a consistent ally on the periphery of the CP. Du Bois was a leading member of the Council on African Affairs (CAA) which was founded in the late 1930s by perhaps the leading artist in the U.S., Paul Leroy Robeson, a graduate of Princeton and Columbia University Law School who became an actor, singer and social scientist.

By 1945, Du Bois would travel to Manchester, England to serve as Chairman of the Fifth Pan-African Congress. Other leading people within the conference were George Padmore, an African-Trinidadian who was the former leader of the Red International Labor Union (Profintern) and a member of the Communist Party in the U.S., who later broke with Moscow in 1934 after the rise of Germany as a fascist state. In addition to Padmore, Francis Kwame Nkrumah, was the organizing secretary for the Manchester gathering.

Nkrumah from the Nzima people of western Gold Coast had studied for ten years in the U.S. (1935-1945) at Lincoln University and the University of Pennsylvania. During his tenure in America in addition to obtaining undergraduate and graduate degrees in Philosophy, Economics and Theology, Nkrumah had become a licensed minister providing him with platforms to speak in African American churches and other social organizations.

After being involved in the Left, nationalist and Pan-African movements in the U.S., Nkrumah moved to England in 1945 with the hopes of pursuing a doctorate at the London School of Economics. Instead he became enmeshed in the anti-colonial milieu in Britain. He was embraced by Padmore, by then a well-known journalist who wrote extensively on African affairs.

The resolutions of the Fifth PAC were far more radical than preceding conferences held between 1900 and 1927. A stronger participation of labor and farmer organizations along with youth ensured a more forward looking political direction.

Moreover, the weakening of heretofore dominant European imperialist states such as England, France, Italy, Spain and Germany provided an incentive for colonial territories to adopt an aura of urgency in regard to the attainment of national independence and sovereignty. The U.S. which emerged triumphantly from World War II became the supreme imperialist center of global hegemony backed by international finance capital based in New York.

Although Washington paid lip service to the notions of self-determination for colonial peoples, there was still a protracted struggle to be waged against the rising Socialist camp. The Soviet Union, which bore the brunt of the fighting against Nazi Germany, was able to maintain its existence and expand anti-capitalist influence through the founding of several socialist governments in Eastern Europe.

Asia witnessed revolutions which consolidated after the War in North Korea, North Vietnam and mainland China provided a clear social and economic alternative for the colonized territories. Consequently, by 1947 a Cold War surfaced pitting the world capitalist system against the Socialist countries.

In 1950 full-scale war erupted again in Korea over the direction of the peninsula formally dominated by Japan from 1905 to 1945. The Korean War (1950-53) resulted in the deaths of four million people. The deployment of the 500,000-member Chinese People’s Volunteer Army beat back U.S. imperialism ensuring the survival of the North leading to the formation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). Increasing numbers of people and territories were seeking a way out of the capitalist and imperialist system.

The Du Boises, Pan-Africanism and Cold War Repression

The year 1948 became a watershed in the intensifying hostility among the two rival camps as the Left in the U.S. began to advocate for peaceful coexistence between the differing social systems of capitalism and socialism. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in an effort to stave off a total collapse of the capitalist system in the U.S., adopted socialistic reforms such as controls on the banking industry, the creation of social security, welfare, unemployment benefits, and public works projects aimed at infrastructural development and employment creation.

These programs did not emerge from the imagination of Roosevelt. They were demands advanced by the CP and other mass organizations aimed at tackling joblessness, hunger, home foreclosures and evictions as well as the threat of global class warfare. The inability of capitalism to resolve its own internal crises was revealed during the 1930s as the Great Depression did not end until the entrance of the U.S. into World War II in December 1941.

Threats of another imperialist instigated conflagration were all too real by 1948-49. Du Bois’ refusal to go along with the Cold War domestic policies of the administration of President Harry S. Truman which was the adoption of an anti-communist position in exchange for minimal reforms in the areas of Civil Rights. In the aftermath of the War, there was an upsurge in racist violence directed towards African Americans. Therefore, the symmetry of national oppression and hostility against the Socialist camp necessitated a duplicitous stance on the part of the U.S. ruling class.

Du Bois’ rejection of the Truman candidacy of 1948 and his embrace of Henry Wallace and the Progressive Party sped-up his inevitable departure from the NAACP for the second time in a decade-and-a-half. After his attendance at the Paris Peace Conference of 1949 and the advocacy of détente with the Soviet Union and China, Du Bois became a target of the federal government. By 1951 he and four associates were under indictment for failing to register as an agent of a foreign government.

It was during this period that Du Bois married Shirley Graham. They embarked upon a national tour of the U.S. to build support for his acquittal. The case against Du Bois collapsed under the weight of its own folly. Nonetheless, many other prominent Leftists were convicted on similar charges resulting in prison terms, deportations and professional isolation. Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were executed by the American government in 1953 for purportedly sharing nuclear information with the Soviet Union.

Shirley Graham Du Bois and her new husband had their passports confiscated by the U.S. government preventing them from traveling abroad during the years of 1950-1958. After the Supreme Court held that these measures were unconstitutional, the Du Boises went on a world tour of Europe, Asia and Africa.

Graham Du Bois visited Ghana in December 1958 to address the All-African People’s Conference held in Accra. The event attracted the participation of 62 national liberation organizations from around the continent.

The paper delivered by Graham Du Bois on behalf of her husband entitled, “The Future of All-Africa Lies in Socialism”, asserted that:

“Africa, ancient Africa, has been called by the world and has lifted up her hands! Africa has no choice between private capitalism and socialism. The whole world, including capitalist countries, is moving toward socialism, inevitably, inexorably. You can choose between blocs of military alliance, you can choose between groups of political union; you cannot choose between socialism and private capitalism because private capitalism is doomed.”

This address goes on to ask: But what is socialism? It is a disciplined economy and political organization in which the first duty of a citizen is to serve the state; and the state is not a selected aristocracy, or a group of self-seeking oligarchs, who have seized wealth and power. No! The mass of workers with hand and brain are the ones whose collective destiny is the chief object of all effort.

Gradually, every state is coming to this concept of its aim. The great Communist states like the Soviet Union and China have surrendered completely to this idea. The Scandinavian states have yielded partially; Great Britain has yielded in some respects, France in part, and even the United States adopted the New Deal which was largely socialism; though today further American socialism is held at bay by 60 great groups of corporations who control individual capitalists and the trade union leaders.”

Such an appeal to the national liberation movements and independent states would of course draw the negative attention of U.S. and world imperialism. This concern was reflected in the thousands of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) files which were meticulously kept on both W.E.B. and Shirley Graham Du Bois in this period.

After traveling to the People’s Republic of China in 1959 the Du Boises were accused of being in violation of U.S. policy of entering Socialist states without authorization. Their passports were revoked once again. They then successfully appealed this decision which provided the activist couple with the capacity to visit Ghana in July 1960 to attend the Republic Day ceremonies and the Conference of the Women of Africa and African Descent.

Intelligence agencies were concerned about the travel plans of the couple. A confidential FBI memorandum from the office of John Edgar Hoover, Director, forwarded to the Office of Security Department of State dated June 20, 1960, noted that the Du Boises had been issued passports on June 7. The applications for the passports revealed the couple would leave New York by air on June 20 to visit Ghana to attend the ceremonies surrounding the establishment of the First Republic headed by Dr. Kwame Nkrumah.

This memo also made reference to the awarding of the Lenin Peace Prize to Dr. Du Bois by the Soviet government. Linking the Du Boises to the Communist movement the document reads:

“William Du Bois is Negro author, lecturer and scholar who has [a] long history of affiliation with communist front groups. He was a recipient of a 1958 international Lenin Peace Prize awarded by the Soviet Government. His wife has also had history of association with front groups. Subjects have received official invitation to attend the ceremonies of the inauguration of the new Government of Ghana.  Pertinent reports and memoranda concerning subjects have previously been furnished State and CIA, who are interested both in subject William Du Bois’ receipt of the Lenin Peace Prize and in the foreign travel of both subjects. Information re: passports telephonically furnished to Liaison Section by State Department.”

The Chicago Daily Defender, an African American publication, reported on September 4, 1960 that Graham Du Bois would be a featured speaker at an event planned for November 8 at Carnegie Hall in New York entitled “Rally for Peace and Friendship.” The event was sponsored by the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship (NCASF).

This same report indicated the Du Boises spent July and August in Ghana where in addition to participation in the Republic Day activities, Graham Du Bois served as head of a delegation of African American women who attended the Conference of Women of Africa and African Descent held in Accra. While in Ghana, the Du Boises toured the country visiting various villages, cities and rural communities in an effort assess the social and economic measures being implemented by the people.

Ghana, Socialist Construction and the African Revolution

Ghana gained independence in 1957 and became a Republic in 1960 with Kwame Nkrumah moving from being Prime Minister to President. The Du Boises were invited guests of the state ruled by the CPP and President Nkrumah. They were asked by the government to remain in Ghana and become full citizens. Du Bois was solicited to establish his long-planned Encyclopedia Africana Project aimed at the rewriting of African history from the perspective of the people themselves.

Although they returned to the U.S. in 1960, by the following year the Du Boises had relocated in Ghana. A report in the Ghana Evening News on October 11, 1961 stated the couple had arrived in the country that very morning. In another article published by the Evening News on October 16, reports the Du Boises had been paid a visit by the People’s Republic of China Ambassador to Ghana, Huang Hua and his wife, over the weekend of October 14-15. The article notes the ambassador “had a friendly talk with them.”

The following year on December 17, 1962, the FBI was advised by an undisclosed (redacted) source that high-ranking Communist Party African American official Henry Winston, while visiting Moscow had indicated during a personal conversation which took place in November, that Du Bois and his wife Shirley:

“after five weeks in China during late September and October, 1962, stayed in Moscow for twelve days in November, 1962. In China, the Chinese treated them lavishly and gave them many gifts. William Du Bois received medical attention, which, together with treatment received in Great Britain, he credits for saving his life. This same treatment was refused him by the Soviets due to his advanced age. The overall effect of the China visit on the Du Boises was great to the point that Shirley Du Bois thinks of the Chinese as ‘racial brothers’.”

This FBI document goes on to emphasize that:

“The Soviets are fearful of the Chinese influence on the Du Boises, in that they may lose their support in the ideological dispute with the Chinese. To counter this, the Soviets had Winston return to Moscow from Sofia, Bulgaria, to discuss matters with the Du Boises. The Soviets showered Du Bois with gifts and honors and arranged meetings with Brezhnev, President of the USSR, and with Khrushchev. Although the Soviets were not completely successful with William Du Bois, and much less successful with Shirley Du Bois, they were able to get William Du Bois to issue a public statement supporting the Soviet position in Cuba. Another reason why the Soviets tried to influence William Du Bois is that he is very close to President Nkrumah of Ghana, a leader of the neutralist camp. The Soviets believe that they can determine Nkrumah’s position and policy through Du Bois.”

Through other quotes attributed to either one or both of the Du Boises, whose sources are not cited in the FBI files from the above-mentioned report, says:

“We are the only American Negroes in Ghana who have visited the Peoples Republic of China. I assure you that none of the remarks attributed to these ‘American Negroes’ were ever uttered by either of us. As you know we were very recently in China as well as in the Soviet Union. During this time in both countries we talked with the highest leaders as well as people in all walks of life. But we do not feel equipped to hand out advice to either of these Socialist Giants as to how they should settle their differences.”

The FBI document then goes on to suggest that the Soviets being fearful of Chinese influence in Africa, were preparing Winston for a visit to the continent. Agencies apparently believed or had been informed that Dr. Du Bois had arranged for Winston to travel to Ghana. There was also the hope that Winston would visit other states in Africa as well in April 1963.

While in Ghana, Graham Du Bois continued to write extensively on the freedom movements of African Americans in the U.S. as well as the overall global anti-imperialist struggle.

In the February 1963 edition of The World Review, the journal of the NCASF, on page 17, there was an article by Graham Du Bois entitled “January 8 in Ghana.” This article reviewed the mass struggle of the Ghanaian people against British colonialism which resulted in the release of Nkrumah from prison in February 1951 and the development of a path towards the acquisition of national independence in 1957. January 8, 1950 was the day of “Positive Action” where the CPP called for a national strike demanding independence for the Gold Coast.

Political Affairs, the theoretical journal of the Communist Party in the U.S., published an article by Graham Du Bois entitled “Africa Must Save the Congo”, where the author traces the events inside the mineral-rich Central African state from the period of Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba’s appeal to the United Nations for assistance in the early days of independence in after June 30, 1960. She concludes that imperialism has created a disastrous crisis inside the country and consequently prevented the UN from bringing stability. She reports that African states were working towards a solution to the Congo problem.

Du Bois became the Director of Encyclopedia Africana and served in that capacity until his death inside the country on August 28, 1963. FBI files reveal that Graham Du Bois renounced her U.S. citizenship and became a citizen of the Republic of Ghana in October 1963.

A memorandum from the Department of Justice FBI dated October 10, says: “On October 4, 1963, the United States Embassy at Accra, Ghana, advised the Department of State that subject had renounced her United States Citizenship under Section 349 (A) (6) Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, on that date. On October 5, 1963, the Embassy advised as follows: Subject intends to apply for United States visa for a Ghanaian passport in order to come to the United States in February, 1964, to attend a memorial rally in honor of her late husband, W.E.B. Du Bois. It was believed that Kwame Nkrumah, Chief of State of Ghana, and the Ghanaian press will be severely critical of the United States Government if subject is denied a visa.”

Subsequently, Graham Du Bois was denied a visa to reenter the U.S. By the concluding months of 1963, the Cold War atmosphere surrounding the direction of the Civil Rights Movement had become even more pronounced. The March on Washington of August 28, 1963 was held on the same day as the passing of Dr. Du Bois. Although NAACP Executive Secretary Roy Wilkins acknowledged the death of the co-founder of the organization, he slandered the legacy of Dr. Du Bois by claiming that he had taken another path in recent years.

