Global Research

“A valid travel document is required for travel to the United States,” a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security told the Associated Press when asked for a comment on the findings. According to internal Trump administration correspondence seen by The Associated Press, the Department of Homeland Security decided to block Khateeb. ~ Fox News

“A Syrian cinematographer up for an Academy Award Sunday night has been reportedly barred from entering the U.S. over the finding of “derogatory information”– a vague term that can mean anything from a simple passport irregularity to terror connections.

Khaled Khateeb, 21, who worked on the Netflix documentary “White Helmets,” was scheduled to arrive in California on Saturday.

He was issued a visa to attend the awards show, however the Associated Press’ internal U.S. government correspondence reported that Turkish authorities detained him this week.”

21st Century Wire exposes Raed Saleh’s Terrorist Connections Within the White Helmet Leadership in Syria

This was the revelation that we woke up to, this morning…

It appears that US Homeland Security has once more, refused entry, to the White Helmet operatives. The previous time this happened was in April 2016 when White Helmets leader, Raed Saleh, was denied entry into the US to receive an award from InterAction, for his contributions to “humanitarian relief”.  Mark Toner of the US State Department, tried hard to field difficult questions from Matt Lee of AP but failed dismally, finally admitting that it was Saleh’s possible “extremist connections” that had resulted in his deportation from the US.

 

AP also reported on Khateeb’s US entry denial:

Khateeb was scheduled to arrive Saturday in Los Angeles on a Turkish Airlines flight departing from Istanbul. But his plans have been upended after U.S. officials reported finding “derogatory information” regarding Khateeb.

Derogatory information is a broad category that can include anything from terror connections to passport irregularities. Asked for comment, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, Gillian Christensen, said, “A valid travel document is required for travel to the United States.

Raed Saleh tweeted yesterday, that he was basically “too busy” to go to Hollywood and mingle with the stars of the silver screen, to further promote his Al Qaeda affiliated organisation, already multi-million-funded by the moguls of war in the NATO and Gulf State alliance.

Has the attempt to give an Oscar to supporters of terrorism for their propaganda movie, endorsing a No Fly Zone that is effectively a declaration of war between Russia and the US on Syrian soil, just failed?

Has Trump’s administration called a halt to the farce that is the promotion of this fraudulent non-Non-Governmental-Organisation, funded, in fact, by governments with Israel’s best interests at heart in Syria? Remember that during Obama’s administration, Homeland Security was overruled when Secretary of State, John Kerry, allowed Raed Saleh entry into the US in September 2016 (despite Saleh’s ‘extremist connections’) and to the UN in New York for, behind-closed-door-talks ,on why the US had failed to impose a No Fly Zone in Syria.

UPDATE: It appears that Khateeb has also been coached in the “I’m too busy helping people” excuse;

The following video is a compilation of the testimony from Syrian civilians released from a five year incarceration in East Aleppo, under a terrorist regime & occupation led by Al Qaeda factions aka Nusra Front and assorted extremist militant brigades, also funded by the US, NATO and Gulf states. These testimonies attest to the US and UK construct, the White Helmets, being nothing more than “Nusra Front’s civil defence“.

The Syrian Arab Red Crescent also told 21WIRE editor, Vanessa Beeley, that they had never seen the White Helmets conducting humanitarian work in East Aleppo, either during or after occupation by the extremist groups.

WATCH ~

The SARC reinforcing the claim made by Syrian civilians that the NATO & Gulf state-funded White Helmets did not conduct any civilian rescues or offer paramedic treatment in East Aleppo.

WATCH ~

Are we finally seeing vindication of the two years of independent investigation into this terrorist-supporting group of frauds, whose creators have milked the general public with a myriad of glossy, expensive marketing campaigns, designed to appeal to our better nature and to implicate the general public in crowd funding for terrorism inside Syria?

Perhaps this Oscar bid for the White Helmets is an indication of the level to which the ruling elite have stooped to maintain their facade, which has been eroded so successfully by the few brave people who have taken a stand against their global machinations, such as Tulsi Gabbard and Carla Ortiz, both of whom potentially risk their careers to present the truth of what is actually happening inside Syria.

Has the steadfast bravery, courage and resistance of the Syrian people, the majority of whom are fully supportive of the Syrian state & the Syrian Arab Army, finally demolished the wall of lies that has prevented their voices being heard?

History will show that Hollywood narrowily avoided inviting Al Qaeda, terrorist affiliates onto its red carpet…truth to power has once more emerged victorious as it did in the prevention of the Nobel Peace Prize for this same organisation of criminals, thieves and sectarian violence perpetrators & supporters, the not-so-white White Helmets. The ghosts of East Aleppo. 

The White Helmets propaganda film may still be awarded the Oscar, but it will be a hollow prize when the recipients have been denied entry into the country of origin or are simply, “too busy” to attend. It will be embarassing for the producers to explain the absence of these self proclaimed, “saviours of humanity“. The truth is revealing itself bit by bit and when the White Helmets fall, much of the NATO and Gulf State war effort in Syria will be damaged beyond repair.

***

White Helmets and Mayday Rescue:
The Syrian Civil Defence: Wikipedia

21st Century Wire article on the White Helmets:  
Syria’s White Helmets: War by Way of Deception ~ the “Moderate” Executioners

21st Century Wire compilation of most important articles and talks on the White Helmets:
Who are the Syria White Helmets

Original investigative report: 
The REAL Syria Civil Defence Exposes Fake White Helmets as Terrorist-Linked Imposters

Cory Morningstar report:
Investigation into the funding sources of the White Helmets, including Avaaz, Purpose, The Syria Campaign

Open letter to Canadian MPs from Stop the War Hamilton (Canada):
Letter from the Hamilton Coalition to Stop War to the New Democratic Party in Canada ref the White Helmet nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize:

Open letter to Canada’s NDP Leader on Nobel Prize:
Letter to NDP from Prof. John Ryan protesting White Helmet nomination for RLA and Nobel Peace Prize.

The U.S. intelligence community’s extraordinary campaign of leaks claiming improper ties between President Trump’s team and Russia seeks to ensure a lucrative New Cold War by blocking detente, reports Gareth Porter.

Opponents of the Trump administration have generally accepted as fact the common theme across mainstream media that aides to Donald Trump were involved in some kind of illicit communications with the Russian government that has compromised the independence of the administration from Russian influence.

But close analysis of the entire series of leaks reveals something else that is equally sinister in its implications: an unprecedented campaign by Obama administration intelligence officials, relying on innuendo rather than evidence, to exert pressure on Trump to abandon any idea of ending the New Cold War and to boost the campaign to impeach Trump.

A brazen and unprecedented intervention in domestic U.S. politics by the intelligence community established the basic premise of the cascade of leaks about alleged Trump aides’ shady dealing with Russia. Led by CIA Director John Brennan, the CIA, FBI and NSA issued a 25-page assessment on Jan. 6 asserting for the first time that Russia had sought to help Trump win the election.

Brennan had circulated a CIA memo concluding that Russia had favored Trump and had told CIA staff that he had met separately with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and FBI Director James Comey and that they had agreed on the “scope, nature and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election.”

In the end, however, Clapper refused to associate himself with the document and the NSA, which agreed to do so, was only willing to express “moderate confidence” in the judgment that the Kremlin had sought to help Trump in the election. In intelligence community parlance, that meant that the NSA considered the idea the Kremlin was working to elect Trump was merely plausible, not actually supported by reliable evidence.

In fact, the intelligence community had not even obtained evidence that Russia was behind the publication by Wikileaks of the e-mails Democratic National Committee, much less that it had done so with the intention of electing Trump. Clapper had testified before Congress in mid-November and again in December that the intelligence community did not know who had provided the e-mails to WikiLeaks and when they were provided.

The claim – by Brennan with the support of Comey – that Russia had “aspired” to help Trump’s election prospects was not a normal intelligence community assessment but an extraordinary exercise of power by Brennan, Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers.

Brennan and his allies were not merely providing a professional assessment of the election, as was revealed by their embrace of the the dubious dossier compiled by a private intelligence firm hired by one of Trump’s Republican opponents and later by the Clinton campaign for the specific purpose of finding evidence of illicit links between Trump and the Putin regime.

Salacious Gossip

When the three intelligence agencies gave the classified version of their report to senior administration officials in January they appended a two-page summary of the juiciest bits from that dossier – including claims that Russian intelligence had compromising information about Trump’s personal behavior while visiting Russia. The dossier was sent, along with the assessment that Russia was seeking to help Trump get elected, to senior administration officials as well as selected Congressional leaders.

Among the claims in the private intelligence dossier that was summarized for policymakers was the allegation of a deal between the Trump campaign and the Putin government involving full Trump knowledge of the Russian election help and a Trump pledge – months before the election – to sideline the Ukraine issue once in office. The allegation – devoid of any verifiable information – came entirely from an unidentified “Russian emigre” claiming to be a Trump insider, without any evidence provided of the source’s actual relationship to the Trump camp or of his credibility as a source.

After the story of the two-page summary leaked to the press, Clapper publicly expressed “profound dismay” about the leak and said the intelligence community “has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable,” nor did it rely on it any way for our conclusions.”

One would expect that acknowledgment to be followed by an admission that he should not have circulated it outside the intelligence community at all. But instead Clapper then justified having passed on the summary as providing policymakers with “the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security.”

By that time, U.S. intelligence agencies had been in possession of the material in the dossier for several months. It was their job to verify the information before bringing it to the attention of policymakers.

A former U.S. intelligence official with decades of experience dealing with the CIA as well other intelligence agencies, who insisted on anonymity because he still has dealings with U.S. government agencies, told this writer that he had never heard of the intelligence agencies making public unverified information on a U.S. citizen.

“The CIA has never played such a open political role,” he said.

The CIA has often tilted its intelligence assessment related to a potential adversary in the direction desired by the White House or the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but this is the first time that such a slanted report impinges not only on domestic politics but is directed at the President himself.

The egregious triple abuse of the power in publishing a highly partisan opinion on Russia and Trump’s election, appending raw and unverified private allegations impugning Trump’s loyalty and then leaking that fact to the media begs the question of motive. Brennan, who initiated the whole effort, was clearly determined to warn Trump not to reverse the policy toward Russia to which the CIA and other national security organizations were firmly committed.

A few days after the leak of the two-page summary, Brennan publicly warned Trump about his policy toward Russia. In an interview on Fox News, he said, “I think Mr. Trump has to understand that absolving Russia of various actions that it’s taken in the past number of years is a road that he, I think, needs to be very, very careful about moving down.”

Graham Fuller, who was a CIA operations officer for 20 years and was also National Intelligence Officer for the Middle East for four years in the Reagan administration, observed in an e-mail, that Brennan, Clapper and Comey “might legitimately fear Trump as a loose cannon on the national scene,” but they are also “dismayed at any prospect that the official narrative against Russia could start falling apart under Trump, and want to maintain the image of constant and dangerous Russian intervention into affairs of state.”

Flynn in the Bull’s Eye

As Trump’s National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn presented an easy target for a campaign to portray the Trump team as being in Putin’s pocket. He had already drawn heavy criticism not only by attending a Moscow event celebrating the Russian television RT in 2016 but sitting next to Putin and accepting a fee for speaking at the event. More importantly, however, Flynn had argued that the United States and Russia could and should cooperate in their common interest of defeating Islamic State militants.

That idea was anathema to the Pentagon and the CIA. Obama’s Defense Secretary Ashton Carter had attacked Secretary of State John Kerry’s negotiating a Syrian ceasefire that included a provision for coordination of efforts against Islamic State. The official investigation of the U.S. attack on Syrian forces on Sept. 17 turned up evidence that CENTCOM had deliberately targeted the Syrian military sites with the intention of sabotaging the ceasefire agreement.

The campaign to bring down Flynn began with a leak from a “senior U.S. government official”to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius about the now-famous phone conversation between Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak on Dec. 29. In his column on the leak, Ignatius avoided making any explicit claim about the conversation. Instead, he asked “What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions?”

And referring to the Logan Act, the 1799 law forbidding a private citizen from communicating with a foreign government to influence a “dispute” with the United States, Ignatius asked, “Was its spirit violated?”

The implications of the coy revelation of the Flynn conversation with Kislyak were far-reaching. Any interception of a communication by the NSA or the FBI has always been considered one of the most highly classified secrets in the U.S. intelligence universe of secrets. And officers have long been under orders to protect the name of any American involved in any such intercepted communication at all costs.

But the senior official who leaked the story of Flynn-Kislyak conversation to Ignatius – obviously for a domestic political purpose – did not feel bound by any such rule. That leak was the first move in a concerted campaign of using such leaks to suggest that Flynn had discussed the Obama administration’s sanctions with Kislyak in an effort to undermine Obama administration policy.

The revelation brought a series of articles about denials by the Trump transition team, including Vice President-elect Mike Pence, that Flynn had, in fact, discussed sanctions with Kislyak and continued suspicions that Trump’s aides were covering up the truth. But the day after Trump was inaugurated, the Post itself reported that the FBI had begun in late December go back over all communications between Flynn and Russian officials and “had not found evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government….”

Two weeks later, however, the Post reversed its coverage of the issue, publishing a story citing “nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls,” as saying that Flynn had “discussed sanctions” with Kislyak.