The spring and summer months of 1963 were marked by heightened mobilizations on the part of the African American people against legalized segregation and national oppression. Events in Birmingham, Alabama; Danville, Virginia; Cambridge, Maryland; Somerville, Tennessee; Jackson, Mississippi, among many other areas, had aroused the national consciousness in the U.S. and around the world.

Mao-Tse-tung, the Chairman of the Communist Party of China (CPC), issued a statement in response to the unrest in the U.S. marred by the assassination of Medgar Evers, the NAACP Field Secretary in Jackson, Mississippi on June 12. Reviewing the events of 1963, Mao condemned the U.S. for its treatment of the African American people. He began the statement by acknowledging that former NAACP leader in Monroe, North Carolina, Robert F. Williams, then living in exile in Cuba, had urged him on two occasions to make a comprehensive appeal for global support of the African American struggle against the racist U.S. political system.

In concluding this statement issued on August 8, the CPC leader called upon the peoples of the world to express their unconditional solidarity with the African American people:

“I call upon the workers, peasants, revolutionary intellectuals, enlightened elements of the bourgeoisie, and other enlightened personages of all colors in the world, white, black, yellow, brown, etc., to unite to oppose the racial discrimination practiced by U.S. imperialism and to support the American Negroes in their struggle against racial discrimination.

In the final analysis, a national struggle is a question of class struggle. In the United States, it is only the reactionary ruling clique among the whites which is oppressing the Negro people. They can in no way represent the workers, farmers, revolutionary intellectuals, and other enlightened persons who comprise the overwhelming majority of the white people. At present, it is the handful of imperialists, headed by the United States, and their supporters, the reactionaries in different countries, who are carrying out oppression, aggression and intimidation against the overwhelming majority of the nations and peoples of the world. They are the minority, and we are the majority. At most they make up less than ten percent of the 3,000 million people of the world. I am deeply convinced that, with the support of more than ninety per cent of the people of the world, the just struggle of the American Negroes will certainly be victorious. The evil system of colonialism and imperialism grew on along with the enslavement of the Negroes and the trade in Negroes; it will surely come to its end with the thorough emancipation of the black people.”  (Peking Review, No. 33, Aug. 16, 1963)

The lingering Cold War mentality of two African American leaders of the Civil Rights Movement, James Farmer, the Executive Secretary of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), who at the time was serving a jail sentence in Louisiana, and Roy Wilkins of the NAACP, immediately rejected the statement issued by Chairman Mao. Graham Du Bois in an article entitled “The Great Debate”, admonished Wilkins and Farmer for their anti-Communist responses.

Graham Du Bois accused Farmer of being brainwashed for symbolically biting the hand stretched out to assist him in his Louisiana jail cell. Wilkins’ championed the welcoming of the leadership of the March on Washington by President Kennedy and the legislation submitted to Congress for a Civil Rights bill in the summer of 1963 as proof that African Americans did not need the support of CPC. Conversely, Graham Du Bois noted that the anti-Communist statement by Farmer issued on August 20 could not free him from detention in Louisiana so he could participate in the March on Washington.

The recently-naturalized Ghanaian citizen stressed that people around the world had praised the call by the CPC Chairman to unite in support of the African American struggle. She stressed that never before had such an appeal been made by a large and powerful nation like China.

She went on saying:

“We, in soon-to-be-united Africa, hear this call and the accompanying statement with uplifted hearts. Africans know well that the discrimination practiced in the United States is indeed discrimination against Africa, than not only have the imperialists and racists robbed, plundered and ravaged this fruitful continent, but they have employed every means of degradation, oppression and shame to humiliate Africans and all the children of Africa. The wealth, prosperity and advancement of the United States were built on the annihilation of one people (the American Indian) and the enslavement of another. Beginning with all the back-breaking labor of clearing and developing wilderness and building cities, the Negro’s contribution mounts and expands through every field of endeavor—reaching particular heights in music, literature and science.” (Muhammad Speaks, Nov. 22, 1963, pp. 19-20)

In early 1964, Graham Du Bois was appointed by Nkrumah as Director of Ghana National Television. The project was a massive undertaking which required the solicitation of support from other sympathetic nations. Eventually the Japanese Sanyo Corporation agreed to supply much needed technical assistance.

Not only was she involved in the development of the first national television network in Ghana, Graham Du Bois was functioning on a high level within the CPP government as an administrator within the state publishing house. She worked directly with President Nkrumah and was a part of his inner circle of advisors.

After returning from the Second Summit of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) held in Cairo, Egypt in July 1964, where she consulted with Malcolm X (El Hajj Malik Shabazz) on the efforts of the newly-founded Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU) to build support for the struggle inside the U.S. among heads-of-state, the UN and national liberation movements, she would announce the convening of a course on television screenwriting in Accra. The aim was to train a cadre of writers for Ghana National Television which was due to be launched in a few months.

She had signed up Donald Ogden Stewart, the American Communist expatriate living in London, to serve as Director of Television Writing. Stewart was a screenwriter, widely known for his sophisticated comedies and melodramas, such as The Philadelphia Story (based on the play by Philip Barry), Tarnished Lady and Love Affair.

In a letter to her New York-based attorney, Bernard Jaffe, she reported that she had received nearly 150 letters of application for the class. The course began with 76 people in attendance. By October 17, 1964, after ten weeks, there was regular participation of fifty to sixty people every week. She pointed out the uneven development of the students which were lectured by her in basic writing and techniques for television broadcasting.

A subsequent letter to Jaffe from Graham Du Bois dated February 21, 1965, discusses the mounting pressure by the imperialist states on the CPP government. She conveys to her lawyer how:

“It would be silly to emphasize that Africa is going through a crucial period when the entire world seems to be hurtling through space bent on its own destruction. Until a few months ago Ghana seemed like a safe haven busily intent on attending to its own pressing business, organizing and developing at breakneck speed, working hard and running forward. We never attempted to isolate ourselves—but we do steer our own ship and hold high a pilot light for the rest of Africa. So what happens? Attempts at assassination fail. Attempts at stirring up internal dissension fail! We keep moving forward. So now the World Marketers close in! They are trying to strangle our economy, cut off our trade, freeze certain foreign exchange, while, at the same time, choke us with foreign goods. Nkrumah answers by refusing to release precious cocoa, imposing rigid import restrictions and telling us we must DO WITHOUT until new adjustments can be made with socialist countries! It will work. Nobody is going to starve, but new, industrial projects such as TELEVISION have been hard hit. Television must import everything in the line of equipment and working materials. And here we are—in the last quarter, ready to make final preparation for beginning and unable to get final essentials for our work. I must ‘hold the line’ ‘keep high the morale and spirits of my workers’, continue with everything it is possible to do—and there is much to do—and radiate assurance that everything will be all right!”

One year after this letter was written the CPP government under President Nkrumah was overthrown in a U.S.-engineered police and military coup. Nkrumah was out of the country on a peace mission to China and North Vietnam seeking to find a solution to the escalating imperialist war against the people of Southeast Asia. The coup led to the purging of the CPP from government and the elimination of hundreds of political and economic projects.

Graham Du Bois was placed under house arrest while being removed from her directorship of Ghana National Television. Many others were killed, imprisoned and driven into exile. Nkrumah left Peking after being told of the coup stopping over in Cairo en route to Conakry, Guinea led by President Ahmed Sekou Toure, Secretary General of the Democratic Party of Guinea (PDG).

Shirley Graham Du Bois with Malcolm X in Ghana, May 1964

Nkrumah was given not only political asylum in Guinea but was appointed by the government as co-president. He would settle there until 1971 when he was sent to Bucharest, Romania for treatment of cancer. He died on April 27, 1972.

Graham Du Bois was able to leave Ghana and would settle in Cairo and the People’s Republic of China where she died in 1976.

The role of Shirley Graham Du Bois and Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois in Ghana was indicative of the political character of the CPP government from the period of tactical action (1951-56) to independence (1957-66). Hundreds of African Americans either visited or settled in Ghana during this time period, many of whom making technical and political contributions to the African Revolution which was centered in Accra.

Since the 1960s, the work of the Du Boises has gained attention among many students, intellectuals and activists in the U.S. and internationally. Nevertheless, the political significance of their contributions remains highly obscured due to the continuing institutionally racist and anti-Communist social atmosphere which prevails in colleges and universities in America.

The current generation of activists and intellectuals must unearth and review these monumental achievements in order to gain clearer insight into the actual political, social and economic history of the U.S. There is much within this period of 20^th century historical processes that could be utilized in building stronger movements for Pan-Africanism and Socialism in the contemporary era.

A potential wood supplier for one of the world’s largest pulp and paper mills does not have the consent of local communities

A joint investigation report released in English on May 8, 2017 by Indonesian NGOs titled “Local Communities Reject PT. Bangun Rimba Sejahtera, Potential Supplier to APP’s OKI Mill”, details the opposition of local communities to the development of industrial pulpwood plantations on their lands in Banka Belitung, Indonesia. Asia Pulp and Paper (APP) is considering purchasing wood from these plantations as a fiber source for its controversial new mill PT. OKI Pulp and Paper mill, despite the ongoing conflicts. The OKI Pulp and Paper mill is one of the world’s largest and has been criticized over concerns that its high demand for wood fiber will drive new land conflicts, breaking APP’s social and environmental commitments.

The report shows that Asia Pulp & Paper (APP) is currently considering PT. Bangun Rimba Sejahtera (BRS) as a fiber supplier for its OKI mill, despite BRS being rejected by a majority of the communities living within and adjacent to the BRS plantation concession.

“One hundred thousand people could be negatively affected by these plantations,” said Ratno Budi of Walhi Banka Belitung. “A majority of these communities have declared their objection to the plantation and to the presence of BRS on their community lands.”

Communities have organized demonstrations and written letters and petitions to government officials opposing the BRS plantation, as their customary lands, which will be affected, are the primary source of livelihood for most community members. The report shows that communities were not adequately consulted about the project and did not give their consent to the plantation. It also documents how BRS has included police and army in public meetings, with an intimidating effect on local residents.

“APP has made a commitment that any new concessions or fiber used to supply the OKI mill will respect the rights of affected communities to give or withhold their Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC),” said Aidil Fitri, director of HaKi. “If APP brings BRS on as a supplier it would clearly be breaking its own sustainability policies and its promise to respect human rights.”

“There is a lot of concern that the OKI mill will drive more social conflict, peatland drainage and deforestation” said Lafcadio Cortesi of Rainforest Action Network. “This is a test case for APP. Pulp and paper customers and investors will be watching whether APP will be true to its word and avoid suppliers like BRS.”

A potential wood supplier for one of the world’s largest pulp and paper mills does not have the consent of local communities

A joint investigation report released in English on May 8, 2017 by Indonesian NGOs titled “Local Communities Reject PT. Bangun Rimba Sejahtera, Potential Supplier to APP’s OKI Mill”, details the opposition of local communities to the development of industrial pulpwood plantations on their lands in Banka Belitung, Indonesia. Asia Pulp and Paper (APP) is considering purchasing wood from these plantations as a fiber source for its controversial new mill PT. OKI Pulp and Paper mill, despite the ongoing conflicts. The OKI Pulp and Paper mill is one of the world’s largest and has been criticized over concerns that its high demand for wood fiber will drive new land conflicts, breaking APP’s social and environmental commitments.

The report shows that Asia Pulp & Paper (APP) is currently considering PT. Bangun Rimba Sejahtera (BRS) as a fiber supplier for its OKI mill, despite BRS being rejected by a majority of the communities living within and adjacent to the BRS plantation concession.

“One hundred thousand people could be negatively affected by these plantations,” said Ratno Budi of Walhi Banka Belitung. “A majority of these communities have declared their objection to the plantation and to the presence of BRS on their community lands.”

Communities have organized demonstrations and written letters and petitions to government officials opposing the BRS plantation, as their customary lands, which will be affected, are the primary source of livelihood for most community members. The report shows that communities were not adequately consulted about the project and did not give their consent to the plantation. It also documents how BRS has included police and army in public meetings, with an intimidating effect on local residents.

“APP has made a commitment that any new concessions or fiber used to supply the OKI mill will respect the rights of affected communities to give or withhold their Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC),” said Aidil Fitri, director of HaKi. “If APP brings BRS on as a supplier it would clearly be breaking its own sustainability policies and its promise to respect human rights.”

“There is a lot of concern that the OKI mill will drive more social conflict, peatland drainage and deforestation” said Lafcadio Cortesi of Rainforest Action Network. “This is a test case for APP. Pulp and paper customers and investors will be watching whether APP will be true to its word and avoid suppliers like BRS.”

About a century ago the Western world entered an age of artificial substitutes, technical ingenuity, mechanical products, technological values, and accelerating motion. The watchword of that age was objectivity – a highly illusive standard for both leaders and the led. In particular, the notion of objectivity deeply affected the emerging mass communications industry, which before long was serving as one of the most powerful tools of global social management.

In the 19th century news had been an open ideological weapon; opinions splattered across most printed pages. But the modern media age brought with it a new “best practice” – objective reporting. Based on the contention that “rational people” could discover the truth if presented with enough unfettered facts, objectivity quickly became the largely unexamined goal of the professional press. In 1947, however, the Commission on Freedom of the Press concluded that it was no longer just a goal. It had become a fetish.

By the end of the 20th century the festishizing of apparent “facts” was viewed as a serious media problem, fed by both print and electronic media. As journalist Mark Harris put it, “Only hard data are useful to the press. Unable to negotiate meditation, the media turn it off. Reporters cannot believe things they cannot instantly absorb, jot down, add up and phone in.”

In the words of TV’s most famous FBI man, Jack Friday, like a good cop, a good reporter — or a rational leader — supposedly wanted “nothing but the facts.” That many of the so-called “facts” turned out to be false, incomplete or inaccurate, and that objectivity itself was an impossible standard, seemed not to matter at the time.