The story said Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak was “interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.”

The Post did not refer to its own previous reporting of the FBI’s unambiguous view contradicting that claim, which suggested strongly that the FBI was trying to head off a plan by Brennan and Clapper to target Flynn. But it did include a crucial caveat on the phrase “discussed sanctions” that few readers would have noticed. It revealed that the phrase was actually an “interpretation” of the language that Flynn had used. In other words, what Flynn actually said was not necessarily a literal reference to sanctions at all.

Only a few days later, the Post reported a new development: Flynn had been interviewed by the FBI on Jan. 24 – four days after Trump’s inauguration – and had denied that he discussed sanctions in the conversation. But prosecutors were not planning to charge Flynn with lying, according to several officials, in part because they believed he would be able to “parse the definition of the word ‘sanctions’.” That implied that the exchange was actually focused not on sanctions per se but on the expulsion of the Russian diplomats.

Just hours before his resignation on Feb. 13, Flynn claimed in an interview with the Daily Caller that he had indeed referred only to the expulsion of the Russian diplomats.

“It wasn’t about sanctions. It was about the 35 guys who were thrown out,” Flynn said. “It was basically, ‘Look, I know this happened. We’ll review everything.’ I never said anything such as, ‘We’re going to review sanctions,’ or anything like that.”

The Russian Blackmail Ploy

Even as the story of the Flynn’s alleged transgression in the conversation with the Russian Ambassador was becoming a political crisis for Donald Trump, yet another leaked story surfaced that appeared to reveal a shocking new level of the Trump administration’s weakness toward Russia.

The Post reported on Feb. 13 that Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama holdover, had decided in late January – after discussions with Brennan, Clapper and FBI Director James Comey in the last days of the Obama administration – to inform the White House Counsel Donald McGahn in late January that Flynn had lied to other Trump administration officials – including Vice President Mike Pence – in denying that he discussed sanctions with Kislyak. The Post cited “current and former officials” as the sources.

That story, repeated and amplified by many other news media, led to Flynn’s downfall later that same day. But like all of the other related leaks, the story revealed more about the aims of the leakers than about links between Trump’s team and Russia.

The centerpiece of the new leak was that the former Obama administration officials named in the story had feared that “Flynn put himself in a compromising position” in regard to his account of the conversation with Kislyak to Trump members of the Trump transition.

Yates had told the White House that Flynn might be vulnerable to Russian blackmail because of the discrepancies between his conversation with the Ambassador and his story to Pence, according to the Post story.

But once again the impression created by the leak was very different from the reality behind it. The idea that Flynn had exposed himself to a potential Russian blackmail threat by failing to tell Pence exactly what had transpired in the conversation was fanciful in the extreme.

Even assuming that Flynn had flatly lied to Pence about what he had said in the meeting – which was evidently not the case – it would not have given the Russians something to hold over Flynn, first because it was already revealed publicly and second, because the Russian interest was to cooperate with the new administration.

The ex-Obama administration leakers were obviously citing that clumsy (and preposterous) argument as an excuse to intervene in the internal affairs of the new administration. The Post’s sources also claimed that “Pence had a right to know that he had been misled….” True or not, it was, of course, none of their business.

Pity for Pence

The professed concern of the Intelligence Community and Justice Department officials that Pence deserved the full story from Flynn was obviously based on political considerations, not some legal principle. Pence was a known supporter of the New Cold War with Russia, so the tender concern for Pence not being treated nicely coincided with a strategy of dividing the new administration along the lines of policy toward Russia.

All indications are that Trump and other insiders knew from the beginning exactly what Flynn had actually said in the conversation, but that Flynn had given Pence a flat denial about discussing sanctions without further details.

On Feb. 13, when Trump was still trying to save Flynn, the National Security Adviser apologized to Pence for “inadvertently” having failed to give him a complete account, including his reference to the expulsion of the Russian diplomats. But that was not enough to save Flynn’s job.

The divide-and-conquer strategy, which led to Flynn’s ouster, was made effective because the leakers had already created a political atmosphere of great suspicion about Flynn and the Trump White House as having had illicit dealings with the Russians. The normally pugnacious Trump chose not to respond to the campaign of leaks with a detailed, concerted defense. Instead, he sacrificed Flynn before the end of the very day the Flynn “blackmail” story was published.

But Trump’s appears to have underestimated the ambitions of the leakers. The campaign against Flynn had been calculated in part to weaken the Trump administration and ensure that the new administration would not dare to reverse the hardline policy of constant pressure on Putin’s Russia.

Many in Washington’s political elite celebrated the fall of Flynn as a turning point in the struggle to maintain the existing policy orientation toward Russia. The day after Flynn was fired the Post’s national political correspondent, James Hohmann, wrote that the Flynn “imbroglio” would now make it “politically untenable for Trump to scale back sanctions to Moscow” because the “political blowback from hawkish Republicans in Congress would be too intense….”

But the ultimate target of the campaign was Trump himself. As neoconservative journalist Eli Lake put it, “Flynn is only the appetizer. Trump is the entree.”

Susan Hennessey, a well-connected former lawyer in the National Security Agency’s Office of General Counsel who writes the “Lawfare” blog at the Brookings Institution, agreed. “Trump may think Flynn is the sacrificial lamb,” she told The Guardian, “but the reality is that he is the first domino. To the extent the administration believes Flynn’s resignation will make the Russia story go away, they are mistaken.”

The Phony “Constant Contacts” Story

No sooner had Flynn’s firing been announced than the next phase of the campaign of leaks over Trump and Russia began. On Feb. 14, CNN and the New York Times published slight variants of the same apparently scandalous story of numerous contacts between multiple members of the Trump camp with the Russian at the very time the Russians were allegedly acting to influence the election.

There was little subtlety in how mainstream media outlets made their point. CNN’s headline was, “Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign.” The Times headline was even more sensational: “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts with Russian Intelligence.”

But the attentive reader would soon discover that the stories did not reflect those headlines. In the very first paragraph of the CNN story, those “senior Russian officials” became “Russians known to U.S. intelligence,” meaning that it included a wide range Russians who are not officials at all but known or suspected intelligence operatives in business and other sectors of society monitored by U.S. intelligence. A Trump associate dealing with such individuals would have no idea, of course, that they are working for Russian intelligence.

The Times story, on the other hand, referred to the Russians with whom Trump aides were said to be in contact last year as “senior Russian intelligence officials,” apparently glossing over a crucial distinction that sources had had made to CNN between intelligence officials and Russians being monitored by U.S. intelligence.

But the Times story acknowledged that the Russian contacts also included government officials who were not intelligence officials and that the contacts had been made not only by Trump campaign officials but also associates of Trump who had done business in Russia. It further acknowledged it was “not unusual” for American business to come in contact with foreign intelligence officials, sometimes unwittingly in Russia and Ukraine, where “spy services are deeply embedded in society.”

Even more important, however, the Times story made it clear that the intelligence community was seeking evidence that Trump’s aides or associates were colluding with the Russians on the alleged Russian effort to influence the election, but that it had found no evidence of any such collusion. CNN failed to report that crucial element of the story.

The headlines and lead paragraphs of both stories, therefore, should have conveyed the real story: that the intelligence community had sought evidence of collusion by Trump aides with Russia but had not found it several months after reviewing the intercepted conversations and other intelligence.

Unwitting Allies of the War Complex?

Former CIA Director Brennan and other former Obama administration intelligence officials have used their power to lead a large part of the public to believe that Trump had conducted suspicious contacts with Russian officials without having the slightest evidence to support the contention that such contacts represent a serious threat to the integrity of the U.S. political process.

Many people who oppose Trump for other valid reasons have seized on the shaky Russian accusations because they represent the best possibility for ousting Trump from power. But ignoring the motives and the dishonesty behind the campaign of leaks has far-reaching political implications. Not only does it help to establish a precedent for U.S. intelligence agencies to intervene in domestic politics, as happens in authoritarian regimes all over the world, it also strengthens the hand of the military and intelligence bureaucracies who are determined to maintain the New Cold War with Russia.

Those war bureaucracies view the conflict with Russia as key to the continuation of higher levels of military spending and the more aggressive NATO policy in Europe that has already generated a gusher of arms sales that benefits the Pentagon and its self-dealing officials.

Progressives in the anti-Trump movement are in danger of becoming an unwitting ally of those military and intelligence bureaucracies despite the fundamental conflict between their economic and political interests and the desires of people who care about peace, social justice and the environment.

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.

The CIA backed a right-wing coup in Syria in 1949. Douglas Little, Professor, Department of Clark University History professor Douglas Little notes:

Recently declassified records… confirm that beginning on November 30, 1948, [CIA operative Stephen] Meade met secretly with Colonel Zaim at least six times to discuss the “possibility [of an] army supported dictatorship.” [“Cold War and Covert Action: The United States and Syria, 1945-1958,” Middle East Journal, Winter 1990, p. 55]

***

As early as 1949, this newly independent Arab republic was an important staging ground for the CIA’s earliest experiments in covert action.

The CIA secretly encouraged a right-wing military coup in 1949.

The reason the U.S. initiated the coup?  Little explains:

 In late 1945, the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) announced plans to construct the Trans-Arabian Pipe Line (TAPLINE) from Saudi Arabia to the Mediterra- nean. With U.S. help, ARAMCO secured rights-of-way from Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.  The Syrian right-of-way was stalled in parliament.

In other words, Syria was the sole holdout for the lucrative oil pipeline.

(Indeed, the CIA has carried out this type of covert action right from the start.)

In 1957, the American president and British prime minister agreed to launch regime change again in Syria. Historian Little notes that the coup plot was discovered and stopped:

On August 12, 1957, the Syrian army surrounded the U.S. embassy in Damascus. Claiming to have aborted a CIA plot to overthrow neutralist President Shukri Quwatly and install a pro-Western regime, Syrian chief of counterintelligence Abdul Hamid Sarraj expelled three U.S. diplomats ….

Syrian counterintelligence chief Sarraj reacted swiftly on August 12, expelling Stone and other CIA agents, arresting their accomplices and placing the U.S. embassy under surveillance.

***

More importantly, Syria also had control of one of the main oil arteries of the Middle East, the pipeline which connected pro-western Iraq’s oilfields to Turkey.

***

The report said that once the necessary degree of fear had been created, frontier incidents and border clashes would be staged to provide a pretext for Iraqi and Jordanian military intervention. Syria had to be “made to appear as the sponsor of plots, sabotage and violence directed against neighbouring governments,” the report says. “CIA and SIS should use their capabilities in both the psychological and action fields to augment tension.”

***

The plan called for funding of a “Free Syria Committee” [hmmm … sounds vaguely familiar], and the arming of “political factions with paramilitary or other actionist capabilities” within Syria. The CIA and MI6 would instigate internal uprisings, for instance by the Druze [a Shia Muslim sect] in the south, help to free political prisoners held in the Mezze prison, and stir up the Muslim Brotherhood in Damascus.

Newly-declassified CIA documents show that in 1986, the CIA drew up plans to overthrow Syria by provoking sectarian tensions.

Neoconservatives planned regime change in Syria once again in 1991.

And as Nafeez Ahmed notes:

According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: “I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business,” he told French television: “I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria.”

Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor, including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials, confirmed that as of 2011, US and UK special forces training of Syrian opposition forces was well underway. The goal was to elicit the “collapse” of Assad’s regime “from within.”

Indeed.

Indeed, the U.S. has carried out regime change in the Middle East and North Africa for six decades.

Arab countries would have NATO-style mutual defense pact

Beirut. The Trump administration is in talks with Arab allies about having them form a military alliance that would share intelligence with Israel to help counter their mutual foe, Iran, several Middle Eastern officials said.

The alliance would include countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates that are avowed enemies of Israel, as well as Egypt and Jordan, which have longstanding peace treaties with Israel, five officials from Arab countries involved in the discussions said. Other Arab countries could also join the alliance.

For the Arab countries involved, the alliance would have a NATO-style mutual-defense component under which an attack on one member would be treated as an attack on all, though details are still being worked out, the officials said.

The U.S. would offer military and intelligence support to the alliance, beyond the kind of limited backing it has been providing to a Saudi-led coalition fighting Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, the officials said. But neither the U.S. nor Israel would be part of the mutual-defense pact.

Russia intends vetoing a draft US, UK, French Security Council resolution, imposing new sanctions on Syria – based on fabricated accusations of chemical weapons use.

No credible evidence proves Syria used toxic agents at any time throughout years of conflict. Plenty indicates use by US-supported terrorists.

They’ve used sarin and other toxic agents against civilians numerous times, trained in their use in Turkey and Jordan, supplied these weapons by Pentagon military contractors, Saudi Arabia and perhaps other regional countries – Syria wrongfully blamed for their criminal acts.

Russian Foreign Ministry’s director of non-proliferation and weapons control Mikhail Ulyanov blasted an Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) report, alleging Syria’s use of toxic agents, expressing dissatisfaction of its claim, saying:

The OPCW fact-finding mission is basically working in the remote regime. As a rule, it doesn’t reach the sites of incidents. The mission speaks with witnesses but primarily those…oppos(ed) to Damascus.

In response to the new draft resolution on Syria, Russia’s deputy UN envoy Vladimir Safronkov said “I clearly defined (Moscow’s) position…(W)e will veto the draft resolution,” calling it one-sided and “based on insufficient evidence,” adding:

OPCW investigators were heavily “pressure(d)” to falsely blame Syria for CW use. The draft resolution “contradicts the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence before the investigation is over” and shown to be reliably conducted.

The resolution seeks to blacklist 11 Syrian military commanders and officials, along with 10 government and related entities – based on fabricated claims of their involvement in developing and producing chemical weapons.

It calls for an asset freeze, as well as a travel ban on individuals and entities in all UN member states.

Deputy UK UN envoy Peter Wilson said the resolution will be voted on as soon as possible.  French permanent UN representative Francois Delattre ludicrously said “the credibility of the Security Council is at stake.”

Trump’s UN ambassador Nikki Haley asked “(h)ow much longer is Russia going to continue to babysit and make excuses for the Syrian regime? People died because of this and the United States isn’t going to be quiet about it.”

America, NATO and Israel use banned chemical, biological and radiological weapons in all their wars – Nuremberg-level high crimes.

No evidence proves Syria used toxic agents at any time throughout six years of war. Claims otherwise were fabricated.

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 is right challenging fake news. It’s about time someone in high office did it. He’s going about it the wrong way.

Without speech, media and academic freedoms, all other rights are threatened.

Barring certain media outlets from attending Friday’sWhite House press briefing while letting others in was wrongheaded and counterproductive.

The NYT falsely called the move unprecedented, “something no administration of either party has ever done.”

Not quite. In 2009, the Obama White House said it would no longer conduct interviews with Fox News as a member of the press pool, an unprecedented act at the time.

Other media outlets objected. The White House relented. It remained hostile to Fox News criticism of its policies.

On February 24, NYT editors blasted Trump’s move, absurdly calling it “a backhanded compliment to the reporters whose honest work provoked the president’s latest foot-stamping tantrum” – a gratuitous insult, falsely referring to barred news organizations as “trustworthy.”

Far from it! The Times and other media scoundrels feature fake news, suppressing what’s most important to report.

They’re largely anti-Trump, inventing reasons to bash him. Justifiable criticism is warranted. Biased reporting defiles what journalism is supposed to be.

On Friday, Trump called media “the opposition party…mak(ing) up stories and mak(ing) up sources.”

Candidate Trump said he wasn’t “running against crooked Hillary. I’m running against the crooked media,” he stressed – referring to the media as the “lowest form of humanity.”

Throughout the campaign, they went all out to get him, continuing post-inauguration. The power of scoundrel media manipulated public sentiment works.

Fiction substitutes for important facts. News is sanitized, dissent marginalized. Supporting wealth, power and privilege substitutes for full and accurate reporting.

Wars of aggression are called liberating ones. They’re glorified in the name of peace. Civil liberties are suppressed for our own good. Patriotism means supporting what harms the public welfare.

Might is justified as right. Raping nations is called democracy building. Looting them is considered economic development. Free societies are threatened. Tyranny stalks America.

Truth-telling is a vital disinfectant. The way to challenge media scoundrels isn’t by barring them from press briefings. It’s by exposing their fake news with hard, irrefutable facts.

Trump has bully pulpit power. He has over 25 million Twitter followers plus other ways to counter media lies if done responsibly.

On Friday, he tweeted “FAKE NEWS media knowingly doesn’t tell the truth. A great danger to our country. The failing @nytimes has become a joke. Likewise @CNN. Sad!”

Most Americans distrust the media for good reason. Growing numbers rely on alternative sources to stay informed. It’s the only way!

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.

 

 

The appointment of Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster  as Trumps new national security adviser underscores the ever-growing power of the military and finance capital in the U.S. state.   From wielding tremendous power from partially behind-the-scenes positions, these two sectors have emerged center stage in Trump’s cabinet which is stocked with generals and billionaires.

Hailed almost universally by U.S. corporate media as a ‘scholar-general’, ‘brilliant strategist’, and the like, McMaster in reality represents the most extreme forms of militarist thinking, disregard for international law, and callous disregard for human life.

In his book ‘Dereliction of Duty’, also hailed as some kind of ‘masterpiece’ by corporate media, McMaster criticizes the U.S. military brass of the 1960’s for not insisting that the administration of President Johnson send even more men, 700,000 is his number, to engage in the Vietnam war, and for not insisting that even more bombing of that country take place.

For younger readers who may lack detailed knowledge regarding the Vietnam war, the following facts need to be considered in assessing McMaster’s bizzare view that the U.S.-state warfare under Johnson was ‘inadequate’.

First of all, the U.S. troop strength in Vietnam was kept at about 500,00 (not enough for McMaster) for quite a few years;  Fifty-thousand young American men died in the war, and far more were were injured or traumatized for life.

Secondly, the chemical poison called ‘agent orange’ was sprayed by U.S. forces over large swathes of the country to defoliate the rain forests, in order to better find and kill the Vietnamese defenders. This poison ultimately produced a large number – I think up to a million or more – deformed babies to be born to Vietnamese women.

Thirdly, 2 to 3 million Vietnamese were killed by the war, many of them by bombing.  U.S. forces dropped more explosive power on Vietnam than the combined total of all world war II US. bombing (still not enough for McMaster).

Fourthly,  the horrific consequences for young Americans who were drafted – i.e., ordered by the government to serve in the war – and for the Vietnamese people ultimately struck home for the American people.  Tens of millions of American workers, young people, and others ultimately turned against the war, and the largest political demonstrations in U.S. history brought millions to demonstrate in Washington and in other U.S. cities.

This war crime, akin in its scale to the Nazi war crimes in Eastern Europe in WWII, is what McMaster views as inadequate or ‘derelection of duty’.  Moreover, McMaster’s taste for large scale warfare has not slackened.  Of late he has led a study in Eastern Europe on how best to engage in warfare against Russia, a nuclear armed power.

The reality that such an individual is now national security advisor to the president of the United States should serve as a stark warning that preparations to drag the American people into yet more wars, and to impose militaristic authoritarian controls on the country, are afoot.

“Everyone seems to be dying of cancer. Every day one hears about another acquaintance or friend of a friend dying.”

On Monday, February 20, US-led coalition fighter jets bombed al-Shefaa, a residential area in eastern Mosul (Iraq). Sources from a variety of perspectives say that several dozen civilians died in the raid and a large number were wounded. The highest numbers are being quoted by the Islamic State’s Amaq News Agency, while the lower numbers come from al-Jazeera. The coalition commanders have not answered questions about the raids.

According to Airwars, a large number of civilians have been killed due to US-led coalition bombings that began in 2014. The total civilians killed range from 5,875 to 7,936, while those specifically killed by coalition airstrikes number between 2,405 and 3,517. These are twice the number of civilians as killed by Russian airstrikes in Syria, according to Airwars figures.

The Iraqi military confirms that it has slowed down its advance into Mosul because it does not know how to fight ISIS without endangering the 750,000 civilians in the region. The most recent UN situation report from Iraq counts 160,000 people already displaced as a result of the Mosul crisis. Low income levels, shortages of water, great threats because of the fighting – these define the situation for residents in and around Mosul.

A joint investigation by Airwars and Foreign Policy pushed the US military to confirm that in two incidents in 2015 the United States used depleted uranium (DU) shells against ISIS targets in Syria. When Airwars’ Samuel Oakford asked the United States military whether it had used any DU in Syria, they first denied it, then finally admitted to its use earlier this month. DU ammunition was fired from A-10 aircraft against fuel tankers.

Strikingly, the A-10 aircraft normally carries high explosive incendiary (HEI) ammunition which, according to its manufacturer General Dynamics, ‘provides fragmentation and incendiary effects for use against personnel, trucks, ammunition storage and many other targets’. The HEI would have been sufficient to destroy the fuel tankers, so that it was unnecessary to use DU – a radioactive substance – to contaminate parts of northern Syria.

Make the Desert Glow.

At the same time as the US was using radioactive weapons in Syria, Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz said of ISIS – ‘We will carpet bomb them into oblivion. I don’t know if sand can glow in the dark, but we’re going to find out’. This was plainly a reference to some kind of radioactive bombardment. It was precisely what the administration of Barack Obama had already been doing.

Not long after Cruz first made this comment – which became a standard for his stump speeches – Mark Halperin of Bloomberg asked another Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, whether he would go nuclear against ISIS. ‘Well, I’m never going to rule anything out’, replied Trump. When pushed by Chris Matthews of MSNBC on this issue, Trump said, ‘Somebody hits us within ISIS – you wouldn’t fight back with a nuke?’

Three generals who made their mark in Iraq between 1991 and 2008 now lead President Trump’s national security team. General James Mattis (Secretary of Defense), General John Kelley (Secretary of Homeland Security) and General H. R. McMaster (National Security Advisor) all led the US counter-insurgency operations in Iraq. Of the three, General James Mattis had the closest relationship to the use of radioactive weapons in Iraq. This was during the siege conducted by the United States against the city of Fallujah in 2004. To grasp the attitude of the US officers in this war, reflect for a minute on Mattis’ statement made in a 2003 speech to soldiers regarding how to comport themselves in Iraq, ‘Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet’.

Fallujah is one of the most forgotten contemporary US battlefields. In that battle to defeat the popular insurgency against the American occupation, the United States used chemical (white phosphorus) and radioactive (DU) weapons with great abandon. The fierceness of the war destroyed three quarters of the city and sent most of its population to the grave or into flight. At this time, General Mattis headed the 1st Marine Division that was key to the Fallujah war.

Ironically, the United States went into Iraq in 2003 with the claim that it wanted to destroy weapons of mass destruction. In turn, it was the United States that used weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq.

The United States dropped at least 116,000 kgs of DU ammunition during the bombing campaign of the 2003 Iraq War. At that time, A-10 fighter jets were used for these missions, the same planes used in Syria. Strike logs released to George Washington University in 2013, shows that in the early months of the war (March-April 2003), DU ammunition was used against cars and trucks as well as buildings of all kinds. The widespread use of these radioactive weapons across Iraq contaminated large swathes of the country. What transpired in Fallujah the next year was merely the continuation of what had become normal policy. The data from that war has not been released as of yet. It would show that DU weapons were fired not only from A-10 jets, but also from tanks and other ground-based devices. These not only contaminated the soil, but also endangered US troops.

It is not as if the US military did not know that DU weapons are dangerous. The US Environmental Protection Agency calls these weapons ‘a radiation health hazard when inside the body’. A 1975 US Air Force review suggested that these weapons not be used against troops, but only against ‘tanks, armored personnel carriers or other hard targets’. This prohibition was routinely violated during the US War on Iraq. In 2003, the UK’s Royal Society of Medicine and the UN Environment Program warned against the use of such weapons. None of these warnings were heeded. People like Mattis and Kelley had their fingers on the trigger. There is no available evidence that they cautioned against what is tantamount to a war crime.

Everyone Seems to be Dying of Cancer.

Evidence from Baghdad and Fallujah is compelling. Before she died of leukemia, artist Nuha al-Radi wrote, ‘Everyone seems to be dying of cancer. Every day one hears about another acquaintance or friend of a friend dying. How many more die in hospitals that one does not know? Apparently, over 30 per cent of Iraqis have cancer, and there are a lot of kids with leukemia. The depleted uranium left by the US bombing campaign has turned Iraq into a cancer-infested country’.

Dr. Samira Allani, a pediatric specialist at the Fallujah General Hospital, sees the connection between Iraq and Japan – two countries struck hard by weapons of mass destruction. The rate of children born with birth defects in Fallujah are much greater than that of children born – after 1945 – in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The dust from DU emits alpha radiation, which experts say is twenty times more dangerous than the gamma radiation from nuclear weapons. There was no dramatic mushroom cloud over Baghdad or Fallujah, but the smaller explosions might have been just as deadly.

Over the years, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) has pushed a non-binding resolution in the UN General Assembly against the use of DU ammunition. Both in 2012 and 2014, the overwhelming majority of the world’s states voted for a resolution brought by the NAM against DU weapons. Both times the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Israel voted against the resolution. In December 2014, the NAM resolution came just as US A-10 fighter jets arrived in Kuwait to bomb ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq. There was fear that the US would use DU weapons once more in the region. This fear, we now find, was not unwarranted. The US has said that it used DU twice. One should not be comforted by this number, since there might be other instances where DU was used in the last few years.

It would be naïve to assume that the United States and its coalition are not using DU weaponry in the fight against ISIS in Mosul and elsewhere. These are dangerous weapons, whose radioactivity lasts a very long time and damages societies for generations. Statements by Trump and Cruz about the use of nuclear weapons and the lack of outrage against that shows how desensitized the population has become about violence against the brown bodies of West Asia.

And even against the ecology of the region. In her captivating memoir, Nuha al-Radi writes about fleeing into her family orchard when the US bombing of Iraq took place in 2003. ‘The birds have taken the worst beating of all’, she wrote. ‘They have sensitive souls, which cannot take all this hideous noise and vibration. All the caged lovebirds have died from the shock of the blasts, while birds in the wild fly upside down and do crazy somersaults. Hundreds, if not thousands, have died in the orchard. Lonely survivors fly about in distracted fashion’.