Humanity was still turning outward then, toward the “objective,” and upward toward increased “order,” through scientific methods and expanding bureaucratic organizations. The dream of the new world, at first sounding much like Rousseau’s vision of a naturalized community, gradually became a very different reality — centralized, regimented, and predictable. For a while, nevertheless, human relations and behavioral engineering were effective tools used by many leaders to turn people into more easily conditioned extroverts.

New materialist assumptions replaced the idea of a “rational soul” with a “tabula rasa” upon which society’s managers hoped to write. The term “tabula rasa” was introduced by John Locke in 1672, just as a new English middle-class was disposing of the divine rights of kings. Rejecting Descartes’ theory of innate knowledge, Locke traced it instead back to sense perception. We begin, he said, as blank slates, without general principles. After birth external stimuli imprint themselves upon the mind. Locke applied Newton’s mechanistic view of the world to the theory of knowledge:

Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all character, without any ideas; how comes it to be furnished? Whence comes it by that vast store, which the busy and boundless fancy of man has painted on it with an almost endless variety? Whence has it all the materials of knowledge and reason? To this I answer in one word, from experience; in that all our knowledge is founded, and from that it ultimately derives itself.

Combined with dialectical materialism, Locke’s hypothesis found wide support in the 20th century. The conditioned reflex –- training to respond to a given stimulus in a predetermined fashion –- was a shaping mechanism that, according to psychologist J.B. Watson, confirmed that the human being is “an assembled organic machine ready to run.”

The tools of operant conditioning soon developed by B.F. Skinner rested upon a related assumption: that the “living organism” we call a human being functions faithfully in response to externally administered stimuli. This gradually conferred on our leaders, as the self-selected programmers for these living machines, the new status of cultural designers. There was a downside, however. The rest of humanity was consigned to a slavish extroversion that removed the individual search for truth and the highest good from view.

The other-directed person, as David Reisman described him in a seminal study, The Lonely Crowd, is the model for the salaried worker or bureaucrat in any metropolitan area, “torn between the illusion that life should be easy, if he could only find the ways of proper adjustment to the group, and the half buried feeling that it is not easy for him.” Reisman documented how the shift away from agriculture and the growth of habits of scientific thought caused religious feelings to give way to rational, often individualistic attitudes.

The centralization and bureaucratization of society, in turn, increased awareness of and sensitivity to other people. The result was Fromm’s “marketer,” Mills’ “fixer,” Arnold Green’s “middle class male child.” Other-direction insured social conformity and, therefore, apparent comfort in one’s peer group. Rational extroverts care very much what others think of them. Being liked is the chief area of concern:

What is common to all other-directed people is that their contemporaries are the source of direction for the individual – either those known to him or those with whom he is indirectly acquainted, through friends and through the mass media. This source is of course ‘internalized’ in the sense that dependence on it for guidance in life is implanted early. The goals toward which the other-directed person strives shift with that guidance: it is only the process of striving itself and the process of paying close attention to the signals from others that remain unaltered throughout life.

The other-directed person is also often a model rational manager, someone who believes that everyone is a customer, and all of them objects of either conciliation or manipulation. Jung described this kind of person as an extrovert psychological type of either the thinking or feeling rational variety. As leaders they are object-oriented and dedicated to “given facts” and the status quo, never expecting to find absolute factors in their own inner lives. Everything they know is outside themselves, their guide is external necessity.

Such a consciousness, said Jung, looks outward because that is where the essential and decisive determinant is found. No serious attempt to overreach “current facts” is made, since such facts are a source of almost inexhaustible fascination.

Conveniently, the moral standard of the modern leader coincides with the demands of society. Above all, such a person is adaptable. Yet adjustment to the “objective” situation, the demands of the immediate environment, isn’t merely adaptation. The factual fetishism of rational managers also traps them in short-range planning and bans most considerations beyond the observable, anything that lies outside the immediate conditions of time and space. Instead, they do only what is expected.

In most modern societies, leaders and managers have become a new class, a covert cult of ascensionists. For these committed strivers, the highest person represents the utmost in power, authority, and sometimes intelligence. But as Lewis Mumford noted, those who look upward and outward, moving across vast distances at rapid speeds, often forget to look downward and inward. Both self and Earth are sacrificed in a quest for order and control, and the rejection of the inner self becomes the curse of our age.

The dominance of purely rational habits of thought in almost all areas of life has also given theories the veneer of absolute truth. Despite the limits of perception, we struggle for certainty about the small bits of knowledge we hold. Our spirit of logical inquiry is too often a journey to eradicate doubt and establish doctrine. Once a hypothesis has been verified, the next step is to corroborate, refine and disseminate it. In this way a variety of flawed and false theories can attain the status of law.

A significant example is the behaviorist hypothesis that the only elementary function of the central nervous system is reflex. To verify this, only experiments that registered responses to “change” were conducted. According to ethologist Konrad Lorenz, these experiments were executed in a way “that precluded their revealing that the central nervous system can do more than react passively to stimuli.” He concluded that “the Skinnerian has no right to comment on innate behavior or on aggression, because he cuts it from consideration.”

Nevertheless, that belief system has spread. Despite its blind spots, the Skinnerian view has made a deep impact, almost becoming an item of faith. The simplicity of the reflex doctrine, along with the apparent exactitude of related research, has led to considerable acclaim. InCivilized Man’s Eight Deadly Sins, Lorenz noted:

Even religious believers could be converted to it, for if the child is born as a ‘tabula rasa,’ it is the duty of every believer to see to it that this child and, possibly, all other children, are brought up in what he believes to be the only true religion. Thus behavioristic dogma supports every doctrinaire in his conviction.

Behaviorism is basically the doctrine of human as mechanism restated as a democratic principle: all of us are created potentially equal — blank slates without instinct, and would be equal under the same external conditions. The threat to democratic order, therefore, is the “myth” of the inner being, which suggests the existence of differences in social need and response.

Most leaders generally accept such mechanistic ideas, moving their communities and organizations toward increased predictability. But in order for such so-called rationality to function as the central operational principle, people must be unresisting objects. The rulers of the modern world may disagree about ideology or economics, but they have apparently reached a consensus on at least one matter – that the conditioning of humanity is highly desirable. The social contract, in the US and elsewhere, may have been initiated with the ideal of individualism, but it has been amended considerably over time, leaning progressively and dramatically toward order and uniformity.

Judging from the higher degree of extroversion in developed societies, and the popularity of analysis and superficial certainty, mass indoctrination has been remarkably effective. But classification without reflection upon whole systems can be dangerous; this approach is easily prey to reductionism. It smirks at attempts to increase knowledge without quantification or operational research. The filter of measurement becomes the only accepted standard.

To look at and work with human beings is this manner, however, one must accept a dehumanized view of consciousness. Along with that comes repression and self-censorship — of subjective experiences, impulses, instincts and other challenges to “reason.”

Skinnerians proclaimed that the “autonomous” human was dead, replaced by conditioned and conditioning humanity. What they thought we needed was more objective, exacting research to push back the decimal places that measure the “real world.” But humanity’s half-buried instincts have not completely disappeared. This adjusted life, they still remind us, is not bringing us closer to the highest good, the “summum bonum,” and may instead be moving us farther away.

Greg Guma is the Vermont-based author of Dons of Time, Uneasy Empire, Spirits of Desire, Big Lies, and The People’s Republic: Vermont and the Sanders Revolution. This is an excerpt from Prisoners of the Real. To read other chapters, go to Prisoners of the Real: An Odyssey.

This is the fourth and last in a series of articles based in part on eyewitness accounts about the rapidly deteriorating socio-political conditions in Turkey and what the future may hold for the country. The first, second and third articles are available here: First, Second, Third.

In many conversations and encounters I had over the years with former Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, he emphatically echoed his boss President Erdogan’s grandiose vision that by 2023 (the 100th anniversary of the Turkish Republic), Turkey will become as powerful and influential as the Ottoman Empire was during its heyday. Under the best of circumstances, Turkey cannot realize Erdogan’s far-fetched dream. Had he stayed the course, however, with his socio-political and judiciary reforms and economic developments, as he had during his first nine years in power, Turkey could have become a major player on the global stage and a regional powerhouse.

Sadly, Erdogan abandoned much of the impressive democratic reforms he championed, and embarked upon a systematic Islamization of the country while dismantling the pillars of democracy. He amassed unprecedented powers and transformed Turkey from a democratic to an autocratic country, ensuring that he has the last word on all matters of state.

In retrospect, it appears that Erdogan had never committed himself to a democratic form of government. The reforms he undertook during his first nine years in power were largely induced by the European Union’s requirements from any country seeking membership, which he exploited as a means by which to propel himself toward his ultimate goal. A quote attributed to him in 1999 describes precisely what his real intentions were from the day he rose to power. “Democracy” he said, “is like a bus, when you arrive at your destination, you step off.”

His role model is Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (meaning “Father of the Turks”), who founded the Turkish Republic in 1923.  Both share similar personal attributes as they sought to lead the nation with an iron fist while disregarding any separation of power. However, Atatürk was determined to establish a Westernized secular democratic state while Erdogan went in the opposite direction.

Erdogan steadily moved to create a theocracy where Islamic tradition and values reign supreme while assuming Atatürk’s image, which is revered by most Turks. Erdogan presents himself as one who leads with determination and purpose, generating power from his popular support, ultimately seeking to replace Atatürk; with the new amendments to the constitution, he will be endowed with powers even greater than Atatürk ever held.

With his growing popularity and most impressive economic growth, Erdogan successfully created the status of a strong and resolute leader—the “father” of a new Turkish Republic—and artfully penetrated the consciousness of the Turkish public while using Islam as the undisputed pathway that will lead Turkey to greatness. He is determined to preside at the 100th anniversary of the Turkish Republic over a powerful nation among the top ten largest global economies and that extends its influence East and West, akin to the prodigious influence that the Ottoman Empire enjoyed.

To realize his grand vision, Erdogan took several measures to consolidate his absolute power.

First, clearing the way: Erdogan embarked on the complete marginalization or elimination of anyone, in and outside the ruling AK Party, that challenged his authority or advanced new ideas for solving the country’s problems. Those who did not support his policies and dared to question his judgment were not spared. He resorted to conspiracy theories, accusing his political opponents of being enemies of the state aiming to topple his government, in order to continue unopposed to realize his vision for the country, analogous to the influence and outreach of the Ottoman Empire. He even fired his long-time friend and confidant Davutoglu because Davutoglu differed from him in connection with the Kurdish problem, and especially because of Davutoglu’s reluctance to support the constitutional amendments that will grant the president sweeping and unprecedented powers.

Second, the need for a culprit: Erdogan needed a scapegoat to blame for any of his shortcomings, and found the Gulen movement to be the perfect culprit that would provide him with the cover to overshadow the massive corruption that has swept his government. This also provided him with the “justification” to crack down on many social, political, and institutional entities, silencing the media, controlling the judiciary, and subordinating the military.

The aftermath of the attempted military coup in July 2016 gave him the ammunition to conduct a society-wide witch-hunt, providing him with the excuse to purge tens of thousands of people from academia, civil society, judiciary, military, and internal security. This has allowed him to assume total control of all departments in the government and private sector. He described his purge as a necessary evil to cleanse the public of the ‘cancer’ that has gripped the country. In so doing, he ensured that the political system revolves around the presidency, leaving him completely unchallenged to pursue his imperial dream to resurrect the stature of the Ottoman Empire as the country prepares to vote in the constitutional referendum on April 16.

Third, the creation of Ottoman symbolism: To project his grandiose vision, Erdogan needed to instill Ottoman images into the public consciousness, including the building of a 1,100-room ‘White Palace’ as his residence at a prohibitive cost to taxpayers. His most recent project was the Çamlica Mosque, the now-largest mosque in Istanbul, standing on the eponymous hill that overlooks the entire city.

Recently, Erdogan started the construction of another mosque in Taksim Square—once the site of the fiercest protests against Erdogan in his career—with all the style of the Ottoman era. Erdogan has even instructed that the national anthem be played on modified drums and brass instruments to make the music sound as if it were being played by bands of the Ottoman period. His purpose is to indoctrinate the public in a subliminal way to his perspective of the glorious Ottoman period.

Fourth, foreign policy assertiveness: Under Erdogan, Turkey has become increasingly assertive and forceful in the region. In Cyprus, he is determined to strike a deal largely on his terms. In Iraq, he placed Turkish troops over the objections of the Iraqi government to maintain his ruthless war against the Kurds. In Syria, he allowed thousands of foreign fighters, including many who have joined ISIS, to cross the border to strengthen the anti-Assad fight, while fighting the Syrian Kurds to prevent them from establishing their own autonomous rule, fearing that the Turkish Kurds would also demand autonomous rule of their own.

Erdogan further promoted the policy of “zero problem with neighbors,” and although presently Turkey has problems with just about every neighbor (and its prospective EU membership has completely diminished), he continues to claim that Turkey enjoys good relations internationally. Erdogan still uses Turkey’s membership in NATO as a sign of greatness; the fact that Turkey has the second-largest number of ground troops in  NATO reinforces his illusion that Ankara enjoys unrivaled military prowess in the region and commands the respect and attention of the international community that the Ottoman Empire was accorded.

Fifth, promoting Islam as a powerful tool: Erdogan is also using Sunni Islam to promote the country as a republic with Islamic ideals supported by a loyal state apparatus. He portrays himself as the leader of the Sunni world that would restore the Ottoman era of influence while cementing his authoritarian rule in the form of a neo-Sultan. To be sure, Erdogan is vigorously promoting – with the support of his party – Islamic nationalism systematically and meticulously. Mustafa Akyol, a Turkish analyst of politics and culture and author of the new book The Islamic Jesus says that “political propaganda is in your face every day, every single moment. If you turn on TV, if you open newspapers…”

Former Prime Minister Davutoglu said in 2015 that Turkey “will re-found the Ottoman state.” Although Davutoglu was fired, he—like most Turkish officials—depicts the government as the rightful heir of the Ottoman legacy. To that end, Erdogan uses Islam as the unifying theme that would propel Turkey to the greatness that the Ottoman Empire enjoyed. In fact, Turkish religious leaders have always thought of themselves as the standard-bearer of Islamic civilization, and though this failed with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, to them it must now be corrected. As they would have it, “Turks once again should lead the ummah [Islamic community] as the new Ottomans.”