Whether Nuha, powerful artist that she was, wrote of the birds alone or wrote with allegory close to her pen is moot. Both the birds and Iraqis as well Syrians go about in a distracted fashion. Their lives continue to be turned askew by the hideous bombardment of this ongoing war.

Vijay Prashad is professor of international studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. He is the author of 18 books, including Arab Spring, Libyan Winter (AK Press, 2012), The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South (Verso, 2013) and The Death of a Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution (University of California Press, 2016). His columns appear at AlterNet every Wednesday.

President Donald Trump in an interview with Reuters today demonstrated an astounding lack of knowledge about basic nuclear weapons issues.

According to Reuters Trump said he wanted to build up the US nuclear arsenal to ensure it is at the “top of the pack.” He said the United States has “fallen behind on nuclear weapons capacity.”

Building up the US nuclear arsenal would be an unnecessary, unaffordable, and a counterproductive move. It is unnecessary because the US military already has more nuclear weapons than it needs to meet US national and international security commitments. It would be unaffordable because the Pentagon will have problems paying for the nuclear modernization program initiated by the Obama administration. And it is counterproductive because it would further fuel nuclear buildups in other nuclear weapon states.

The claim that the US has “fallen behind on its nuclear weapons capacity” is also wrong; the US has the nuclear weapons capability it needs to meet its national and international security commitments. All nuclear-armed states have different nuclear weapons capacities depending on their individual needs. Nuclear planning is not a race but a strategy.

In terms of capacity, the United States is already at the “top of the pack” with highly capable nuclear forces that are backed up by overwhelming conventional forces. See here how the US nuclear arsenal compares with other nuclear-armed states.

Trump also called the New START Treaty “a one-sided deal” and a “bad deal.” Once again he is wrong. The treaty has equal limits for both the United States and Russia: by February 2018, neither side can have more than 1,550 warheads on 700 deployed launchers and no more than 800 total deployed and non-deployed launchers.

Next month the new bi-annual aggregate data set will be published; the previous one from September 2016 showed Russia with 1,796 warheads on 508 launchers compared with the United States with 1,367 warheads on 681 launchers.

Some people got very excited about that saying the larger number of Russian deployed warheads somehow gave Russia an advantage and showed they didn’t intend to comply with the treaty. Warheads can be moved on and off launchers relatively quickly; the important number is the number of launchers where the US was counted with 173 more than Russia.

Indeed, according to the Pentagon and Intelligence Community, Russia “would not be able to achieve a militarily significant advantage by any plausible expansion of its strategic nuclear forces, even in a cheating or breakout scenario under the New START Treaty…” (Emphasis added.)

But nitpicking about numbers misses the bigger point: the New START treaty was signed with overwhelming support from the US military, Congress, former officials, and experts because the treaty caps the nuclear forces of both countries and continues an important on-site verification system and data exchange.

President Trump may have been briefed by the Pentagon on his role in the nuclear war plan. But his latest interview with Reuters shows that he urgently needs to be briefed on the status of US nuclear forces, other nuclear-armed states, and the basics of the arms control treaties the United States has signed. But that briefing needs to be done outside the White House bubble and include bi-partisan and independent input. Otherwise all indication are that President Trump will be extraordinarily poorly equipped to make informed decisions about the nuclear policy.

Additional resources:

• Status of World Nuclear Forces
• Latest New START Treaty data

Hans M. Kristensen is the director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists where he provides the public with analysis and background information about the status of nuclear forces and the role of nuclear weapons.

Palestinian lawyers call for investigation of police minister as survey shows soaring levels of anti-Arab speech on Hebrew social media 

Israel’s 1.7 million Palestinian citizens are facing a tidal wave of incitement and hate speech on social media, including from government ministers, community leaders have warned.

They say the increasingly hostile political climate in Israel is stoking violence from the police and street gangs, and has laid the ground for a recent raft of racist legislative proposals.

The alert comes as a group of Palestinian lawyers demand that Israel’s attorney general investigates Gilad Erdan, the internal security minister, for incitement to racism.

Adalah, a legal group for Israel’s Palestinian minority, highlighted statements from Erdan blaming Palestinian citizens for “arson terrorism” last November after forest fires swept the country, despite their having been no prosecutions.

“Israel has experienced arson terrorism and I won’t let anyone sweep this fact under the rug,” he wrote on Facebook in December. “Why does it seem unrealistic that Arabs would attempt to harm Jews?”

Adalah argued Erdan’s comments were part of a wider government strategy to portray Palestinian citizens, about 20 per cent of Israel’s population, as a “fifth column”.

Although other government ministers had incited, the group said, Erdan’s statements were especially harmful because of his role overseeing the police. Adalah said he was bolstering a police culture that already treated Palestinian citizens as an “enemy within”.

“Incitement from Erdan is dangerous because it reinforces and sanctions existing prejudices in the police,” Nadim Shehadeh, a lawyer with Adalah, told Middle East Eye. “As a result, the police are likely to have an even lighter finger on the trigger.”

Concern about the effects of incitement from leading politicians has been underscored by a survey published this month that found rocketing levels of online abuse from Israeli Jews against Palestinians.

7amleh, an organisation promoting social media rights for Palestinians, identified 675,000 posts in Hebrew last year expressing racism or hatred towards Palestinians – one every 46 seconds, and more than double the previous year’s figure.

There are terrifying levels of hate speech online from Israeli Jews,” Nadim Nashef, 7amleh’s director, told MEE. “No one in Israel – politicians, the police, the courts and the social media companies – has shown any interest in doing something about it.

But it’s worse than that. The politicians are fuelling the problem. It has become completely normal in Israel to incite against Palestinians. You find it everywhere. It is entirely mainstream.

The research identified more than 50,000 Hebrew speakers as persistent offenders on social media, especially Facebook, said Nashef. Spikes in online abuse correlated with incitement from Israeli politicians and the media, he added.

Popular terms of abuse included threats to kill, rape, burn, expel, and assault Palestinians.

Both Adalah and 7amleh said incitement from Israeli Jews was rarely investigated or prosecuted. Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories, on the other hand, had their accounts closed or were arrested and jailed over less serious online activity.

7amleh said its research showed that the brunt of online abuse was directed at leading Palestinian politicians in Israel.

The most common targets were Haneen Zoabi, one of only two Palestinian women in the parliament, and Ahmed Tibi, a former adviser to the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, 7amleh said. Both Zoabi and Tibi have reported regular death threats.

According to the survey, they received more online abuse than the leader of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, Mahmoud Abbas.

“When we are targeted rather than the Palestinian leadership in the occupied territories, a clear message is sent to the [Jewish] public that we have no place in the parliament and those we represent have no right to be citizens,” Zoabi told MEE.

The climate of incitement had very concrete effects, said Zoabi: “It gives a green light to police violence. It is converted into shootings and deaths.”

She said dozens of Palestinian citizens had died in unexplained circumstances at the hands of the police in the last 15 years.

Zoabi also pointed to the increasing reports of gangs chanting “Death to the Arabs!” in Israeli cities and Jerusalem, as well as a growing incidence of street assaults.

Polls have shown high levels of racial prejudice among Israeli Jews. A survey last year found 49 per cent would not live in the same building as a Palestinian citizen.

Another showed a similar number of 16 and 17-year-olds would deny Palestinian citizens the right to vote.

Adalah said constant incitement from government politicians had made possible the drafting of ever-more discriminatory and anti-democratic legislation.

Shehadeh noted that recent laws allowed the parliament to expel the minority’s legislators over their views, and hampered the work of human rights groups assisting Palestinians.

Zoabi agreed. “Every week we see bills being introduced, such as a ban on the mosque call to prayer, or moves to step up home demolitions in Palestinian communities. The political culture sanctions ever more violence through legislation.”

Nashef said a turning point in the levels of incitement could be traced to comments by Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, at the last general election, in early 2015. Netanyahu posted a video on Facebook telling the Jewish public it was vital they voted because “Arab voters are coming out in droves to the polls”.

“When the prime minister talks like this, then everyone else understands that it is okay to do it too,” Nashef said.

7amleh’s survey showed a significant peak of online incitement and hate speech last November, as hundreds of fires broke out across Israel and the occupied territories, triggered by a prolonged drought and high winds.

Despite the exceptional weather conditions, Erdan led government ministers in accusing Palestinians, especially those in Israel, of being behind the fires.

Adalah cited Erdan’s Facebook post from early December. Dozens of Palestinian citizens were arrested by police, but none have been charged with “nationalist crimes” over the fires.

Nevertheless, Netanyahu has continued to make similar accusations, stating last month: “That fact that we can’t prove it [that the fires were terrorism] doesn’t mean it’s not what happened.”

Nashef said: “These inciteful statements garner a lot of media attention and our research shows they have a powerful impact in shaping public attitudes. But few notice when they turn out to be based on lies or misinformation.”

Adalah also cited comments by Erdan justifying the fatal shooting of Yacoub Abu al-Qiyan by police last month during a demolition operation in Umm al-Hiran, a Bedouin community in Israel’s south.

A police video and post-mortem examination report indicated that Abu al-Qiyan lost control of his car after he was shot, and careered into a group of policemen, killing one of them.

According to Israeli media, a justice ministry report – due to published next month – has found no evidence that Abu al-Qiyan carried out an attack or belonged to an extremist organisation.

Nonetheless, said Shehadeh, Erdan and other government ministers repeatedly accused Abu al-Qiyan, without evidence, of being an Islamic State terrorist.

Erdan tweeted hours after the two deaths: “The terrorist sharply turned his wheel and quickly accelerated in order to run over a group of police officers.”

Netanyahu’s office similarly described the incident as a “car-ramming attack”. Implying that Abu al-Qiyan was part of global trend of Islamic terrorism, Netanyahu said Israel and the world were “fighting this murderous phenomenon”.

Adalah’s letter to the attorney general also pointed out that Erdan had repeatedly blamed the deaths in Umm al-Hiran on Palestinian legislators there to protest against the demolitions. Erdan singled out Ayman Odeh, the leader of the Joint List, the Palestinian coalition in the parliament.

In comments to the media, he said: “Ayman Odeh and the rest of the MKs from the Arab [sic] List who have come to enflame sentiments this morning: This blood is also on your hands. … You are a disgrace to the State of Israel.”

In Umm al-Hiran, Odeh was himself injured twice, including to the head, by sponge-tipped bullets fired at him by police.

Problem with Facebook

Nashef criticised Facebook, where most of the online hate speech was found, for contributing to the problem.

Last summer Facebook agreed to crack down on what Israel defines as incitement by Palestinians. Paradoxically, Erdan was the minister who met the tech companies.

According to reports, in the first half of 2016, a tenth of all content restrictions imposed by Facebook globally were at the Israeli government’s behest.

But Nashef said nothing was being done to deal with incitement and hate speech from the Jewish public.

“It is not reasonable that large numbers of Palestinians have their accounts shut down or are arrested and jailed for online hate speech, while Israeli Jews can engage in the same or worse activity and there are no consequences,” he said.

Neither the justice or police ministries were available for comment.

7amleh said the biggest peak in online abuse followed the arrest last March of army medic Elor Azaria. He was filmed executing a badly wounded Palestinian, Abdel Fattah al-Sharif. This week he was sentenced to 18 months’ jail for manslaughter.

Several government ministers, including Netanyahu, expressed strong support for Azaria.

The survey showed another outburst of online abuse followed attacks last September by the culture minister, Miri Regev, against two Palestinian cultural icons.

She described the late national poet Mahmoud Darwish as the “leader of the Palestinian industry of lies”, and accused a popular rapper, Tamer Nafar, of giving “legitimacy to terrorism”.

Sir John Beddington is Senior Advisor and Professor of Natural Resources Management at the Oxford Martin School in Oxford, UK. He also belongs to the Central Team of the Oxford Martin Commission for Future Generations (OMC) and is former Chief Scientific Adviser to the British government and Head of the Government Office for Science.

Bringing together international leaders from government, business and civil society, the OMC calls for a radical shake-up in politics and business to embed long-term thinking and provide practical recommendations for action to create a more resilient, inclusive and sustainable future.

During a recent visit to Australia, Beddington told ABC Rural news that politicians around the globe are ignoring the science relating to GM for the sake of short-term political opportunism:

There is a movement in Europe which is just against any genetically-modified plant used for food [and] that is so naïve. There’s no doubt in the developing world, plants can be modified to be resistant to drought or insect pests and that is going to be very, very important moving into the future.

He also claimed that GM could boost yields, which would be needed to feed a growing world population, and claimed there is approximately two billion people experiencing malnutrition and these people either lack sufficient levels of nutrients needed for proper development or are eating too much poor-quality food. With 25 per cent of children dying in the first few years of life, he said that children were being robbed of their social and economic potential. In an era of so-called ‘anti-science’, he argued it was more important than ever that scientist ensured their relevancy within society.

In the recent article, Pro-GMO Scientists Blinded by Technology and Wedded to Technology, I addressed the issues raised by Beddington and challenged his erroneous views about GM.