Sadly, Erdogan, who is still seen as a hero by nearly half of the Turkish population, is leading the country on a treacherous path. Turkey and its people have the resources, creativity, and institutions to make Turkey a significant power. Erdogan, who demonstrated an uncanny ability to harness his country’s natural and human resources, could have made Turkey such a power on the global stage. Indeed, he would have been the Atatürk of the new era had he simply continued with his historic reforms while protecting the rights of every individual and creating a real model of Islamic democracy.

The collapse of the Ottoman Empire was largely precipitated, among other things, by its internal political decadence, the arbitrary exercising of power, and gross violations of human rights that dramatically eroded the foundation on which the empire was built.

In whichever form Erdogan wants to resurrect the Ottoman Empire, he will fail because no country can survive, let alone become great, as long as the government walks on the backs of the people and stifles their freedom to act, speak, and dream.

There is where the greatness of any nation rests and endures—the Ottoman Empire never provided a model worthy of such emulation.

The US has begun the installation of its Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile system in South Korea, provoking an angry reaction from China, which warned that it could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. The provocative move will heighten the already tense situation on the Korean Peninsula as the US and South Korea engage in huge annual war games.

Two trucks, each mounted with a THAAD launch pad, were landed aboard a C-17 cargo plane at the US military’s Osan Air Base, south of Seoul, on Monday night. According to South Korean military officials, more equipment and personnel will arrive in the coming weeks. The THAAD battery installation is likely to be completed as early as May or June.

US officials exploited North Korea’s test launch of four ballistic missiles on Monday morning as the pretext for commencing the THAAD installation. However, the final go-ahead for the THAAD deployment, which was agreed by South Korea last July, occurred last week when the South Korean government acquired the planned site in a land swap deal with the conglomerate Lotte.

Washington also insists that the THAAD placement is purely defensive and needed to counter North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. In reality, the THAAD system is offensive in character. It is an important component of an expanding US anti-ballistic missile system in Asia that is primarily aimed at preparing for nuclear war against China, not North Korea.

US imperialism, which has an estimated 4,000 nuclear warheads, has never ruled out a first nuclear strike and is spending $1 trillion to upgrade its nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Its anti-ballistic missile systems are designed to neutralise the ability of any enemy to retaliate in the event of a US nuclear attack. The Federation of American Scientists estimated that China had about 260 nuclear warheads as of 2015.

The THAAD system is designed to intercept incoming ballistic missiles at high altitude. It consists of a powerful X-band radar system to track missiles at long range, linked to truck-mounted interceptors designed to destroy a hostile missile in flight. In the event of war with China, the THAAD system would not only protect key US military bases in South Korea and Japan. Its X-band radar could detect and track missile launches deep inside the Chinese mainland.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang yesterday reiterated Beijing’s opposition to the THAAD deployment. Geng warned that China would “take necessary measures to defend our security interests and the consequences will be shouldered by the United States and South Korea.”

Russia also condemned the THAAD installation. Victor Ozerov, who chairs Russia’s Federal Defense and Security Committee, branded the deployment as “another provocation against Russia” aimed, if not at encircling Russia, “then at least to besiege it from the west and the east.”

The Chinese government has already taken retaliatory moves against South Korea, closing more than 20 stores owned by Lotte in China on the pretext of safety violations, and has advised travel agents not to sell South Korean packages to Chinese tourists. The state-owned media has suggested a wider boycott of South Korean goods and even the severing of diplomatic relations with Seoul.

A commentary in the official Xinhua news agency warned that the THAAD deployment “will bring an arms race in the region.” Hinting that China would enlarge its nuclear arsenal to counter the US anti-ballistic missile systems, it declared: “More missile shields on one side inevitably bring more nuclear missiles of the opposing side that can break through the missile shield.”

The suggestion that China could expand its nuclear arsenal only underscores the reactionary character of the Chinese regime’s response to the escalating economic and military threats by the Trump administration. The Chinese Communist Party represents the interests of an ultra-rich oligarchy, not Chinese workers and the poor. Its military build-up and whipping up of Chinese nationalism heightens the danger of war and divides the working class.

A nuclear arms race between China and the United States would be profoundly destabilising in Asia and the world. An expansion of the Chinese nuclear arsenal could prompt South Korea and Japan to develop their own nuclear weapons, and encourage India to enlarge its nuclear arsenal, exacerbating tensions throughout South Asia, particularly with Pakistan.

The Trump administration has targeted China, warning of trade war measures, threatening military action against Chinese-controlled islets in the South China Sea and suggesting it could tear up the “One China” policy that forms the bedrock of US-China relations.

Trump has repeatedly accused China of not imposing crippling sanctions on its ally North Korea to force it to abandon its nuclear weapons and missiles. The White House is currently engaged in a review of US strategy toward North Korea, details of which have been leaked to the media, including proposals for pre-emptive military strikes on North Korea and regime-change operations.

North Korea provides a convenient pretext for the US military build-up in North East Asia against China. The New York Times reported that one option under consideration is the return of tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea—adjacent not only to North Korea, but also China.

Trump has already outlined a huge expansion of the US military and has tweeted that the US has “to greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capacity.” Moreover, the US strategy is shifting from the use of nuclear weapons as a last resort to the active consideration of a limited nuclear war.

North Korea is rapidly emerging as a dangerous global flashpoint. A small incident, either accidental or calculated, has the potential to trigger a catastrophic conflict on the Korean Peninsula that would draw in nuclear-armed powers such as China and Russia.

The only social force capable of halting the drive to world war is the international working class, through building a unified anti-war movement based on socialist principles to put an end to capitalism and its outmoded nation-state system, which is the source of war.

The US has begun the installation of its Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile system in South Korea, provoking an angry reaction from China, which warned that it could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. The provocative move will heighten the already tense situation on the Korean Peninsula as the US and South Korea engage in huge annual war games.

Two trucks, each mounted with a THAAD launch pad, were landed aboard a C-17 cargo plane at the US military’s Osan Air Base, south of Seoul, on Monday night. According to South Korean military officials, more equipment and personnel will arrive in the coming weeks. The THAAD battery installation is likely to be completed as early as May or June.

US officials exploited North Korea’s test launch of four ballistic missiles on Monday morning as the pretext for commencing the THAAD installation. However, the final go-ahead for the THAAD deployment, which was agreed by South Korea last July, occurred last week when the South Korean government acquired the planned site in a land swap deal with the conglomerate Lotte.

Washington also insists that the THAAD placement is purely defensive and needed to counter North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. In reality, the THAAD system is offensive in character. It is an important component of an expanding US anti-ballistic missile system in Asia that is primarily aimed at preparing for nuclear war against China, not North Korea.

US imperialism, which has an estimated 4,000 nuclear warheads, has never ruled out a first nuclear strike and is spending $1 trillion to upgrade its nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Its anti-ballistic missile systems are designed to neutralise the ability of any enemy to retaliate in the event of a US nuclear attack. The Federation of American Scientists estimated that China had about 260 nuclear warheads as of 2015.

The THAAD system is designed to intercept incoming ballistic missiles at high altitude. It consists of a powerful X-band radar system to track missiles at long range, linked to truck-mounted interceptors designed to destroy a hostile missile in flight. In the event of war with China, the THAAD system would not only protect key US military bases in South Korea and Japan. Its X-band radar could detect and track missile launches deep inside the Chinese mainland.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang yesterday reiterated Beijing’s opposition to the THAAD deployment. Geng warned that China would “take necessary measures to defend our security interests and the consequences will be shouldered by the United States and South Korea.”

Russia also condemned the THAAD installation. Victor Ozerov, who chairs Russia’s Federal Defense and Security Committee, branded the deployment as “another provocation against Russia” aimed, if not at encircling Russia, “then at least to besiege it from the west and the east.”

The Chinese government has already taken retaliatory moves against South Korea, closing more than 20 stores owned by Lotte in China on the pretext of safety violations, and has advised travel agents not to sell South Korean packages to Chinese tourists. The state-owned media has suggested a wider boycott of South Korean goods and even the severing of diplomatic relations with Seoul.

A commentary in the official Xinhua news agency warned that the THAAD deployment “will bring an arms race in the region.” Hinting that China would enlarge its nuclear arsenal to counter the US anti-ballistic missile systems, it declared: “More missile shields on one side inevitably bring more nuclear missiles of the opposing side that can break through the missile shield.”

The suggestion that China could expand its nuclear arsenal only underscores the reactionary character of the Chinese regime’s response to the escalating economic and military threats by the Trump administration. The Chinese Communist Party represents the interests of an ultra-rich oligarchy, not Chinese workers and the poor. Its military build-up and whipping up of Chinese nationalism heightens the danger of war and divides the working class.

A nuclear arms race between China and the United States would be profoundly destabilising in Asia and the world. An expansion of the Chinese nuclear arsenal could prompt South Korea and Japan to develop their own nuclear weapons, and encourage India to enlarge its nuclear arsenal, exacerbating tensions throughout South Asia, particularly with Pakistan.

The Trump administration has targeted China, warning of trade war measures, threatening military action against Chinese-controlled islets in the South China Sea and suggesting it could tear up the “One China” policy that forms the bedrock of US-China relations.

Trump has repeatedly accused China of not imposing crippling sanctions on its ally North Korea to force it to abandon its nuclear weapons and missiles. The White House is currently engaged in a review of US strategy toward North Korea, details of which have been leaked to the media, including proposals for pre-emptive military strikes on North Korea and regime-change operations.

North Korea provides a convenient pretext for the US military build-up in North East Asia against China. The New York Times reported that one option under consideration is the return of tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea—adjacent not only to North Korea, but also China.

Trump has already outlined a huge expansion of the US military and has tweeted that the US has “to greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capacity.” Moreover, the US strategy is shifting from the use of nuclear weapons as a last resort to the active consideration of a limited nuclear war.

North Korea is rapidly emerging as a dangerous global flashpoint. A small incident, either accidental or calculated, has the potential to trigger a catastrophic conflict on the Korean Peninsula that would draw in nuclear-armed powers such as China and Russia.

The only social force capable of halting the drive to world war is the international working class, through building a unified anti-war movement based on socialist principles to put an end to capitalism and its outmoded nation-state system, which is the source of war.

The gauzy allegations of Russia “hacking” the Democrats to elect Donald Trump just got hazier with WikiLeaks’ new revelations about CIA cyber-spying and the capability to pin the blame on others, reports Robert Parry.

WikiLeaks’ disclosure of documents revealing CIA cyber-spying capabilities underscores why much more skepticism should have been applied to the U.S. intelligence community’s allegations about Russia “hacking” last year’s American presidential election. It turns out that the CIA maintains a library of foreign malware that could be used to pin the blame for a “hack” on another intelligence service.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at a media conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. (Photo credit: New Media Days / Peter Erichsen)

That revelation emerged from documents that WikiLeaks published on Tuesday from a CIA archive that WikiLeaks said had apparently been passed around within a community of former U.S. government hackers and contractors before one of them gave WikiLeaks some of the material.

The documents revealed that the CIA can capture the content of encrypted Internet and cell-phone messages by grabbing the material in the fraction of a second before the words are put through encryption.

Another program called “Weeping Angel” can hack Samsung “smart” TVs with built-in Internet connections, allowing the CIA and British intelligence to covertly use the TVs as listening devices even when they appear to be turned off.

Besides the 1984-ish aspects of these reported capabilities – Orwell’s dystopia also envisioned TVs being used to spy on people in their homes – the WikiLeaks’ disclosures add a new layer of mystery to whether the Russians were behind the “hacks” of the Democratic Party or whether Moscow was framed.

For instance, the widely cited Russian fingerprints on the “hacking” attacks – such as malware associated with the suspected Russian cyber-attackers APT 28 (also known as “Fancy Bear”); some Cyrillic letters: and the phrase “Felix Edmundovich,” a reference to Dzerzhinsky, the founder of a Bolsheviks’ secret police – look less like proof of Russian guilt than they did earlier.

Or put differently — based on the newly available CIA material — the possibility that these telltale signs were planted to incriminate Moscow doesn’t sound as farfetched as it might have earlier.

A former U.S. intelligence officer, cited by The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, acknowledged that the CIA’s “Umbrage” library of foreign hacking tools could “be used to mask a U.S. operation and make it appear that it was carried out by another country…. That could be accomplished by inserting malware components from, say, a known Chinese, Russian or Iranian hacking operation into a U.S. one.”

While that possibility in no way clears Moscow in the case of the Democratic “hack,” it does inject new uncertainty into the “high confidence” that President Obama’s intelligence community expressed in its assessment of Russian culpability. If the CIA had this capability to plant false leads in the data, so too would other actors, both government and private, to cover their own tracks.

Dubious Forensics

Another problem with the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment is that the forensics were left to private contractors working for the Democrats, not conducted independently by U.S. government experts.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

That gap in the evidentiary trail widens when one notes that CrowdStrike, the Democratic Party’s consultant, offered contradictory commentary about the skills of the hackers.

CrowdStrike praised the hackers’ tradecraft as “superb, operational security second to none” and added: “we identified advanced methods consistent with nation-state level capabilities including deliberate targeting and ‘access management’ tradecraft — both groups were constantly going back into the environment to change out their implants, modify persistent methods, move to new Command & Control channels and perform other tasks to try to stay ahead of being detected.”