Rosemary Mason writes to John Beddington

Now campaigner Dr Rosemary Mason has written Beddington an open letter that urges him to acknowledge the adverse impacts of the modern system of food and agriculture. She presents him with a detailed account about the massive adverse effects of agrochemicals on health and the environment and highlights the need to address the various concerns that scientists, environmentalists and others from various groups and disciplines have about GM crops and food.

Mason discusses scientific fraud, which has allowed the likes of glyphosate on to the market and to remain there, and highlights conflicts of interest and media manipulation by the agritech/agrochemicals industry. She also notes how legislators and policy makers first and foremost set out to protect the interests of the industry.

As with her previous documents, in her 17-page (8,800-word) letter to Beddington (Open Letter to Sir John Beddington Professor of Natural Resources Management Oxford Martin Commission), Mason cites official reports and statistics as well as peer-reviewed papers, and she has done her homework when it comes to pinpointing the links between agencies, individuals and funding to demonstrate how fraud, corruption, conflicts of interest and policy decisions serve the interests of the agritech/agrochemicals sector at the expense of the public and the environment.

Mason begins her letter by referring to Dr Henk Tennekes, an independent toxicologist, who predicted environmental catastrophe from the use of the systemic neonicotinoid insecticides. He said that these chemicals act on the brains of insects (and humans) in a virtually irreversible and time-dependent manner. Various independent studies have shown that the collapse of bee colonies, the loss of other invertebrates and bird declines in Europe are associated with chronic low levels of these chemicals.

Bayer and Syngenta are fighting the partial neonicotinoid ban, however, and the EU authorities have granted many exemptions, including those requested by industry. These insecticides are still on the market and their usage is even increasing.

In south Wales, where she resides, Mason highlights the catastrophic effects as a result of the excessive and improper use (despite EU regulations/recommendation) of the biocide glyphosate, not least that substance’s links to the massive spikes in numerous serious diseases and illnesses in the region. She discusses how the European authorities committed scientific fraud in concluding glyphosate was not carcinogenic and reveals that one third of the members of the BFR Commission on Pesticides and their Residues were directly employed by the chemical industry, while others had questionable links. The commission was responsible for evaluating glyphosate.

Mason also notes that much of the German government’s recent evaluation of glyphosate – favourably compared to the IARC’s evaluation by the agrochemical industry – was not actually written by scientists working for the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) but rather by the European Glyphosate Task Force, a consortium of agrochemical firms.

According to Mason, conflicts of interest also undermined the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticides Residues (JMPR). She discusses individuals and institutions connected with JMPR who/which received substantial amounts of industry money.

From cataracts and dementia to autism obesity and cancer, Mason notes the disturbing link between the increasing use of glyphosate and other biocides and spiraling rates of illness. She goes on to show how the dominant cultural narrative about health promotion and disease deflects attention from the role of agrochemicals and how strategically placed figures with links to the industry help fuel this process.

Referring to his recent visit to Australia and in response to his promotion of GM, Mason addresses Beddington by saying:

Sir John, I note that you have been on Monsanto business in Australia promoting GM. There is no point in preaching to Australia. It has been in the hands of the agrochemical industry since 2002 and has an industry-funded Science Media Centre like the UK (as has Japan and New Zealand.)  In fact, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) didn’t want to bother to reassess glyphosate, but their citizens insisted. The closing date for comments was 30 December 2016. The three areas that are in the hands of the pesticides industry are also the areas with the most obesity problems: the UK, the US and Australia.

She continues:

You and Lord Smith, at that time Chairman of the Environment Agency, were warned in 2011. In February 6^th 2011, we wrote to you and to Lord Chris Smith. We said: “The agrochemical industry has used the environment as a huge, private experimental laboratory”.

Mason then proceeds to document a series of conflicts of interest, noting links between Cancer Research UK and Syngenta, BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, FMC Corp, Monsanto and Sumitomo. She adds that Syngenta is a member of the European Glyphosate Task Force (GTF). Britain and the GTF claim that glyphosate does not cause cancer and disagree with World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) which has declared glyphosate as a 2A carcinogen (probably carcinogenic in humans).

Mason states:

Syngenta, AstraZeneca and the UK government have a mutually beneficial relationship with each other at the expense of the British people One corporation promotes cancer; the other corporation tries to cure it. In 2010, Michael Pragnell was appointed as Chairman of Cancer Research UK, and by 2011 CRUK was donating money (£450 million/year) to the Government’s Strategy for UK Life Sciences, and AstraZeneca (Syngenta’s parent company) was providing twenty-two compounds to academic research in the UK to develop medicines. AstraZeneca manufactures six different anti-cancer drugs mainly aimed at breast and prostate cancer.

Glyphosate and other pesticides earn billions for the pharmaceutical companies with the sales of statins, anti-hypertensives, antidepressants, diabetic medication, anti-cancer drugs, weight -reducing drugs, vaccines and drugs to treat dementia etc.

Mason notes the links between diet and disease and says scientific evidence is accumulating that a diet-based cure is much more effective than current medical treatments which are largely ineffectual, expensive, and plagued by side effects. She adds that these important facts about the power of nutrition are not widely known, however. That is because they simultaneously challenge the food industry, the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession.

The system is not designed to serve the public good

Powerful agritech/agribusiness corporations are intent on rolling out a globalised system of chemically-laden food production that adversely impacts human health and diets and leads to micronutrient deficient soils and crops. These corporations seek to eradicate indigenous farming systems centred on smallholder agriculture that can – if the recommendations of various high-level reports are acted on – feed the world healthily and sustainably. And that includes the two billion who experience malnutrition that Beddington refers to: unfortunately, as Rosemary Mason and the information contained the embedded links in this and the next paragraph indicate, the current corporate-led GMO/chemical-intensive ‘Green Revolution’ model leads to exactly the opposite.

If there is to be a radical “shake-up in politics and business to embed long-term thinking and provide practical recommendations for action to create a more resilient, inclusive and sustainable future” then challenging the power structures that undermine the goal of healthy, equitable food provision and production has to be integral to that “shake-up”.

Of course, Rosemary Mason is not a lone voice in all of this. The Pesticide Action Network just last week released a statement saying that Europeans are consuming dozens of pesticides on a daily basis and that there has been 12 years of inaction and failure in the EU’s attempts to reduce pesticide levels in food. In 2014, Corporate Europe Observatory concluded that the European Commission had been a captive but willing servant of a corporate agenda (an agenda partly fuelled by the agrochemicals sector).

And writing in The Guardian in 2015, Arthur Nelson noted that as many as 31 pesticides with a value running into billions of pounds could have been banned in the EU because of potential health risks, if a blocked EU paper on hormone-mimicking chemicals had been acted upon. Nelson wrote that Commission sources said that the paper was buried by top EU officials under pressure from big chemical firms.

But that’s the whole point, isn’t it? As Mason and others constantly imply, a system not run for the public good can never serve the public good.

The current Earl of Balfour has called on Israel to comply with his ancestor’s 1917 Declaration and give Palestinians their own state.

In a letter to the New York Times the 5th Earl, Roderick Balfour (pictured above), acknowledged that while one part of the Balfour Declaration, which gave Jews a homeland in Palestine, had been fulfilled, the other, respecting the rights of the native Palestinian population, had not.

“In 1917, my forebear Arthur Balfour, as British foreign secretary, wrote the Balfour Declaration, a great humanitarian initiative to give Jews a home in their ancient lands, against the background of the dreadful Russian pogroms,” the Earl writes. “We are conscious, however, that a central tenet of the declaration has all but been forgotten over the intervening decades: respect for the status of (Arab) Palestinians.”

Balfour goes on to argue that Israel’s inability to abide by UN resolutions to cease building illegal settlements and withdraw from the Occupied Territories is a key factor behind growing anti-Semitism around the world.

“The increasing inability of Israel to address this condition, coupled with the expansion into Arab territory of the Jewish settlements, are major factors in growing anti-Semitism around the world,” he says. “Nevertheless, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu owes this to the millions of Jews around the world who suffer essentially because of the results of internal Israeli politics, as well as to the unenfranchised Palestinians.”

The Earl says that to achieve peace Israel “must respect the United Nations resolutions (the same United Nations that gave Israel legitimacy 70 years ago) and look to allow the Palestinians their own state”. He says he believes the centenary of the Balfour Declaration cannot be properly celebrated this year without progress on a two-state solution and a simultaneous push toward making Jerusalem “an internationally protected capital for all three Abrahamic faiths”.

The Earl’s letter is a response to recent comments by US President Donald Trump in which he said he would not necessarily push for a two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine problem. In a reference to the two-faced Roman God, Balfour describes Trump as looking “more like Janus on the issue”.

This being the age of public relations, the genteel term “public-private partnership” is used instead of corporate plunder. A “partnership” such deals may be, but it isn’t the public who gets the benefits.

We’ll be hearing more about so-called “public-private partnerships” in coming weeks because the new U.S. president, Donald Trump, is promoting these as the basis for a promised $1 trillion in new infrastructure investments. But the new administration has also promised cuts to public spending. How to square this circle? It’s not difficult to discern when we recall the main policy of the Trump administration is to hand out massive tax cuts to big business and the wealthy, and provide them with subsidies.

Public-private partnerships are one of the surest ways of shoveling money into the gaping maws of corporate wallets, used, with varying names, by neoliberal governments around the world, particularly in Europe and North America. The result has been disastrous — public services and infrastructure maintenance is consistently more expensive after privatization. Cuts to wages for workers who remain on the job and increased use of low-wage subcontractors are additional features of these privatizations.

Chicago at night (photo by Lol19)

The rationale for these partnerships is, similar to other neoliberal prescriptions, ideological — the private sector is supposedly always more efficient than government. A private company’s profit incentive will supposedly see to it that costs are kept under control, thereby saving money for taxpayers and transferring risk to the contractor. In the real world, however, this works much differently. A government signs a long-term contract with a private enterprise to build and/or maintain infrastructure, under which the costs are borne by the contractor but the revenue goes to the contractor as well.

The contractor, of course, expects a profit from the arrangement. The government doesn’t — and thus corporate expectation of profits requires that revenues be increased and expenses must be cut. Less services and fewer employees means more profit for the contractor, and because the contractor is a private enterprise there’s no longer public accountability.

Public-private partnerships are nothing more than a variation on straightforward schemes to sell off public assets below cost, with working people having to pay more for reduced quality of service. A survey of these partnerships across Europe and North America will demonstrate this clearly, but first a quick look at the Trump administration’s plans.

Corporate subsidies, not $1 trillion in new spending

The use of the word “plans” is rather loose here. No more than the barest outline of a plan has been articulated. The only direct mention of his intentions to jump-start investment in infrastructure is found in President Trump’s campaign web site. In full, it states the plan “Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over ten years. It is revenue neutral.” The administration’s official White House web site’s sole mention of infrastructure is an announcement approving the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines without environmental reviews, and an intention to expedite environmental reviews for “high priority infrastructure projects.”

Wilbur Ross, an investment banker who buys companies and then takes away pensions and medical benefits so he can flip his companies for a big short-term profit, and who is President Trump’s pick for commerce secretary, along with a conservative economics professor, Peter Navarro, have recommended the Trump administration allocate $137 billion in tax credits for private investors who underwrite infrastructure projects. The two estimate that over 10 years the credits could spur $1 trillion in investment. So the new administration won’t actually spend $1 trillion to fix the country’s badly decaying infrastructure; it hopes to encourage private capital to do so through tax cuts.

The Sea-to-Sky Highway in British Columbia (photo by D. Vincent Alongi)

There is a catch here — private capital is only going to invest if a steady profit can be extracted. Writing in the New Republic, David Dayen put this plainly:

“Private operators will only undertake projects if they promise a revenue stream. You may end up with another bridge in New York City or another road in Los Angeles, which can be monetized. But someplace that actually needs infrastructure investment is more dicey without user fees. So the only way to entice private-sector actors into rebuilding Flint, Michigan’s water system, for example, is to give them a cut of the profits in perpetuity. That’s what Chicago did when it sold off 36,000 parking meters to a Wall Street-led investor group. Users now pay exorbitant fees to park in Chicago, and city government is helpless to alter the rates.”

The Trump plan appears to go beyond even the ordinary terms of public-private partnerships because it would transfer money to developers with no guarantee at all that net new investments are made, according to an Economic Policy Institute analysis. The EPI report asks several questions:

“[I]t appears to be a plan to give tax credits to private financiers and developers, period. The lack of details here are daunting and incredibly important. For starters, we don’t know if the tax credit would be restricted to new investment, or if investors in already existing [public-private partnerships] are eligible for the credit. If private investors in already existing PPP arrangements are eligible, how do we ensure these tax credits actually induce net new investments rather than just transferring taxpayer largesse on operators of already-existing projects? Who decides which projects need to be built? How will the Trump administration provide needed infrastructure investments that are unlikely to be profitable for private providers (such as building lead-free water pipes in Flint, MI)? If we assume tax credits will be restricted (on paper, anyhow) to just new investment, how do we know the money is not just providing a windfall to already planned projects rather than inducing a net increase in how much infrastructure investment occurs?”

Critiques of this scheme can readily be found on the Right as well. For example, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former head of the Congressional Budget Office and economic adviser to John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, told The Associated Press, “I don’t think that is a model that is going be viewed as successful or that you can use it for all of the infrastructure needs that the U.S. has.”