In other words, CrowdStrike cited the sophistication of the tradecraft as proof of a state-sponsored cyber-attack, yet it was the sloppiness of the tradecraft that supposedly revealed the Russian links, i.e. the old malware connections, the Cyrillic letters and the Dzerzhinsky reference.

As Sam Biddle wrote for The Intercept, “Would a group whose ‘tradecraft is superb’ with ‘operational security second to none’ really leave behind the name of a Soviet spy chief imprinted on a document it sent to American journalists? Would these groups really be dumb enough to leave cyrillic comments on these documents? Would these groups that ‘constantly [go] back into the environment to change out their implants, modify persistent methods, move to new Command & Control channels’ get caught because they precisely didn’t make sure not to use IP addresses they’d been associated [with] before?

It’s very hard to buy the argument that the Democrats were hacked by one of the most sophisticated, diabolical foreign intelligence services in history, and that we know this because they screwed up over and over again.

Sources and Methods

The WikiLeaks’ disclosures on Tuesday also demonstrate that the pro-transparency Web site has a well-placed source with access to sensitive U.S. intelligence data.

WikiLeaks logo

That reinforces the suggestion from WikiLeaks’ associate, former British Ambassador Craig Murray, that the emails purloined from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta originated from U.S. intelligence intercepts and were then leaked by an American insider to WikiLeaks, not obtained via a “hack” directed by the Russian government.

Podesta’s association with the international lobbying firm, the Podesta Group, could justify U.S. intelligence monitoring his communications as a way to glean information about the strategies of Saudi Arabia and other foreign clients.

Murray suggested that the earlier WikiLeaks’ release of Democratic National Committee emails came from a Democratic insider, not from Russia. In addition, WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange has denied that Russia was the source of either batch of Democratic emails, although he refused to say who was.

Of course, it would be possible that Russia used American cutouts to launder the emails without WikiLeaks knowing where the material originated. And some cyber-experts, who were cited in press reports about the new WikiLeaks’ disclosures on Tuesday, speculated, without evidence, that perhaps Russia was the source of them, too.

Still, there are now fresh reasons to doubt the Official Narrative that Russia “hacked” into Democratic emails in a covert operation intended to throw the U.S. election to Donald Trump.

Those doubts already existed – or should have – because the U.S. intelligence community refused to release any hard proof that the Russians were responsible for the purloined Democratic emails.

On Jan. 6, just one day after Director of National Intelligence James Clapper vowed to go to the greatest possible lengths to supply the public with the evidence behind the accusations, his office released a 25-page report that contained no direct evidence that Russia delivered hacked emails from the DNC and Podesta to WikiLeaks.

The DNI report amounted to a compendium of reasons to suspect that Russia was the source of the information – built largely on the argument that Russia had a motive for doing so because of its disdain for Democratic nominee Clinton and the potential for friendlier relations with Republican nominee Trump.

A Big Risk

But the DNI’s case, as presented, was one-sided, ignoring other reasons why the Russians would not have taken the risk.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

For instance, while it is true that many Russian officials, including President Putin, considered Clinton to be a threat to worsen the already frayed relationship between the two nuclear superpowers, the report ignores the downside for Russia trying to interfere with the U.S. election campaign and then failing to stop Clinton, which looked like the most likely outcome until Election Night.

If Russia had accessed the DNC and Podesta emails and slipped them to WikiLeaks for publication, Putin would have to think that the National Security Agency, with its exceptional ability to track electronic communications around the world, might well have detected the maneuver and would have informed Clinton.

So, on top of Clinton’s well-known hawkishness, Putin would have risked handing the expected incoming president a personal reason to take revenge on him and his country. Historically, Russia has been very careful in such situations, holding its intelligence collections for internal purposes only and not sharing them with the public.

While it is conceivable that Putin decided to take this extraordinary risk in this case – despite the widely held view that Clinton was a shoo-in to defeat Trump – an objective report would have examined this counter argument for him not doing so.

But the DNI report was not driven by a desire to be evenhanded; it was, in effect, a prosecutor’s brief, albeit one that lacked any real evidence that the accused is guilty.

Though it’s impossible for an average U.S. citizen to know precisely what the U.S. intelligence community may have in its secret files, some former NSA officials who are familiar with the agency’s eavesdropping capabilities say Washington’s lack of certainty suggests that the NSA does not possess such evidence.

That’s the view of William Binney, who retired as NSA’s technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and who created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.

Binney, in an article co-written with former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, said, “With respect to the alleged interference by Russia and WikiLeaks in the U.S. election, it is a major mystery why U.S. intelligence feels it must rely on ‘circumstantial evidence,’ when it has NSA’s vacuum cleaner sucking up hard evidence galore. What we know of NSA’s capabilities shows that the email disclosures were from leaking, not hacking.”

Released last summer — around the time of the Democratic National Convention — the DNC emails revealed senior party officials showing a preference for former Secretary of State Clinton over Sen. Bernie Sanders although the DNC was supposed to remain neutral.

Later in the campaign, the Podesta leak exposed the contents of speeches that Clinton gave to Wall Street banks, which she wanted to keep secret from the American voters, and the existence of pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation.

News articles based on the WikiLeaks’ material embarrassed the DNC and the Clinton campaign, but the rupture of secrets was not considered a very important factor in Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump. Clinton herself blamed that surprising outcome on FBI Director James Comey’s last-minute decision to briefly reopen the investigation into her improper use of a private server for her emails as Secretary of State.

After Comey’s move, Clinton’s poll numbers cratered and she seemed incapable of reversing the trend. More generally, Clinton faced criticism for running an inept campaign that included her insulting many Trump supporters by calling them “deplorables” and failing to articulate a clear, hopeful vision for the future.

However, after the shock of Trump’s stunning victory began to wear off, the outgoing Obama administration and angry Democrats began singling out Putin as a chief culprit in Clinton’s defeat.

Despite the appearance that they were scapegoating America’s old adversary – the Russkies – liberals and Democrats have used the allegations to energize their base and put the young Trump administration on the defensive, even though hard evidence to support the accusations is still lacking.

The liberals and Democrats also don’t seem to care that they are using these dubious allegations to ratchet up tensions between the world’s two nuclear superpowers, thus putting the future of the world at risk.

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).

In March, Moscow became the center of the diplomatic activity of global and regional powers involved in a number of the ongoing crises in the Middle East. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is due in Moscow March 9 for a two-day visit. He will meet his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and will participate in a session of the Council on High-Level Cooperation between Russia and Turkey.

At the same time, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will visit Moscow to meet Putin. The two leaders will discuss the current situation in the Middle East and aspects of the Palestinian-Israeli settlement, according to the Kremlin press service.

UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson will meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow in the coming weeks. It will be the first UK foreign secretary visit to the country since 2012.

High profile Swiss diplomats involved in the so-called “Geneva format” aimed on “resolving the Syrian conflict” and some military and political officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran will also visit Moscow, according to available information. 

On March 8-9, Germany’s Foreign Minister Siegmar Gabriel will make a visit to Moscow to meet with his Russian counterpart.

Earlier this month:

• On March 1, Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov met with Secretary-General of the League of Arab States Ahmed Aboul-Gheit.
• On March 2, Lavrov met with Prime Minister of the Government of National Accord of Libya Fayez al-Sarraj.
• On March 3, Bagdanov meet with a representative of the leader of the Lebanese Progressive Socialist Party.
• On March 7, Bagdanov met with Palestinian Ambassador to Russia Abdel Hafiz Nofal. At the same day, Bogdanov and Yitzhak Herzog, the head of the Zionist Union and the the Israeli Labor Party and the leader of the opposition in the Israeli parliament, discussed the situation in Syria and the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The dramatic incensement of the diplomatic activity comes amid the increased instability in Libya, the de-facto predetermined collapse of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, the tensions in the Golan Heights area and the new round of the Israeli-Palestine crisis.

The new Israeli law which retroactively legalizes 4,000 Jewish settler homes built on private Palestinian property in the West Bank, the no-tolerance strategy towards Palestinian protesters push to the radicalization of the Israeli-Arab standoff in the region. After the collapse of ISIS, its former members could join existing or create new radical Sunni organizations exploiting the Israeli-Arab tensions in order to gain funds and support. The growth of terrorist activity and further deterioration of the security in Israel will be the easily expected result.

At the same time, the course of the Syrian conflict allows Hezbollah to get more free means and resources at the Syrian-Israeli and the Israeli-Lebanese border. This also sets a ground for further escalation amid the continued Israeli military strikes against Hezbollah and Syrian army targets.

The hardline anti-Iranian and pro-Israeli stance of the Trump administration is another fact in the expected crisis.

On the one hand, the Trump administration supports Israel in the growing confrontation and aims to limit the Russian-Iranian cooperation and the Iranian influence in the region.

On the other hand, White House has wide plans of anti-ISIS military operations in Syria’s Raqqah and Deir Ezzor, and Iraq’s Mosul. Iran plays a key role in both countries and the US-led coalition de-facto cooperates with pro-Iranian forces in Iraq. The Iranian-Syrian-Russian alliance also plays a key role in the standoff in northern Syria where Turkey aims to crack down US-backed Kurdish forces. In both cases, the White House is pushed to “cooperate” with Tehran directly or indirectly.

In this situation, Ankara pursues a goal of creating the Turkish-controlled puppet state in northern Syria and seeks to expand further its military and diplomatic influence with participating in the US-led Raqqah advance – what is not possible while the US directly backs Kurdish forces. The UK diplomacy plays a role of the medium of the global elites’ stance.

All these allow supposing that the ongoing Moscow-centered diplomatic developments will likely frame the balance of power in the Middle East in the post-ISIS period.

The aforementioned complex of meetings and events could be compared to the Teheran Conference in 1943 when all key players understand that the regional relations will shift dramatically but the prospects of this shift is not clear.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

US spy agencies trample on Bill of Rights protections. Their spying domestically and abroad is pervasive.

Anything goes is official policy, rule of law principles circumvented. Edward Snowden earlier said he hoped his revelations would make people worldwide aware of how their freedoms and protections are compromised.

Mass surveillance goes on in ways few people realize. Numerous techniques are used – metadata collected unrelated to national security without court authorized warrants.

Phone conversations are recorded, emails collected and stored. New WikiLeaks documents revealed that the CIA (and presumably the NSA, FBI and other US spy agencies) can circumvent encryption, turn television sets into listening devices, and monitor people in ways Orwell never imagined.

If its information is accurate, Langley has over 1,000 malware systems and other software, able to infiltrate and control personal electronics.

Documents WikiLeaks obtained perhaps came from the agency’s Center for Cyber Intelligence – operating in Langley, VA and Washington’s Frankfurt, Germany consulate.

Via Twitter, Snowden said the document trove “looks authentic.” Sophisticated spying capability leaves everyone vulnerable, including foreign leaders and the president of the United States.

William Binney is a cryptanalyst, mathematician, creator of the NSA’s global surveillance system turned whistleblower. Agency activities are unconstitutional, he stressed.

Earlier he said we’re perilously close to a “totalitarian state.” The NSA and other US intelligence agencies can spy on virtually everything we do.

Information obtained is laundered, making it look legitimate. Binney calls it “a total corruption of the justice system…a totalitarian process, (meaning) we are now in a police state.”

Monday on Fox News, he said Trump is “absolutely right” to claim he was wiretapped and monitored. “His phone calls, everything he did electronically, was being monitored.”

Everyone’s electronic communications are monitored and stored. Big Brother is real. Binney called the FISA court “irrelevant.” What’s going on is “outside of the courts…outside of the Congress.”

He designed the system enabling this type sophisticated spying on anyone. America’s intelligence community was likely behind sensitive leaks about Trump, gaining firsthand knowledge of his communications by monitoring him electronically.

It’s unclear whether Congress will subpoena spy agency officials to testify under oath about Trump’s accusations – and if so, how far will it go in exposing what likely went on.

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.

Former U.S. President Barack Obama was just named the 2017 recipient of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award, “the most prestigious award for public servants.” Named after JFK’s 1957 book, Profiles in Courage, it is awarded annually by the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation to “public servants who have made courageous decisions of conscience without regard for the personal or professional consequences.”

Obama will receive this award for his efforts in promoting democratic principles in the face of severe political opposition by members of Congress and a divided national political body.

Faced with unrelenting political opposition, President Obama has embodied the definition of courage that my grandfather cites in the opening lines of ‘Profiles in Courage’: grace under pressure,” Schlossberg said. “Throughout his two terms in office, he represented all Americans with decency, integrity, and an unshakeable commitment to the greater good.”

Obama is being recognized for “his enduring commitment to democratic ideals and elevating the standard of political courage in a new century,” the foundation said, citing the expansion of health care options for millions, restoring diplomatic relations with Cuba and leadership on an international climate change agreement. [Source]

Obama – 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner

In 2009, then President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his actions in the first year of his presidency including the “promotion of nuclear nonproliferation and a ‘new climate’ in international relations fostered by Obama, especially in reaching out to the Muslim world.” When the Nobel Prize was announced, many on both sides of the political spectrum rightfully thought it was a joke at first, and as Obama’s presidency ground on, it became absolutely clear that while although Obama was indeed a charismatic, charming, and visually appealing president, he in no way was concerned with halting U.S. imperialism or even slowing down the infamous drone bombings which have killed thousands of innocent people, including women and children.

The Nobel Peace Prize, and now the JFK Profile in Courage Award, are indeed jokes because Obama has never been a true supporter of democracy, liberty, or even peace. Not only did he fail to honor his promise to close Guantanamo Bay prison, but he also ended up being the first president in U.S. history to be at war for the entire duration of his presidency, averaging a whopping 72 bombs a day dropped on foreign countries, most of which were majority Muslim nations.