Corporations plunder, people pay in Britain

Britain’s version of public-private partnerships are called “private finance initiatives.” A scheme concocted by the Conservative Party and enthusiastically adopted by the New Labour of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the results are disastrous. A 2015 report in The Independent reveals that the British government owes more than £222 billion to banks and businesses as a result of private finance initiatives. Jonathan Owen reports:

“The startling figure – described by experts as a ‘financial disaster’ – has been calculated as part of an Independent on Sunday analysis of Treasury data on more than 720 PFIs. The analysis has been verified by the National Audit Office. The headline debt is based on ‘unitary charges’ which start this month and will continue for 35 years. They include fees for services rendered, such as maintenance and cleaning, as well as the repayment of loans underwritten by banks and investment companies.

Responding to the findings, [British Trades Union Congress] General Secretary Frances O’Grady said: ‘Crippling PFI debts are exacerbating the funding crisis across our public services, most obviously in our National Health Service.’ ”

Under private finance initiatives, a consortium of private-sector banks and construction firms finance, own, operate and lease the formerly public property back to the U.K. taxpayer over a period of 30 to 35 years. By no means do taxpayers receive value for these deals — and the total cost will likely rise far above the initial £222 billion cost. According to The Independent:

“The system has yielded assets valued at £56.5bn. But Britain will pay more than five times that amount under the terms of the PFIs used to create them, and in some cases be left with nothing to show for it, because the PFI agreed to is effectively a leasing agreement. Some £88bn has already been spent, and even if the projected cost between now and 2049/50 does not change, the total PFI bill will be in excess of £310bn. This is more than four times the budget deficit used to justify austerity cuts to government budgets and local services.”

The private firms can even flip their contracts for a faster payday. Four companies given 25-year contracts to build and maintain schools doubled their money by selling their shares in the schemes less than five years into the deals for a composite profit of £300 million. Clearly, these contracts were given at well below reasonable cost.

City of London expanding (Photo by Will Fox)

One of the most prominent privatization disasters was a £30 billion deal for Metronet to upgrade and maintain London’s subway system. The company failed, leaving taxpayers with a £2 billion bill because Transport for London, the government entity responsible for overseeing the subway, guaranteed 95 percent of the debt the private companies had taken out. Then there is the example of England’s water systems, directly sold off. The largest, Thames Water, was acquired by a consortium led by the Australian bank Macquarie Group. This has been disastrous for rate payers but most profitable to the bank. An Open University study found that, in four of the five years studied, the consortium took out more money from the company than it made in post-tax profits, while fees increased and service declined.

As for the original sale itself, the water companies were sold on the cheap. Although details of the business can be discussed by “stakeholders,” the authors conclude, the privatization itself remains outside political debate, placing a “ring-fence” around the issues surrounding the privatization, such as the “politics of packaging and selling households as a captive revenue stream.” The public has no choice when the water provider is a monopoly and thus no say in rates.

Incredibly, Prime Minister Theresa May and the Tories intend to sell off more public services to Macquarie-led consortiums.

Corporations plunder, people pay across Europe

Privatization of water systems has not gone better in continental Europe. Cities in Germany and France, including Paris, have taken back their water after selling systems to corporations. The city of Paris’ contracts with Veolia Environment and Suez Environment, expired in 2010; during the preceding 25 years water prices there had doubled, after accounting for inflation, according to a paper prepared by David Hall, a University of Greenwich researcher. Despite the costs of taking back the water system, the city saved €35 million in the first year and was able to reduce water charges by eight percent. Higher prices and reduced services have been the norm for privatized systems across France, according to Professor Hall’s study.

German cities have also “re-municipalized” basic utilities. One example is the German city of Bergkamen (population about 50,000), which reversed its privatization of energy, water and other services. As a result of returning those to the public sector, the city now earns €3 million a year from the municipal companies set up to provide services, while reducing costs by as much as 30 percent.

The Grand Palais in Paris (photo by Thesupermat)

Water is big business. Suez and Veolia both reported profits of more than €400 million for 2015. Not unrelated to this is the increasing prominence of bottled water. Bottled water is dominated by three of the world’s biggest companies: Coca-Cola (Dasani), PepsiCo (Aquafina) and Nestlé (Poland Springs, Deer Park, Arrowhead and others). So it’s perhaps not surprising that Nestlé Chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe infamously issued a video in which he declared the idea that water is a human right “extreme” and that water should instead have a “market value.”

One privatization that has not been reversed, however, is Goldman Sachs’ takeover of Denmark’s state-owned energy company Dong Energy. Despite strong popular opposition, the Danish government sold an 18 percent share in Dong Energy to Goldman Sachs in 2014 while giving the investment bank a veto over strategic decisions, essentially handing it control. The bank was also given the right to sell back its shares for a guaranteed profit. Goldman Sachs has turned a huge profit already — two years after buying its share, Dong began selling shares on the stock market, and initial trading established a value for the company twice as high as it was valued for purposes of selling the shares to Goldman. In other words, Goldman’s shares doubled in value in just two years — a $1.7 billion gain.

Danes have paid for this partial privatization in other ways as well. Taking advantage of the control granted it, Goldman demanded lower payments to Danish subcontractors and replaced some subcontractors who refused to use lower-paid workers.

Corporations plunder, people pay in Canada

Canada’s version of public-private partnerships has followed the same script. A report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives flatly declared that

“In every single project approved so far as a P3 in Ontario, the costs would have been lower through traditional procurement if they had not inflated by these calculations of the value of ‘risk.’ The calculations of risk could just as well have been pulled out of thin air — and they are not small amounts.”

Not that Ontario is alone here. Among the examples the Centre provides are a hospital, Brampton Civic, that cost the public $200 million more than if it had been publicly financed and built directly by Ontario; the Sea-to-Sky Highway in British Columbia that will cost taxpayers $220 million more than if it had been financed and operated publicly; bailouts of the companies operating the city of Ottawa’s recreational arenas; and a Université de Québec à Montréal project that doubled the cost to $400 million.

A separate study by University of Toronto researchers of 28 Ontario public-private partnerships found they cost an average of 16 percent more than conventional contracts.

Corporations plunder, people pay in the United States

In the United States, a long-time goal of the Republican Party has been to privatize the Postal Service. To facilitate this, a congressional bill signed into law in 2006 required the Postal Service to pre-fund its pension costs for the next 75 years in only 10 years. This is unheard of; certainly no private business would or could do such a thing. This preposterous requirement saddled the Postal Service with a $16 billion deficit. The goal here is to weaken the post office in order to manufacture a case that the government is incapable of running it.

The city of Chicago has found that there are many bad consequences of public-private partnerships beyond the monetary. In 2008, Chicago gave a 75-year lease on its parking meters to Morgan Stanley for $1 billion. Shortly afterward, the city’s inspector general concluded the value of the meter lease was $2 billion. Parking rates skyrocketed, and the terms of the lease protecting Morgan Stanley’s investment created new annual costs for the city, according to a Next City report.

Haze from forest fires in St. Mary Valley, Glacier National Park. Republicans are targeting national parks for sale, too. (photo by Pete Dolack)

That report noted that plans for express bus lanes, protected bike lanes and street changes to enhance pedestrian safety are complicated by the fact that each of these projects requires removing metered parking spaces. Removing meters requires the city to make penalty payments to Morgan Stanley. Even removals for street repairs requires compensation; the Next City report notes that the city lost a $61 million lawsuit filed by the investment bank because of street closures.

Nor have water systems been exempt from privatization schemes. A study by Food & Water Watch found that:

• Investor-owned utilities typically charge 33 percent more for water and 63 percent more for sewer service than local government utilities.
• After privatization, water rates increase at about three times the rate of inflation, with an average increase of 18 percent every other year.
• Corporate profits, dividends and income taxes can add 20 to 30 percent to operation and maintenance costs.

Pure ideology drives these privatization schemes. The Federal Reserve poured $4.1 trillion into buying bonds, which did little more than inflate a stock-market bubble, while the investment needs to rebuild U.S. water systems, schools and dams, plus cleaning up Superfund sites and eliminating student debt, are less at a combined $3.4 trillion. What if that Federal Reserve money had gone to those instead?

“Public investment to create private profit”

Given its billionaire leadership, the Trump administration’s plans for public-private partnerships will not lead to better results, and may well be even worse. Michael Hudson recently summarized what is likely coming in this way:

“Mr. Trump wants to turn the U.S. economy into the kind of real estate development that has made him so rich in New York. It will make his fellow developers rich, and it will make the banks that finance this infrastructure rich, but the people are going to have to pay for it in a much higher cost for transportation, much higher cost for all the infrastructure that he’s proposing. So I think you could call Trump’s plan ‘public investment to create private profit.’ That’s really his plan in a summary, it looks to me.”

This makes no sense as public policy. But it is consistent with the desire of capitalists to continually extract higher profits from any and all human activity. Similar to governments handing over their sovereignty to multi-national corporations in so-called “free trade” deals that facilitate the movement of production to locales with ever lower wages and weaker laws, public-private partnerships represent a plundering of the public sector for private profit, and government surrender of public goods. All this is a reflection of the imbalance of power in capitalist countries.

This is “the market” in action — and the market is nothing more than the aggregate interests of the most powerful industrialists and financiers. It also reflects that as capitalist markets mature and capital runs out of places into which to expand, ongoing competitive pressures will drive corporate leaderships to reduce expenses (particularly wages) and move into new lines of business. Taking over what had been the public sector is one way of achieving this, especially if public goods can be bought below fair market value and guarantees of profits extracted.

The ruthless logic of capitalism is that a commodity goes to those who can pay the most, regardless of whether it is something essential to human life.

The following is from an interview transcript

Last year, we had a series of mergers in the agribusiness’ GMO-corporations worldwide. This has created an alarming concentration of corporate power in the hands of basically three corporate groups.

The first one is Bayer AG of Germany, which made a friendly takeover of Monsanto. The reason for this was that Monsanto became identified in the public mind as pure evil and everything bad about GMO’s, which was accurate. This became a burden on the whole GMO project. So, Bayer stepped in, which has a friendly image of an aspirin, harmless, nice company, but in fact is the company that invented heroin in the 1880’s and made gas for the ovens of Auschwitz during WWII. It’s one of the dirtiest agribusiness companies in the world with a series of homicides and pesticides that killed off bee colonies and many other things that are essential to life and to nature.

ChemChina – China State Chemical giant – for some reason took over Swiss Syngenta, which makes weed-killers.

Then, Dow Chemicals and DuPont merged their GMO businesses together.

So, we have three gigantic corporate groups worldwide controlling the genetically-modified part of the human food chain. As dangerous as the GMO crops are and the more they sell, it is becoming more and more obvious that they are the chemicals that by contract must be applied to those GMO seeds by the corporations. They demand that if you buy roundup ready soybeans or corn, you must use Monsanto (now Bayer) roundup.

Therefore, this is giving more corporate power to the GMO industry than ever before and that’s an alarming trend. They are putting pressure on the bureaucracy in Brussels. One example: there was a massive public campaign against the renewal of the license of the European Commission for Glyphosate. Glyphosate is the most widely used weed-killer in the world. Glyphosate is the main ingredient in Monsanto’s roundup. The other ingredients are Monsanto’s corporate secret, but the combination of them is one of the most deadly weed-killers.

The World Health Organization’s body responsible for assessing genetic dangers made a ruling the last year that Glyphosate was a probable cancer-causing agent.

The license came up for automatic renewal last year – a 15-year license. The EU commission for health was prepared to automatically renew it for 15 years. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which is responsible allegedly for the health and safety of European citizens, recommended approval based on a German study by the German Food Safety Agency that was simply lifted 100% from studies given by the private corporation Monsanto! So, the whole chain was corrupt from the beginning and all the information was rigged. In reality tests have shown that in minuscule concentrations, lower than in recommended levels in Europe and in the US, Glyphosate causes kidney disease, liver disease, and other illnesses that are potentially fatal.

Now, Glyphosate has shown up in urine tests, in urban drinking water, in gardens, in ground water and so forth. And that gets into the system of childbearing women, for example, with embryo. It’s all in this!

The EU commission, despite a million petitions – this is a record setting – and despite recommendations from leading scientists around the world to not renew the license, made a compromise under huge industry pressure and renewed it for 18 months. Why did they renew it for that time? Because at the end of 18 months, they were told by Bayer and Monsanto that the takeover of those two giant corporations will be completed and Bayer is going to replace Glyphosate with another, likely more deadly toxin, but not so well-known as Glyphosate. So, they simply bought time. And that is just one example.

This agenda of GMO is not about the health and safety; it’s not about increasing crop yields – that’s a lie that has been proven in repeated tests in North America and all around the world. Crop yields for farmers, using GMO plants, may increase slightly for the first 1-2 harvest years, but ultimately decline after 3-4 years. And not only that! We’ve been promised by Monsanto and other GMO giants that the use of chemicals will be less, because of these “wonderful” traits that GMO plants resist. In fact, the weeds become resistant and you have super weeds, which are 5-6 feet in a height and choke out everything. It’s a catastrophe. So, farmers end up using added weed killers to kill the super weeds. This whole mad playing around with the genetic makeup of nature is a disaster from the beginning.

The real agenda of GMO, which I have documented in great detail in my book “Seeds of Destruction”, comes from the Rockefeller Foundation. It comes out of the 1920s-1930s Eugenics movement. The Rockefeller Foundation during the 1930’s, right up to the outbreak of World War II when it became politically embracing too, financed the Nazi Eugenics experiments of Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin and in Munich. Why did they do this? Their goal was the elimination of what they called “undesirable eaters”. That is called population reduction.

After the war, the head of the American Eugenic Society, who was a good friend of John D. Rockefeller, at the annual conference of the American Eugenic Society said: “From today, the new name of eugenics is genetics”. Moreover, if you keep that in mind – genetic engineering, the Human Genome Project and so forth – they all are scientific frauds. Russian scientists have proven that the entire Genome Project utterly disregarded 98% of the scientifically valuable data in favor of 2%  that was completely nonsense and a waste of billions of dollars.

Therefore, they have been obsessed with the idea of how to reduce human population in a way that would not be so obvious as simply going out and carrying out mass-sterilization.

Actually, they have done that in Central America together with the World Health Organization by giving certain vaccines that they cooked-up to have abortive effects. Therefore, the women of child-bearing age in Central America were given these vaccines against tetanus. The organization of the Catholic Church became suspicious because the shots were given only to women, not to men. And they found that there was buried in the vaccine an abortive effect that made it impossible for women to conceive and bear children. This is all covert population reduction.

These are the Western patriarchs who believe they are the gods, sitting on the throne with great dignity, controlling mankind. I think they are a bunch of fools, but they have this agenda of genetic manipulation. It’s against nature, it’s chemically unstable. And I have to congratulate the Russian Federation that they had the courage and the moral concern for their own population to ban GMO cultivation across Russia. That was a step forward for mankind. I would hope that Russia will use its influence to get China to do the similar thing, because their agriculture is in dire need of some healthy Russian input. But this step by Russia to make a GMO-free agriculture is a great step for mankind.

Kim Jong-nam was North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s paternal half brother.

On February 13, he was killed in Malaysia at Kuala Lumpur’s airport, the bizarre incident captured on security camera videotape for the whole world to see – an obvious red flag.

Malaysian authorities said he died from VX poisoning, a banned lethal nerve agent. At one time, he was considered heir apparent to his father, Kim Jong-il, later exiled in 2003 after falling out of favor with ruling authorities.

South Korea’s ruling party spokesperson called his killing a “naked example of Kim Jong-un’s reign of terror.”

Media scoundrels blamed Pyongyang for his death. He’d been out of the country for around 14 years, posed no apparent threat to his half-brother or the government.

No information suggested he planned returning to challenge Kim Jong-un’s leadership. So why was he killed?

Why an eruption of media reports about an obscure figure, away from the center of power in Pyongyang for years? Why now? Why publicly to be seen worldwide on videotape?

Who had motive and opportunity to kill him? If North Korean authorities wanted him eliminated, why did they wait so long? Why a public execution, making it easy for its detractors to automatically lay blame where it likely doesn’t belong.

Here’s what we know. North Korean senior representatives were preparing to come to New York to meet with former US officials, a chance for both sides to discuss differences diplomatically, hopefully leading to direct talks with Trump officials.

The State Department hadn’t yet approved visas, a positive development if arranged.

Reports indicate North Korea very much wanted the meeting to take place. Makes sense. It would indicate a modest thaw in hostile relations, a good thing if anything came of it.

So why would Pyongyang want to kill Kim Jong-nam at this potentially sensitive time, knowing it would be blamed for the incident, talks likely cancelled?

Sure enough, they’re off, Pyongyang accused of killing Kim, even though it seems implausible they planned and carried out the incident, using agents in Malaysia to act as proxies.

Reports indicate North Korea planned sending its Foreign Ministry director of US affairs Choe Son Hui to lead a delegation. On the US side, former Carter official/National Committee on American Foreign Policy senior vice president Donald Zagoria and former Clinton 1994 chief denunclearization deal negotiator Robert Gallucci were involved.

Pyongyang denied involvement in Kim Jong-nam’s death. It makes sense. Why sabotage talks it wanted held?

The Trump administration cancelled them anyway – an opportunity lost, likely undermined far from Pyongyang, maybe in Seoul with CIA help.

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.

First published in April 2014, this article by Seymour Hersh is of relevance to an understanding of the evolving situation in Syria

In 2011 Barack Obama led an allied military intervention in Libya without consulting the US Congress. Last August, after the sarin attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, he was ready to launch an allied air strike, this time to punish the Syrian government for allegedly crossing the ‘red line’ he had set in 2012 on the use of chemical weapons. Then with less than two days to go before the planned strike, he announced that he would seek congressional approval for the intervention. The strike was postponed as Congress prepared for hearings, and subsequently cancelled when Obama accepted Assad’s offer to relinquish his chemical arsenal in a deal brokered by Russia. Why did Obama delay and then relent on Syria when he was not shy about rushing into Libya? The answer lies in a clash between those in the administration who were committed to enforcing the red line, and military leaders who thought that going to war was both unjustified and potentially disastrous.

The hysteria concerning the alleged Russian “interference” in the US presidential election appears to be a mirror projection of techniques that have been used against Russia, with little or no success, with the aim of  interfering in its political processes.

While the propaganda campaign aimed at Russia has sought to foster the impression that the country’s media is strictly controlled, in actuality the “liberal opposition” newspapers and radio stations have in the past run articles and stories that, due to their nature, would be unthinkable in the “free” West. Controversial stories over the last few years have included:

• Allegations Russian Ground Forces units are operating on the Donbass and suffering hundreds of fatalities which were being covered up by the Russian government.  By comparison, it is unheard of for any Western media outlet to run stories asserting the US or NATO military is in combat in contradiction of official government statements.
• Endorsing the Maidan coup in Ukraine that not only brought down a democratically elected president but also de-facto destroyed the country’s political system and economy. By contrast, US media are unanimous in their criticism of any government in Latin America which is not subservient to Washington, even when its policies serve the people of that country, as in the case of Cuba.
• Repeatedly and consistently referring to the civil war in Ukraine as a “Russian invasion” or “Russian aggression”. Again, no NATO military operation, no matter how unlawful, will ever be described in a “free” Western press as an act of aggression.
• Articles and opinion pieces asserting the Russian government is directly responsible for the shoot-down of Flight MH17 over Novorossia, and that such action is a crime against humanity which warrants prosecution at the Hague. It is as if Western media were consistently running stories arguing Fight MH370, which went missing over the Indian Ocean, was shot down by the US Navy which then covered up the incident.
• Claims that Russian operations in support and at the behest of the legitimate government in Syria likewise represent crimes against humanity, while supporting the jihadists.
• An “investigation” of the 1999 terrorist attacks that cost the lives of several hundred Russian citizens in three cities that concluded the apartment houses were blown up by the FSB. It is as if New York Times’ investigation of 9/11 terrorist attacks concluded it was a CIA plot.

These media outlets’ main audience is not the Russian public but rather Western funders and supporters. Novaya Gazeta funding sources include the Netherlands and the Soros Foundation. The Dozhd TV Channel financing is opaque–its owners claim they are financing the project using own funds, which must be bottomless considering the channel has not turned a profit since it began operating. Ekho Moskvy is receiving financial support from the Voice of America Broadcasting Board of Governors, which is also supporting other “liberal” news outlets. These and other Russian media outlets figure prominently in the Fiscal Year 2017 proposed federal budget appropriation for the US State Department. Moreover, journalists working for these outlets have received a broad array of awards for journalism issued by a number of Western governments and West-controlled so-called non-governmental organizations.

Another example of a Internet media outlet created in order to push the “pro-liberal” agenda is Meduza. It was financed by opposition oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovskiy and so-called “anonymous investors.” In spite of Meduza being registered and based in Latvia, it focuses on the Russian audience and is promoting globalist agenda in Russia.

In addition to resources which are openly promoting anti-Russian propaganda, there is an array of major media outlets whose informational policy demonstrates they are pursuing political goals quite divorced from Russia’s interests as a sovereign state.

In the meantime, genuinely accomplished investigative journalists such as Julian Assange are facing politically motivated prosecutions, and there are efforts to exclude English-language Russia-based media such as RT and Sputnik from Western markets for allegedly “spreading propaganda.”

This state of affairs also raises the question why is the Russian government tolerant of media beholden to foreign sponsors. Part of the answer lies with the guarantees of the freedom of speech and press contained in the Russian Constitution, though the support of these outlets by important factions of the economic and political elite also plays a role–the Ekho Moskvy radio station is part of the Gazprom Media Holding, for example. Ultimately, however, the relatively unfettered existence of these media is a reflection of the Russian government’s confidence in its policies and its popular support, in sharp contrast to the panicked “fake news” reaction to the loss of Hillary Clinton that resulted in widespread calls to limit the freedom of speech in Western countries, lest the “wrong” candidates win elections.

Still, this is an intolerable state of affairs, a leftover from the 1990s era of Russia’s political and economic weakness, when it seemed it might become nothing more than a politically impotent supplier of raw materials to the West. Any genuine “reset” of Russia-West relations will require the West to respect the inviolability of Russia’s political institutions and processes in the same way that the West demands respect for theirs.

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

Two days after rolling out a draconian immigration policy that threatens the deportation of millions of undocumented workers and their families, President Donald Trump described the unfolding crackdown as “a military operation.”

Speaking to a White House gathering Thursday of top corporate bosses, including the CEOs of Dow Chemical, General Electric, Lockheed Martin and Caterpillar Inc., Trump hailed the escalation of repression on the US-Mexican border along with the recent series of Immigration Control and Enforcement (ICE) raids that resulted in the roundup of several hundred immigrants from coast to coast.

“We’re getting really bad dudes out of this country and at a rate that nobody has ever seen before,” said Trump, adding, “And it’s a military operation because what has been allowed to come into our country—when you see gang violence that you’ve read about like never before and all of the things—much of that is people that are here illegally. And they’re rough and they’re tough, but they’re not tough like our people. So we’re getting them out.”

Asked to clarify Trump’s remark, White House spokesman Sean Spicer argued that the president was using the word “military” as an “adjective,” meant to convey that the ICE raids were “happening with precision.”

Trump’s bullying and bellicose remarks coincided with a public appearance by his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Homeland Security Secretary Gen. John Kelly in Mexico City alongside their Mexican counterparts in what was billed as an attempt to strengthen relations between the two countries following a series of blatant provocations over Trump’s proposed border wall, attacks on immigrants, threats to impose tariffs and suggestion that US troops could be sent into Mexico to wage the so-called drug war.

Mexico’s President Enrique Peña Nieto was forced to call off a scheduled state visit to Washington last month over Trump’s crude insistence that Mexico pay for his proposed wall.

Speaking before the Mexican media, Gen. Kelly, the former commander of US Southern Command, which oversees all US military operations in Latin America and the Caribbean, pledged, “There will be no use of military forces in immigration,” Kelly said. “There will be no—repeat, no—mass deportations.”

This assurance follows the leaking last week of a Department of Homeland Security memo calling for the mobilization of 100,000 National Guard troops to hunt down and detain immigrant workers. While disavowed by the White House, it is clear that a martial law crackdown was under discussion within the US administration.

Kelly’s statement on Thursday, which appeared to be directly contradicted by Trump’s boasting about the immigration crackdown to the US corporation heads, followed his attempt to walk back part of the language contained in two Department of Homeland Security memorandums laying out the Trump administration’s reactionary and repressive immigration enforcement policy.

A provision that touched off heated protests from Mexican officials calls for Border Patrol and ICE agents, to deal with detained immigrants who are not deemed a threat of “subsequent illegal entry” by “returning them to the foreign contiguous territory from which they arrived,” to await the decision of immigration courts on their removal proceedings. The provision calls for these immigrants to appear before the court via “video teleconference.”

The memo argued that this procedure would save US detention facilities for other undocumented workers caught in the planned immigration dragnet.

As most of the immigrants detained at the border are not Mexicans—220,000 out of 400,000 in the fiscal year that ended on September 30—with the largest number consisting of refugees fleeing violence and oppression in Central America, the provision essentially calls for dumping citizens of third countries into Mexico to solve an alleged problem in the US.

Mexico’s Foreign Relations Secretary Luis Videgaray rejected the new US policy. “The government and the people of Mexico will not accept the new immigration policies of the United States,” he said, vowing that Mexico would go to the United Nations to charge Washington with human rights violations against immigrants.

Videgaray is among the more right-wing figures in the Peña Nieto government, a former investment banker with ties to Trump advisors. He was forced to resign from an earlier post because of public outrage over his arranging a visit to Mexico by then-presidential candidate Trump that had all the trappings of a state visit. Now, however, he has been compelled to denounce the Trump administration for attempting to impose a “unilateral” policy on Mexico.

He threatened that if the US went ahead with trying to send non-Mexican immigrants back across the Mexican border, Mexico would not accept them and would demand that Washington provide proof of Mexican citizenship for anyone it seeks to deport to the country. Such a policy could lead to a roadblock in front of mass deportations and force the US government to indefinitely detain huge numbers of arrested immigrants.