Every Tuesday — reported the New York Times — he personally selected those who would be murdered by mostly hellfire missiles fired from drones. Weddings, funerals, shepherds were attacked, along with those attempting to collect the body parts festooning the “terrorist target”. A leading Republican senator, Lindsey Graham, estimated, approvingly, that Obama’s drones killed 4,700 people. “Sometimes you hit innocent people and I hate that,” he said, but we’ve taken out some very senior members of Al Qaeda.” ~John Pilger

Furthermore, Obama’s accomplishments as president include the destruction of Libya, the financing of political coups in other nations, launching U.S. military intervention in Africa, massive advances in domestic and international surveillance, unprecedented persecution of whistleblowers, and the material support of Islamic terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS.

An Anti-Democratic Legacy of Imperialism

While on the surface, awards like these are fantastic for public relations, we live in the era of half-truths, hypocrisy and ignored realities. A time when organizations which have historically promoted democracy, justice, peace and liberty openly engage in superficiality and sycophancy, choosing to remain blind in the presence of betrayal by our leaders. It is a sign of the times, though. People no longer seem to care for substance or truth, only style and bias confirmation. War mongers don’t deserve peace prizes, and presidents who leave behind a legacy of imperialism and warfare do not deserve to be honored for their so-called courage in the service of democracy.

Isaac Davis is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com and OffgridOutpost.com Survival Tips blog. He is an outspoken advocate of liberty and of a voluntary society. He is an avid reader of history and passionate about becoming self-sufficient to break free of the control matrix. Follow him on Facebook, here.

The government forces of Syria and Iraq continue to fight against terror groups with the support of their allies. Russian Air Force assists the Syrian army, and the International Coalition headed by the U.S. is “cooperating” with the armed forces of Iraq [against the ISIS which is supported by America’s Middle East including Saudi Arabia and Qatar in close liaison with Washington].

It should be mentioned that the Liberation of Aleppo from Jabhat al-Nusra‘s terrorists by the Syrian army units last December became a tipping point in the Syrian war. Then the Syrian government has taken all possible measures to safely evacuate all of the civilians from the western neighborhoods of the city. The humanitarian pauses have been introduced and thousands of people left the city through humanitarian corridors. More than 110,000 civilians have been evacuated from the city, including 44,000 children.

Unfortunately the situation in Iraq is the complete opposite. The locals are facing very difficult conditions. On the one hand, they are threatened by ISIS terrorists who placed their positions in residential areas in the vicinity of schools and hospitals.

In addition, the terrorists use the civilian population as a human shield. On the other hand, the advance of the Iraqi army under support of International Coalition bombers, which frequently carry out indiscriminate attacks on the residential neighborhoods. As a result of the U.S. air raids dozens of civilians die ‘by mistake’.

According to the official figures, 220 people have been killed by the International Coalition strikes in Iraq and Syria since 2014. It’s obvious that the coalition intentionally hides the real number of victims in order to avoid criticism by international human rights organizations.

The situation in Mosul can only be described as a humanitarian catastrophe.

There are still more than 750,000 civilians in the western neighborhoods of Mosul, who have nowhere to run. The refugee camps are currently overflowing. The representative of the International Organization for Migration in Iraq Hala Jaber stated that in the near future a refugee camp for 60 thousand people should be set up in the area of the Qayyarah airbase. However even the organization of this camp won’t be enough to save all those in need.

In addition, when the Mosul-Raqqa highway was blocked last year, the city was left without humanitarian and commercial supplies. The citizens of western Mosul reported that almost half of local grocery stores closed and bakeries can’t afford flour because of high prices. Due to the destruction of sewage facilities the local people desperately lack drinking water.

Reporting the situation in Mosul the Western media prefer not to cover the problems of the local population, who are forced to flee the war, and keep silent about the deaths of civilians from the hands of terrorists.

When the city of Aleppo was liberated in the end of last year, the situation was completely different. Although the local citizens were leaving their homes via humanitarian corridors organized by the Syrian military, the media dubbed this situation as a ‘humanitarian catastrophe’ and blamed the Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Hence a question arises: what hindered the Iraqi authorities and the International coalition from organizing humanitarian pauses for withdrawal of civilians from the besieged city similarly to what the Syrian government had done?

It seems that the Western countries remain indifferent to the destiny of the civilians of Mosul, who have to hide in basements hoping that they won’t be found by terrorists or be ‘mistakenly’ bombed by the US jets. Only a miracle could save them and bring them back to safety.

Protests have erupted as Turkey has constructed a border wall that penetrates into Syria’s Idlib province proper, in what has been described as an illegal annexation of Syrian territory.

Jenan Moussa of Al-Aan Television has chronicled the protests against the Turkish annexation of Syrian land.

Turkey has constructed walls that have reaches the Idlib villages of Hatya, Az Zawf, Darriyah, with farmers worried they will lose land, according to Moussa.

She then explains how civilians who were initially pro-Turkish are now turning against them for stealing land.

Meanwhile The Syrian Resistance, who identify themselves as Marxist-Leninist, has conducted their own rally against this annexation and occupation.

The Syrian Resistance, formerly known as the Popular Front for the Liberation of the Sanjak of Iskandarun is a pro-government group comprising of fighters mostly from Turkey’s Syrian minority who struggle for Turkey’s Hatay province to rejoin Syria.

Idlib is a predominately staunch anti-government province ruled by mostly terrorist groups with the backing of Turkey.

The role of the United States in the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is often overlooked by people who are critical of Washington’s intervention in the internal affairs of independent, sovereign countries.

The “Wahhabi” ideology, instrumentalized by the West and its allies to grow terrorism, is the polar opposite to the religion of Islam as practiced and taught, for example, by Syria’s Grand Mufti, or by Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban, political and media advisor to President Assad, who asserts that “(t)hose who kill in the name of Islam, those who destroy in the name of Islam, are not Muslims at all.”

Whereas “Wahhabism” is exploited to create hate and intolerance, Islam is a religion of love and peace.

Canada’s sectarian terrorist proxies in Syria – “moderates” do not exist, and never did – commit genocide and all manner of horrific crimes in the name of Islam, but they are in fact anti-Islamic.

When the Canadian government presents itself as opposing Islamophobia, it is being willfully duplicitous, since Canada supports and nurtures the Saudi Arabian-style “Wahhabism” and sectarianism in Syria and beyond.  And it is this toxic ideology that creates fertile ground for Islamophobia, not the genuine Islam as taught and practiced in Syria.

Canadians are misled to believe, in the first instance, that we oppose sectarianism in Syria – which is a Big Lie — and in the second instance, that we support secular, democratic governance, and pluralism in Syria – another Big Lie.

If the Canadian government supported secular governance and pluralism in Syria, as opposed to hatred, intolerance, and Sharia law, then it would be supporting rather than trying to destroy, Syria’s legitimate government.

Before the West’s pre-planned, dirty/government change war against Syria, the country was blessed with a secular government, and a diverse, tolerant population, where Mosques and Christian churches stood side by side in peace and harmony. And this is still the case in government secured territories – which include most of Syria now.

But imperialists need to generate lies and hatred to advance their country-destroying agendas, and this is what the Canadian government and its supine agencies, including the corporate fake media, have done, and continue to do.

The Nuttall/Korody synthetic terror case, for example, was engineered to create, rather than to suppress, Islamophobia.

The demonization of Syria’s elected President, Bashar al-Assad, also serves to create Islamophobia, since fake media conflates his government with Islam and Muslims, when in fact it is a secular government.  Even the demonization of Russia creates Islamophobia, since it is common knowledge (or at least it should be), that Russia is waging a successful war against sectarian terrorism in Syria, even as Canada and its allies support the aforementioned terrorists.  Mainstream Media “perception managers” would have us believe that the sectarian terrorists are “moderate”, or that they represent a civilized alternative to Syria’s elected government, and that Russia is therefore “bad” for destroying the terrorists. So, in its words and deeds, Canada is tacitly presenting sectarian terrorists as representative of “Islam” or “Muslims”, which is an inversion of the truth.  The terrorists in Syria are anti-Islamic.

Terrorists who commit genocide, who deal in sex slaves, who commit torture, and mass beheadings, who engage in organ harvestingand traffic in drugs, are in no way Islamic.

Canada’s deeds in Syria, and its false messaging about Syria, create and sustain Islamophobia. Empty words from hollow politicians simply disguise the truth.

Proposed Trumpcare is a boon to America’s privileged and sickness industry, a bane for most others – leaving millions more uninsured than under Obamacare.

The plan released Monday will likely be revised before Congress votes on it later this year. If enacted, change will come next year and in 2020.

Trump’s promise of improved healthcare for everyone at less cost than Obamacare was baloney. The final bill when voted on will be worse – how much depends on what revisions are made.

Things don’t look promising. Most people will pay more for less or settle for inadequate coverage, leaving them mostly on their own in case of serious health issues.

Under his American Health Care Act (AHCA – Trumpcare), most taxes on industry will be eliminated. Medicaid will be starved by less funding to states, perhaps en route to eliminating it altogether – replaced by who knows what or nothing, leaving America’s poor dependent on charity.

Medicaid expansion will survive in limited form, enrollment frozen in 2020 – after which states will receive federal block grants based on population size, effectively cutting a vitally needed program for millions of America’s poor.

The nation’s most vulnerable and elderly will pay more in premiums and out-of-pocket costs. Young, healthy and wealthy Americans will benefit.

An estimated $600 billion in tax revenue over the next decade is eliminated, adding to annual deficits and national debt if not compensated for by other means, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).

Estimates don’t include “the cost of repealing the individual and employer mandates or the cost of the replacement tax credits in the House legislation – though they do include the cost of the legislation’s proposed Health Savings Account (HSA) expansions. These estimates are only for the individual tax measures repealed by the House bill,” CRFB said.

The legislation “will worsen the financial state of the Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund” – perhaps intended as part of a plan to eventually eliminate the program vital to millions of seniors and others eligible.

Proposed tax credits based on age, not income, will replace Obamacare subsidies, phased out by 2020. They’ll range from $2,000 for individuals under 30 to $4,000 for aged 60 or older people.

Individuals with annual incomes over $75,000 and couples earning more than $150,000 will gradually lose these credits, America’s poor and middle-income households hard-pressed to pay for increasing healthcare costs.

Insurers will be allowed to charge seniors five times more than younger people, compared to three-fold under Obamacare.

Millions unable to afford adequate coverage will be forced to be underinsured or settle for eroding Medicaid.

Many Obamacare provisions remain, including letting adults under age 26 stay on their parents’ plan, and preventing insurers from discriminating against individuals with pre-existing conditions. It bars them from imposing annual and lifetime limits on coverage.

Instead of the individual mandate, taxing people without coverage, insurers may impose a one-year 30% premium surcharge on anyone letting it lapse.

The plan doesn’t account for cost differentials in different parts of the country, penalizing many Americans for living in the wrong places.

Proposed health savings accounts (HSAs) are a tax shelter for the rich, most Americans unable to benefit from them.

Obamacare is a healthcare rationing scheme, benefitting insurers, drug companies and large hospital chains. Trumpcare makes a bad system worse.

Americans pay double or more for healthcare than consumers in other developed countries. Government-guaranteed universal, single-payer coverage alone works equitably for everyone.

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.

Palestinian Women – One for All, All for One

By Dr. Vacy Vlazna, March 08 2017

Three comrades in the fight for freedom, Hanin Zoabi, Ahed Tamimi, Samah Sabawi hailing from the fractured body of Palestine – 1948 occupied Palestine, the 1967 occupied Palestine- West Bank and Gaza/diaspora respectively – represent the sumoud (steadfast resilience), the courage, the integrity defining the spirit of Palestinian women.

Let’s Give the CIA the Credit It Deserves. “America’s Fantastic Hacking Achievements”

By Norman Solomon, March 08 2017

For way too long, Russia has been credited with prodigious hacking and undermining of democracy in the United States. Many Americans have overlooked the U.S. government’s fantastic hacking achievements. This is most unfair and disrespectful to the dedicated men and women of intelligence services like the CIA and NSA.

CIA Leak: “Russian Election Hackers” May Work at Langley (i.e. CIA Headquarters)

By Moon of Alabama, March 08 2017

Attribution of cyber-intrusions and attacks is nearly impossible. A well executed attack can not be traced back to its culprit. If there are some trails that seem attributable one should be very cautions following them. They are likely faked. Hundreds if not thousands of reports show that this lesson has not been learned. Any attack is attributed to one of a handful of declared “enemies” without any evidence that would prove their actual involvement.

The Dubious Story of the Murder of Kim Jong-nam, Brother of DPRK Leader Kim Jong-un

By Stansfield Smith, March 08 2017

The corporate media reports North Korean agents murdered Kim Jong Nam with a banned chemical weapon VX. They fail to add that the US government is not a signatory to the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. They rarely note the Malaysian police investigating the case have not actually said North Korea is connected to his death. The story of his death or murder raises a number of serious questions.

Julian Mayfield, African-American Rights and “Independent Ghana”

By Abayomi Azikiwe, March 08 2017

Not only did the liberation movement in the Gold Coast have an impact on other colonies throughout the continent, it influenced the consciousness and determination of the African American people in the United States which during the late 1950s was still enmeshed in legalized segregation in the South where the majority of the descendants of the enslaved Black people resided. Even outside of the South, segregation was enforced either through existing statutes or as a result of customs and practices.

IMAGEN: Edward Snowden, el norteamericano que filtró detalles acerca de los programas de espionaje telefónico y cibernético de la Agencia Nacional de Seguridad (NSA).

“Es muy probable que Obama hubiera utilizado los medios de Inteligencia para el espionaje contra Trump”, dijo el sociólogo norteamericano, profesor James Petras, en su columna de análisis de la coyuntura internacional por Radio Centenario (CX36). “La gran mentira de Obama es que –como sabemos estaba investigando y usando el espionaje para millones de ciudadanos- ahora dice que no utilizaba las mismas tácticas contra Trump”, agregó y recordó que aunque los medios “traten de negar que Obama lo hizo” en 2012 el propio “Obama firmó un Decreto permitiendo el espionaje sin necesidad de ninguna orden judicial”, tal cual lo denunció el ex agente Edward Snowden. En ese marco, Petras dijo dudar de que el Congreso pueda llevar adelante una investigación seria ya que “no puede confiar en las Agencias de Seguridad –excepto en la CIA que tiene ahora nuevo Jefe- pero la Policía Federal (FBI) y la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional, siguen encamisados con Obama”. En otro orden, analizó la situación argentina, el avance estadounidense en territorio sirio, las elecciones francesas y la situación de China. 

María de los Ángeles Balparda: Buenos días Petras. ¿Qué tal? ¿Cómo está? 

James Petras: Buen día, Ángeles. ¿Cómo estás?

MAB: Muy bien, Petras. Esperándote para escucharte sobre temas importantes. Y queríamos comenzar con nuestro continente, con Argentina, donde se ve venir una semana muy agitada que comienza con un paro docente. Dos días de huelga docente que apoyan las cinco centrales. 

JP: Si. Es un paso adelante, porque las condiciones se han empeorado en el último año y no hay ningún respiro.

Creo que esta huelga tiene mucha influencia porque no sólo está incluyendo a los principales sindicatos, sino también a mucha pequeña y mediana industria, comerciantes, estudiantes, están metidos en esta gran marcha.

Y esto debemos ponerlo en un contexto.

(El presidente argentino, Mauricio) Macri tenía algún respaldo en primera instancia por las promesas de rectificar los problemas económicos y sociales. Y en vez de eso ha hecho mucho daño, los índices han tenido una caída brutal y más allá de eso, la economía en su conjunto no tiene ningún indicio decrecimiento ni mucho menos de mejorar la situación.

Creo que en el próximo período vamos a ver  varias cosas. Las primeras huelgas van a inaugurar un tiempo de mayor agitación y confrontaciones. La primera no va a ser la última. Y creo que los sindicatos, los burócratas, que están participando van a ser superados porque no están preparando una lucha continua. Y las elecciones en el otoño (la primavera en Argentina) van a tener muchos problemas, muchos conflictos.

Considero que dentro de un año Macri podría enfrentar un gran levantamiento, porque no tiene ninguna salida y las deudas se están acumulando, los inversionistas no están estimulando la Economía, los capitales de Wall Street cobraron lo que querían y nadie va a volver a Argentina en crisis, con muchos conflictos y una incapacidad del gobierno.

MAB: En Argentina con toda esa problemática que crece también ha habido represión y amenazas de represión.

JP: Es la única solución que tiene Macri, como no tiene soluciones cae el palo.

Eso tiene un efecto boomerang. El primer impacto podría intimidar a algunos sectores, puede asustar a otros, pero tarde o temprano va a provocar una reacción más fuerte. La represión nunca es solución, sino que es una muestra de debilidad política y económica. Uno no puede mandar sentado arriba de palos. En ese sentido creo que la represión va a aumentar la protesta y más allá de protestas, enfrentamientos más profundos e intensos.

MAB: Ayer en los medios argentinos veíamos que en esta semana están citados Cristina Fernández y sus hijos al Juzgado, y encima de toda la tensión que se está generando, están sin fútbol, porque también hay huelga en el futbol.

JP: Es una indicación de la profundidad del descontento. Los jugadores de fútbol están entre los mejores pagados entre los trabajadores, y si los futbolistas están protestando y en huelga, es una indicación de la profundidad de la crisis. Hay que reconocer que muchos futbolistas hace semanas o incluso meses que no cobran.

Entonces, es una falta de la clase capitalista. No hay que olvidar que Macri forma parte de esta élite de dueños del fútbol y es una persona ahora muy desprestigiada entre la clase profesional, que incluye los futbolistas, pero no sólo a los futbolistas, incluye a médicos, profesores y otros sectores que no son exactamente obreros, y estaban entre los profesionales mejores pagados. Y eso significa que está perdiendo el apoyo de la clase media, de la clase media acomodada; y los que quedan con Macri ahora son los de clase alta, los militares y la represión, y eso no es suficiente para mantenerse en el poder por un tiempo extendido.

MAB: Bien. Pasamos al tema Siria. ¿Qué está sucediendo allí?

JP: En Siria, tenemos las últimas noticias que señalan que observadores dicen que los carros armados, los tanques norteamericanos, con la bandera de Estados Unidos ya están entrando en Siria y apoyando a los terroristas, supuestamente luchando contra ISIS. Pero es una situación muy precaria, porque una vez que los tanques norteamericanos entran en Siria hay grandes posibilidades que choquen con el gobierno auténtico y también con los rusos que apoyan a sus aliados., Entonces, es muy peligroso, pero a la vez un indicio de que las fuerzas apoyadas por EEUU no tienen la capacidad de mantenerse y están debilitados Y la entrada norteamericana es casi necesaria para suplementar a los terroristas que han perdido terreno en los últimos seis meses.

MAB: Y no es solo Siria, todo el Medio Oriente están muy agitado.

JP: Si, está muy agitado en el sentido de que en Irak hay una pelea en Mosul.

Pero debemos entender que las fuerzas del terrorismo en Irak han bajado porque los EEUU con el gobierno títere de Irak, abrieron un paso para que los terroristas salgan de Mosul para ir a Siria. Hay miles de terroristas que salieron de Mosul para avanzar en Siria y quedarse luchando contra el gobierno de Bashar Al Asad. Mientras que en Mosul hay resistencias, muy exageradas, por parte de la Casa Blanca y los medios.

Yo creo que es inevitable que Mosul caiga en las fuerzas apoyadas por los EEUU, los kurdos y los demás, pero quiere montar el escenario de una gran pelea contras las fuerzas unidas de los terroristas, pero en realidad han liberado a más de la mitad para que salgan hacia Siria.

MAB: ¿Será por eso que Donald Trump decidió excluir a Irak del decreto migratorio?

JP: Si, sigue esta política. Pero no han encontrado el respaldo judicial. Entonces todo está en el aire. Hay algunas expulsiones, más o menos al rimo que tenía (en el gobierno de Barack) Obama.

Quiero repetir que la salida hacia EEUU siempre era bloqueda y las deportaciones fueron parte de la política de Obama y ahora se sigue aplicando las mismas medidas. No hay diferencia a pesar de que los medios se enfocan en Trump, lo que hace es una continuación de la política migratoria, anti inmigrante, de los gobiernos anteriores.

MAB: ¿Cómo hay que tomar las acusaciones de Trump contra Obama por espionaje? 

JP: Yo creo que es muy grave. Hay indicaciones concretas de que Obama estaba usando la Policía Federal (FBI), la policía clandestina, durante toda su Presidencia, o hay que olvidarse de Edward Snowden, que fue el gran informante de documentos norteamericanos sobre infiltración y espionaje de millones de norteamericanos. Y cómo es que Snowden no aparece ahora en los diarios para confirmar la posibilidad real de que Obama utilizaba la misma táctica con Trump, que utilizaba con todos los ciudadanos.

Creo que es muy probable que Obama hubiera utilizado los medios de Inteligencia para el espionaje contra Trump. Ahora, la gran mentira de Obama –que como sabemos estaba investigando y usando el espionaje para millones de ciudadanos- dice que no utilizaba las mismas tácticas contra Trump. Los medios tratan de negar e inventar ficciones de que Obama no lo hizo, pero en 2012 el señor Obama firmó un documento permitiendo el espionaje sin necesidad de ninguna orden judicial -para investigar en forma silenciosa necesitas de un Juez legalizándolo y permitiéndolo- y no por razones de política. Pero es ahora muy evidente que Obama aplicaba su propio Decreto de 2012 para el espionaje. Creo que la investigación va a salir a partir del Congreso, pero el Congreso no puede confiar en las Agencias de Seguridad –excepto en la CIA que tiene ahora nuevo Jefe- pero la Policía Federal (FBI) y la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional, siguen encamisados con Obama.

Entonces, la investigación va a ser muy conflictiva entre una agencia y la otra.

MAB: Respecto a las relaciones entre Trump y Vladimir Putin. ¿Qué es lo que hay atrás?

JP: Nada. Es común que los representantes de Rusia tengan conversaciones con todos los Senadores involucrados en la política externa. Eso ocurrió en el pasado y ocurrió con los congresistas en los últimos períodos.

Segundo, no es nada de espión aje si los medios de comunicación rusa utilizan información para publicar y educar al público norteamericano, sobre las diferentes tramas que esté utilizando EEUU.

Tercero, debemos reconocer que Trump ganó con el voto de decenas de millones de votantes que no tiene nada que ver con Rusia, sino con el descontento interno.

En fin, no hay ninguna justificación como para involucrar a Rusia como determinante en las elecciones, como factor en las intrigas de la Presidencia norteamericana.

MAB: ¿Hay  algún otro tema al que quieras referirte?

JP: Si, creo que debemos considerar varias cosas.

En particular las elecciones en Francia. Es obvio que François Fillon no va a participar o no va a tener éxito en las elecciones primarias, en la primera vuelta. Lo que va a pasar es que en la segunda vuelta se enfrentarán Emmanuel Macron y Marine Le Pen. Yo creo que la posibilidad es muy alta de que Macron gane a partir de acumular toda la oposición como partidarios, incluso grandes sectores de la burocracia del Partido Socialista. Entonces tiene todo el apoyo de la derecha y del centro del electorado. En todo caso, creo que Le Pen conseguiría hasta un 45% del apoyo del electorado, contra un 55% de Macron. Y tal vez un margen menor. Pero creo que Le Pen va a tener un buen apoyo particularmente en las clases populares y la pequeña burguesía. Mientras que Macron podría combinar el apoyo de la gran burguesía, la pequeña burguesía y algunos sectores atrasados de las clases populares. En todo caso es muy probable que Macron y Le Pen pasen a segunda vuelta. Y creo que Le Pen todavía está sufriendo muy mala publicidad y ataques en el proceso judicial.

Por otro lado, quiero citar algo importante. La prensa burguesa ha dicho cada año, cada mes, que hay una crisis en China, que las clases populares están con mucho desafecto (hacia el gobierno), que China sigue siendo un país atrasado y que en cada momento enfrenta una u otra crisis.

Es totalmente falso.

Y también dicen que China representa un peligro hacia los EEUU.

Los chinos tienen un presupuesto militar que es una quinta parte de lo que gastan los EEUU.

Los EEUU gastan más de 680 mil millones, mientras que China sólo gasta 145.

China es el principal manufacturero de robots en el último tiempo, tiene 25.000 escuelas técnicas para preparar a sus trabajadores bien calificados, China crece a un paso de 6.5% el año pasado y va rumbo a duplicarlo. China no tiene crisis, sus salarios son superiores a los de Argentina, Brasil, Colombia, México, etc.; y en poco tiempo más China va a ser un país que alcance los salarios de Europa y EEUU. Creo que en diez años más podría alcanzarlos y superarlos.

Los trabajadores en China ahora ganan más de 3.60 dólares por hora.

Por tanto, creo que debemos dejar de pensar en china como un país pobre y atrasado e incapaz de superar las contradicciones de la actualidad.

MAB: Petras, te agradecemos mucho por este tiempo. Hasta el lunes.

JP: Un gran abrazo.

James Petras

James Petras: Sociólogo estadounidense conocido por sus estudios sobre el imperialismo, la lucha de clases y los conflictos latinoamericanos.

Las ondas de la instantaneidad mediática nos estremecen un día sí, y otro también, con el anuncio de que los pronósticos de crecimiento de la economía mexicana para 2017 y 2018 van a la baja.

En el tempestuoso océano de los números relativos, en estas ciencias ocultas los mexicanos del llano difícilmente pueden entender qué es el Producto Interno Bruto (PIB) mexicano. Si éste se presenta en números absolutos, el reto es todavía mayor: La pantalla digital extiende al infinito la línea de ceros y más ceros.

Una cosa dice el ABC de las Cuentas Nacionales: Que el PIB, es la suma de volumen y valor de la producción total de bienes y servicios en un país determinado.

Aquí nos asalta la primera duda existencial. Si el PIB es eso que dicen los expertos: El valor producido por la economía de un país, ¿las remesas que generan y envían a México desde el extranjero los trabajadores transterrados, son componentes del PIB mexicano, o entran en  el balance del PIB del país donde laboran? Para el caso, los Estados Unidos.

No es ociosa esa cuestión, habida cuenta los apuros que pasan nuestros hacendistas para tratar de explicar el desastre de las finanzas públicas, y en general la economía nacional, por la crisis del ingreso petrolero.

¡600 mil millones de dólares al año!

Y entramos al tema: Desde el sexenio de Vicente Fox, que en la gestión de una reforma migratoria ante Washington pedía la enchilada completa, el argumento más socorrido, hasta la fecha, es la contribución que los mexicanos hacen a la economía de los Estados Unidos.

Valen  las negritas, porque estadísticas sobran. Dicen los nuevos  sedicentes defensores de nuestros expatriados, que su aporte al PIB de los Estados Unidos es del 8 por ciento; al PIB del estado de California, hasta del 12 por ciento.

El PIB se mide anualmente. Es una norma. Trasladados aquellos porcentajes a números absolutos, el resultado habla de unos 600 mil millones de dólares al año. Esta es la contribución total de los mexicanos al PIB estadunidense.

Sólo para efectos de ilustración, un dato desagregado: Compatriotas de primera y segunda generación en los Estados Unidos, han creado y administran unas 570 mil empresas pequeñas y medianas propias, cuyas operaciones generan hasta 17 mil millones de dólares al año.

Con independencia de la emigración histórica hacia los Estados Unidos desde el siglo XIX, si se habla de primera y segunda generación podemos entender que en estas categorías se insertan incluso los trabajadores que entran en la codificación de indocumentados, contra los que Donald Trump ha soltado sus mastines.

De acuerdo con el Consejo Nacional de Población, gran parte de la mano de obra mexicana  indocumentada emigró en las últimas tres décadas, casualmente las de implantación del modelo neoliberal y la puesta en marcha el Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN).

La economía mexicana está hoy técnicamente quebrada, pero los mexicanos rinden al PIB de los Estados Unidos 600 mil millones de dólares anuales.

¿Dónde están los parteros de esa monstruosidad? Algunos trotan en los escenarios de la sucesión presidencial de 2018. Ay, impunidad, cuántos crímenes más se cometen en tu nombre.

Mouris Salloum George

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

En el libro de Proverbios dice que /una casa se construye con sabiduría, y se establece por medio de entendimiento. Sus cuartos se llenan de hermosos tesoros a través del conocimiento/. Pero hay algo más en todo esto.

El siguiente verso es “Los sabios son más poderosos que los fuertes”.El conocimiento es poder.

Tengo el gran honor de dirigirme a ustedes en este aniversario por la muerte de un hombre que ha luchado amplia y aguerridamente contra el imperialismo, el neocolonialismo y otras formas de opresión a los pueblos, especialmente en América Latina.

Chávez tuvo el papel más importante en el escenario global con sus incansables esfuerzos para seguir avanzando en la integración y cooperación regional y construir un mundo multipolar.

Denunció las injusticias tal y como él las veía y en el 2001 fue el único líder que denunció el asesinato de civiles inocentes en Afganistán, cometido por Estados Unidos. “Ustedes no pueden pelear el terrorismo con terrorismo”, indicó Chávez. Poco después de seis meses Estados Unidos apoyó un golpe de estado en su contra que fue revertido cuando cientos de miles de venezolanos tomaron las calles, muchos de ellos con la constitución en sus manos. Como todos nosotros, él no estaba libre de pecado, pero sus virtudes sacudieron la tierra.

Como director de Wikileaks sacamos a la luz los secretos de los poderosos y además construimos una Biblioteca distinta y poderosa, una biblioteca que contiene la información sobre cómo realmente funciona nuestro mundo y sus instituciones, que contiene información que por siglos ha estado solamente en manos de las élites y que ahora –no sin correr riesgos y persecuciones– hemos democratizado y puesto a disposición del pueblo, sin distinción de orientación política o credo.

Es para todos y todas, para que la sociedad de todo el mundo abra los ojos, y con datos irrefutables en la mano, confronte a los poderosos y saque sus propias conclusiones, sin filtros mediáticos, sobre los eventos y decisiones políticas que afectan sus vidas.

El objetivo de Wikileaks, de buscar la verdad en nombre de la humanidad, es hoy más importante que nunca, un objetivo que seguimos buscando a pesar del alto precio que pagamos por ello.

El costo, en mi caso, ha sido alto. He estado perseguido judicialmente y detenido por casi siete años, sin que pese cargo alguno en mi contra.

La persecución se ha extendido a mi familia, a mis hijos, a quienes no he podido ver durante todo este tiempo.

Tanto Naciones Unidas, como numerosas organizaciones de Derechos Humanos y personalidades a nivel mundial han hecho un llamado a Suecia y al Reino Unido para que respeten sus obligaciones internacionales, para que respeten y reconozcan la soberanía del Estado de Ecuador y por tanto reconozcan mi asilo y dejen de bloquear el ejercicio de este derecho humano. Es inconcebible que la actitud imperialista de Reino Unido y de Suecia, en pleno siglo XXI, les permita, con total impunidad, ignorar un acto soberano de un país independiente, Ecuador.

Recuerdo a los presentes que Ecuador pagó y sigue pagando un alto precio al otorgarme el asilo para protegerme de la persecución política por haber expuesto los secretos del imperio. Su embajada en Londres sufrió amenazas de ataque por la policía británica y hasta el día de hoy, es sujeta a niveles de vigilancia que no tienen comparación alguna.

Denegar el salvoconducto para que yo pueda ir a América latina es un acto de imperialismo puro, de países que ocupan altos cargos en Naciones Unidas, y, sin embargo, se rehúsan a reconocer y habilitar el ejercicio de un derecho universal, y lo hacen en total impunidad, burlándose, además, de la soberanía de un país del Sur y de toda la región latinoamericana que respaldó unánimemente mi asilo, constituyendo un grave insulto a la dignidad de nuestros pueblos y al mismo sistema de Naciones Unidas. Hacer esto por años muestra el deterioro y grave retroceso del sistema internacional de protección de derechos humanos para todos.

Ni hablar de mi país, Australia, un sirviente más de los intereses imperialistas, que en siete años no ha abogado por mí ni una sola vez y que además busca criminalizarme para que yo no pueda volver a casa. A pesar de una Resolución firme de la más alta autoridad en temas de Detención Arbitrarias que después de analizar detenidamente mi caso, estableció que mi detención ha sido arbitraria e ilegal y el deber de dejarme en libertad de inmediato e indemnizarme, tanto Suecia como el Reino Unido la ignoran por completo.

Pero a pesar de todo, el imperio no ha logrado silenciarme. Soy libre simplemente porque soy libre de expresarme. Y disfruto de esta libertad gracias al coraje de Ecuador y otros Estados, entre ellos Venezuela, que se han unido para apoyarme. Mi lucha puede convertirse en una historia exitosa para la libertad de expresión y los derechos humanos.

Por lo tanto la concesión de un salvoconducto sería un acto de justicia y dignidad para la región. Permaneceremos fieles a la promesa de publicar la verdad sin miedo o negociaciones bajo la mesa. Seguiremos esforzándonos en nuestro compromiso con la verdad y la justicia social.

La liberación de los pueblos depende de la liberación de la mente de los pueblos. Para ello, necesitamos que esfuerzos revolucionarios pacíficos como el de Wikileaks, florezcan alrededor del mundo. Por esta razón necesitamos detener la persecución contra WikiLeaks y su gente.

Hagámoslo juntos hoy. Mañana puede ser tarde.

Julian Assange

Julian Assange: Fundador de Wikileaks.

Nota del Editor: Mensaje dirigido a Amigos de la Red de Intelectuales, Artistas y Movimientos Sociales por la Humanidad reunidos en Caracas.

Los ecos de las movilizaciones aún se sienten mientras muchos piden poner fecha a una huelga general para protestar por las políticas económicas del Gobierno, el desempleo, los tarifazos y la flexibilización laboral, entre otros reclamos.

La multitud aglomerada el lunes y martes últimos en las calles de Buenos Aires, primero en apoyo a los maestros y después para respaldar la convocatoria de la Confederación General del Trabajo, mostró algo de lo que se avecina si el Gobierno no pone freno a sus políticas neoliberales como mismo han afirmado varias voces sindicales.

Muchos, como los maestros y los trabajadores de la Salud, claman desesperadamente por la apertura de paritarias, como se les conoce aquí a las negociaciones salariales, en busca de un sueldo justo que compense la inflación, que en 2016 cerró con poco más del 40 por ciento.

Se cuentan unos 70 mil en la contundente marcha de los docentes, que retumbó con fuerza. Unas 20 cuadras taponadas con carteles y duras consignas contra el presidente Mauricio Macri.

Los educadores, unidos, paralizaron las jornadas durante 48 horas en el mismo día que debió iniciar el ciclo lectivo en las escuelas públicas, dejando a 12 millones de niños sin clases.

Miles de ellos, con sus tradicionales guardapolvos blancos, dieron una lección pero en las calles, porque, como rezaba uno de los tantos carteles ‘hoy no estamos dejando de enseñar, … estamos enseñándolos a luchar por sus derechos’.

El clima precedido por la protesta de los educadores se fue elevando y la víspera, como se esperaba, otros miles y miles de obreros salieron a manifestarse contra los despidos y suspensiones de los últimos meses, contra los tarifazos y políticas antipopulares.

Pero también por caída de la producción industrial y el aumento indiscriminado de importaciones que afectan al sector.

Ayer las calles del centro porteño eran intransitables mientras cientos de personas se desplazaban hacia el ministerio de Producción, donde se realizó el acto, que terminó a gritos y reclamos a los dirigentes sindicales de la Confederación para que ponga fecha a un paro general ya.

Cansados de la burocracia sindical, los manifestantes fueron duros y reclamaron a los líderes poner día y hora a la huelga.

En tanto el ministro de Producción, Francisco Cabrera, salió a refutar las acusaciones formuladas durante la movilización en una entrevista con el programa Va de vuelta, de la Radio Nacional.

‘El año 2016 se crearon 80 mil empleos registrados, no es cierto que haya destrucción del empleo. Hubo siete por ciento menos de importaciones, por lo tanto es falso que haya una lluvia de importaciones’, aseguró.

‘Estamos parados en una economía dañada que además tuvo un 2016 duro, donde estamos tratando de revertir esta situación… No es el momento de tomar una medida de fuerza es el momento para sentarse y seguir adelante con un diálogo’, consideró.

La protesta social crece mientras los docentes aseguran que seguirán dando la pelea con un plan de lucha y las centrales obreras también.

Maylín Vidal

Massive protests in South Korea are barely covered by the Western media. More than 15 million have demonstrated against president Park who is supported by Washington (M. Ch. GR Editor)

Public opinion poll shows that support for Park’s impeachment has remained above 80% since December 

Over eight in ten South Koreans feel prosecutors should conduct a thorough follow-up investigation of President Park Geun-hye even if she leaves office with a Constitutional Court decision upholding her impeachment, a survey shows. 

Opinion poll on President Park’s impeachment

Findings from a Research Plus survey conducted on Mar. 3-4, commissioned by the Hankyoreh and the Hankyoreh Economy & Society Research Institute (HERI), showed 67.8% of respondents answering that prosecutors should “thoroughly investigate [Park] and arrest her if the conditions are met” when asked what judicial measures should be taken if the Constitutional Court confirms her impeachment. Another 17.6% of respondents answered that “prosecutors should investigate thoroughly, but she should not be arrested.”

Beyond the question of arrest, the results showed an overwhelming 85.4% of respondents calling for a thorough investigation by prosecutors, compared to just 9.5% who said prosecutors should halt their investigation if Park’s impeachment is confirmed.

While politicians are likely to unanimously shift course toward early elections if the Constitutional Court does support the impeachment with its anticipated ruling this week, a majority of South Koreans still would like to see an investigation of the government interference scandal and clear punishments resulting from it.“The high level of interest in the prosecutors’ investigation is set to continue even after the impeachment [ruling],” said Han Gwi-young, head of HERI’s social research center.

“There looks to be a serious possibility that prospective candidates in the presidential election will face a backlash if they suggest exempting President Park from judicial handling,” Han said.

Public support for Park’s impeachment, which stood at nearly 80% when the National Assembly voted it through in December, has repeatedly been found remaining at more or less the same level even as the ruling approach. The latest survey showed 75.7% of respondents agreeing that Park “should be impeached,” while just 18.6% said her impeachment “should be overturned.” Another 5.7% said they were “not sure.”

Support for impeachment outweighed opposition across all regions and age groups. Even respondents who voted for Park in the 2012 presidential election supported impeachment by a 48.1% to 43.5% margin. When asked how they would take a Constitutional Court decision that went against their own feelings, 53.9% of respondents said they would “not accept it,” more than the 39.7% who answered that they would “accept it.” When asked whether they thought the ruling should go ahead even if Park resigns beforehand, 63.4% said the Court’s decision should “continue regardless of her resignation,” while 32.9% said the impeachment trial “should be halted.”

By Seok Jin-hwan, staff reporter

Massive protests in South Korea are barely covered by the Western media. More than 15 million have demonstrated against president Park who is supported by Washington (M. Ch. GR Editor)

Public opinion poll shows that support for Park’s impeachment has remained above 80% since December 

Over eight in ten South Koreans feel prosecutors should conduct a thorough follow-up investigation of President Park Geun-hye even if she leaves office with a Constitutional Court decision upholding her impeachment, a survey shows. 

Opinion poll on President Park’s impeachment

Findings from a Research Plus survey conducted on Mar. 3-4, commissioned by the Hankyoreh and the Hankyoreh Economy & Society Research Institute (HERI), showed 67.8% of respondents answering that prosecutors should “thoroughly investigate [Park] and arrest her if the conditions are met” when asked what judicial measures should be taken if the Constitutional Court confirms her impeachment. Another 17.6% of respondents answered that “prosecutors should investigate thoroughly, but she should not be arrested.”

Beyond the question of arrest, the results showed an overwhelming 85.4% of respondents calling for a thorough investigation by prosecutors, compared to just 9.5% who said prosecutors should halt their investigation if Park’s impeachment is confirmed.

While politicians are likely to unanimously shift course toward early elections if the Constitutional Court does support the impeachment with its anticipated ruling this week, a majority of South Koreans still would like to see an investigation of the government interference scandal and clear punishments resulting from it.“The high level of interest in the prosecutors’ investigation is set to continue even after the impeachment [ruling],” said Han Gwi-young, head of HERI’s social research center.

“There looks to be a serious possibility that prospective candidates in the presidential election will face a backlash if they suggest exempting President Park from judicial handling,” Han said.

Public support for Park’s impeachment, which stood at nearly 80% when the National Assembly voted it through in December, has repeatedly been found remaining at more or less the same level even as the ruling approach. The latest survey showed 75.7% of respondents agreeing that Park “should be impeached,” while just 18.6% said her impeachment “should be overturned.” Another 5.7% said they were “not sure.”

Support for impeachment outweighed opposition across all regions and age groups. Even respondents who voted for Park in the 2012 presidential election supported impeachment by a 48.1% to 43.5% margin. When asked how they would take a Constitutional Court decision that went against their own feelings, 53.9% of respondents said they would “not accept it,” more than the 39.7% who answered that they would “accept it.” When asked whether they thought the ruling should go ahead even if Park resigns beforehand, 63.4% said the Court’s decision should “continue regardless of her resignation,” while 32.9% said the impeachment trial “should be halted.”

By Seok Jin-hwan, staff reporter