Others have suggested that Mexico could retaliate against Washington’s aggressive policies by halting its own repressive crackdown on Central American immigrants trying to cross Mexico’s southern border en route to the US. Last year, Mexico sent nearly twice as many Central American migrants back to their countries as the US did, doing Washington’s dirty work.

Tensions over the new immigration policy were such that Mexican government officials warned that a planned meeting between the two US secretaries and President Peña Nieto would not take place unless significant agreements were reached beforehand.

In the end, however, Tillerson and Kelly met for an hour with Peña Nieto at the Los Pinos presidential palace in Mexico City, arriving and leaving in a heavily-guarded armored convoy.

Mexico’s official news agency Notimex reported that the Mexican president told the US officials that Mexico “will always negotiate in a comprehensive manner with a firm position and in favor of the country’s interests.” He also reportedly stated that protecting the interests of Mexicans residing in the US was a priority for his government.

At the same time, he called for the “strengthening of dialogue” and said the presence of the two US cabinet members was an indication of the Trump administration’s interest “in building a positive relation that results in better conditions of security, development and prosperity for both countries.”

Neither side gave any indication that agreements had been reached on any of the issues that have brought US-Mexican relations to one of their lowest points since the Mexican-American war 170 years ago.

Peña Nieto finds himself caught between the overwhelming popular hostility toward both Trump and his own government (his approval ratings have dipped below 12 percent), and the desire of the Mexican capitalist ruling elite that he represents to continue to secure its profit interests as a junior partner of US imperialism.

At the same time, the ruling PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) faces the prospect of defeat in the 2018 elections at the hands of the Morena (Movement for National Regeneration) of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, a veteran bourgeois politician who is leading the polls on the basis of a vaguely left nationalist appeal, accusing Peña Nieto of corruption and failing to stand up to Trump.

Peña Nieto and the Mexican bourgeoisie as a whole are no more concerned about Mexican immigrant workers facing a reign of fear and terror in the US than they are about the plight of masses of impoverished workers in Mexico itself. Their main aim is to prevent the return of millions of jobless deportees, along with the cutting off of remittances and a sharp escalation of already-explosive social upheavals in Mexico itself.

Disquiet within American ruling circles over Trump’s new policies found expression Thursday in an editorial published in the Wall Street Journal, which warned that the new immigration crackdown is “so sweeping that it could capture law-abiding immigrants whose only crime is using false documents to work. This policy may respond to the politics of the moment, but chasing down maids and meatpackers will not go down as America’s finest hour.”

The editorial went on to question the spending of tens of billions of dollars on Trump’s proposed border wall, along with the hiring of 15,000 more ICE and Border Patrol agents, together with a massive expansion of detention facilities. At the same time, the Journal expressed fears that a “labor shortage” and the lack of any mechanism to import low-wage immigrants could adversely affect profit interests.

Trump’s anti-immigrant demagogy and the savagely repressive policies he has introduced are aimed at scapegoating immigrants for the conditions created by capitalism in order to weaken and divide the working class. These attacks can be countered only on the basis of the fight to unify immigrant and US-born workers in a fight to block the deportations and to unite workers on both sides of the border in a common struggle against the capitalist system.

This April 4th will be 100 years since the U.S. Senate voted to declare war on Germany and 50 since Martin Luther King Jr. spoke out against the war on Vietnam (49 since he was killed on that speech’s first anniversary). Events are being planned to help us try to finally learn some lessons, to move beyond, not just Vietnam, but war.

That declaration of war on Germany was not for the war that makes up the single most common theme of U.S. entertainment and history. It was for the war that came before that one. This was the Great War, the war to end all wars, the war without which the conditions for the next war would not have existed.

As well recounted in Michael Kazin’s War Against War: The American Fight for Peace 1914-1918, a major peace movement had the support of a great deal of the United States. When the war finally ended (after the U.S. had actually been in it for about 5% the length of the war on Afghanistan thus far) just about everybody regretted it. The losses in life, limb, sanity, property, civil liberties, democracy, and health were incredible. Death, devastation, a flu epidemic, prohibition, a permanent military and the taxes to go with it, plus predictions of World War II: these were the results, and a lot of people remembered that they had been warned, as well as that the ending of all war had been promised.

The peace activists had warned the U.S. government to stay out of the war (not out of foreign relations, just out of mass-murdering foreign relations). And they had been right. The regret was intense and lasting. It lasted right up until the worst result of World War I came along in the form of World War II. At that point, regret was replaced with forgetting. World War I was erased from popular history, and its child on steroids was celebrated rather than mourned, and has been celebrated with growing reverence ever since.

The massive peace movement that outlawed war in 1928, had been widespread, mainstream, and aggressive before 1917 as well. Antiwar Congress members had entered into the Congressional Record a sample of the flood of letters and petitions they had received urging that the U.S. stay out of war. Peace groups had held marches and rallies, sent delegations to Europe, met with the president, and pushed to require a popular vote before the launching of any war, believing that the public would vote war down. We’ll never know, because the vote was never taken. Instead, the United States jumped into the war, thereby preventing a negotiated settlement and creating a total victory followed by vicious punishment of the losing side — the very fuel for Nazism, as well as for Italian fascism, Japanese imperialism, and the Sykes-Picot carving up of the Middle East so beloved by that region’s residents to this day.

An antiwar exhibit that toured the U.S. in 1916 included a life-sized model stegosaurus that represented the fatal consequences of having heavy armor but no brains. The idea of preparing for war in order to achieve peace, which today is simple commonsense, was widely found to be a great source of humor, as Washington cynically pursued “preparedness.” Morris Hillquit, an eloquent socialist — something of a Bernie Sanders without the 21st-century militarism — asked why European nations, having fully armed themselves to avoid war, hadn’t avoided it. “Their antiwar insurance turned out to be a bad case of over-insurance,” he said. You prepare for war, and you get war — remarkably enough.

Woodrow Wilson won reelection on an antiwar platform, and could not have won it otherwise. After he opted for war, he was unable to raise an army to fight his war without a draft. And he was unable to sustain a draft without imprisoning people who spoke against it. He saw to it that conscientious objectors were brutally tortured (or, as we would say today, interrogated). Yet people refused, deserted, evaded, and violently fought recruiters by the thousands. The wisdom to reject war was not lacking. It just wasn’t followed by those in power.

The understanding that war should be ended, which reached its peak perhaps in the 1920s and 1930s, saw something of a comeback during what the Vietnamese call the American War. Martin Luther King did not propose a different war or a better war, but leaving behind the entire war system. That awareness has grown even as the Vietnam Syndrome has faded and war been normalized. Now, the U.S. popular mind is a mass of contradictions.

In a recent poll, 66% of people in the United States are worried that the U.S. will become engaged in a major war in the next four years. However, the U.S. is engaged in a number of wars right now that must seem pretty major to the people living through them, wars that have created the greatest refugee crisis so far on the planet and threatened to break similar records for starvation. In addition, 80% of the U.S. public in the very same poll say they support NATO. There’s a 50/50 split on whether to build yet more nukes. A slim majority favors banning refugees who are fleeing the wars. And over three-quarters of Democrats believe, for partisan rather than empirical reasons, that Russia is unfriendly or an enemy. Despite the warnings of the wise for over a century, people are still imagining they can use war preparations to avoid war.

One thing that could help keep us out of more wars is the Trump face now placed on the wars. People who will hate Russia because they hate Trump may at some point oppose Trump’s wars because they hate Trump. And those getting active to support refugees may also want to help end the crimes that create the refugees.

Meanwhile, German tanks are again rolling toward the Russian border, and instead of soliciting denunciations from groups like the Anne Frank Center, as recently done to combat Donald Trump’s anti-Semitism, U.S. liberals are generally applauding or avoiding any awareness.

One thing is certain: we will not survive another 100 years of this. Long before then, we will have to try something else. We will have to move beyond war to nonviolent conflict resolution, aid, diplomacy, disarmament, cooperation, and the rule of law.

World Beyond War is planning events everywhere, including these:

Remembering Past Wars . . . and Preventing the Next

April 3rd at NYU, New York, NY. (details TBA)
Speakers: Joanne Sheehan, Glen Ford, Alice Slater, Maria Santelli, David Swanson.

April 4, 6-8 p.m. Busboys and Poets, 5th and K Streets NW, Washington, D.C.
Speakers: Michael Kazin, Eugene Puryear, Medea Benjamin, David Swanson, Maria Santelli.

May 25, 6-8 p.m., Koret Auditorium, San Francisco Public Library, 100 Larkin St, San Francisco, CA.
Speakers: Jackie Cabasso, Daniel Ellsberg, David Hartsough, Adam Hochschild.

The war party is back in power and the odds of normal relations with Russia have dropped to zero.

The appointment of Army Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster to the position of national security adviser indicates that Trump has done an about-face on his most critical foreign policy issue, normalizing relations with Russia. General Michael Flynn– who recently stepped down from the post following allegations of lying to Vice President Mike Pence –was the main proponent of easing tensions with Moscow which is a position that had been enthusiastically embraced by President Donald Trump. But McMaster does not support normalizing relations with Russia, in fact,  McMaster sees Russia as a “hostile revisionist power” that “annex(es) territory, intimidates our allies, develops nuclear weapons, and uses proxies under the cover of modernized conventional militaries.” So, what’s going on? Why has Trump put a Moscow-hating hawk like McMaster in a position where he’ll be able to intensify the pressure on Russia, increase the provocations and, very likely, trigger a conflagration between the two nuclear-armed superpowers?

The appointment of McMaster is an attempt by Trump to placate his enemies in the Intel agencies and foreign policy establishment. Trump is signaling to his adversaries that he will cooperate in carrying out their strategic agenda provided they allow him to finish his term. Trump doesn’t want to end up like Flynn nor does he want to do battle with the all-powerful deep state operatives who can launch one demeaning propaganda blitz after the other followed by years of excruciating investigations leading inevitably to a lengthy and humiliating impeachment that leaves Trump a broken, discredited shambles. That’s not how Trump wants to end his career in politics. He wants to end it on a high note, riding a wave of burgeoning affection and love.

That’s why he picked McMaster. The neocons love him, the liberal interventionists love him, the media loves him and the entire political establishment loves him.  Everyone loves him. He’s the “warrior-scholar” who ‘speaks truth to power’ and writes futuristic books on ‘generation warfare’, ‘information superiority’ and ‘predictive battlespace awareness’ all of which delight his devoted admirers. The downside of McMaster is that he is a hard-boiled militarist with a driving animus towards Russia. Judging by his writing on the topic, I would expect a broader and more lethal conflict to flare up in either Syria or Ukraine as soon as he gets settled in his new job.

Bottom line: The removal of Flynn has convinced Trump that powerful elements within the national security state have him in their crosshairs. As a result, Trump has relinquished control of foreign policy and handed the whole mess over to gladiator McMaster who will coordinate with Sec-Def General James Mattis on a new strategy to deploy US troops to East Syria and West Iraq to establish a permanent military presence in “occupied” Sunnistan. (The area will also be used for natural gas pipeline corridors connecting Qatar to the EU) The strategy in Ukraine will focus primarily on luring Russia into a long and resource-draining war that will further depress the ailing Russian economy precipitating political instability, social unrest and regime change. That is the hope at least, that Russia’s wars abroad will lead to the ousting of Vladimir Putin.

Here’s a few clips from a presentation McMaster gave at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on May 4, 2016. They help to clarify the man’s ominous world view:

…what I’d really like to talk to you about is (the) period we’re in right now, a period of increasing risks…risks to our nation, to our allies, and really all of humanity……….

globally – the situation in connection with U.S. vital interests and security – .. is changing really in a direction that’s going to raise additional challenges to the U.S. and U.S. national security…. what we’re seeing is a shift in geopolitics in a way that imposes great dangers and has elevated the risk of a major international military crisis to the highest level in the last 70 years. A number of scholars are writing about this – Jakub Grygiel and Wess Mitchell in particular in their great recent book “Unquiet Frontier,” where they describe revisionist powers, Russia and China in particular on the Eurasian landmass, that are surrounded by weak states which are now becoming battlegrounds, areas of competition at the far reaches of American power.  (“Harbingers of Future War: Implications for the Army with Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster”, The Center for Strategic and International Studies)

We have discussed the “pivot to Asia” ad nauseam in this column. McMaster’s comments help to underscore the fact that the struggle to control the “Eurasian landmass”, the center of economic growth for the next century, is at the heart of the US imperial crusade which is now entering a new and more dangerous phase.

McMaster:

I also think Margaret MacMillan’s great essay written in 2014 making the analogy between 2014 and 1914, and really making the point that geopolitics is back; maybe our – what we might call our holiday from history in the post-Cold War period is over.

So in McMaster’s mind, another global conflagration on a par with World War 1 is now in the making. Unlike most people, he sees this as a challenge rather than an apocalyptic event that should be avoided at all cost.

McMaster:

I think what might have punctuated the end of the post-Cold War period is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea. Now, this was – this was not really a new development in terms of Russian aggression. I think you can go back to the denial-of-service attacks on the Baltic states in 2007, certainly the invasion of Georgia in 2008.

McMaster is extremely well read and follows the news closely. He knows that Georgia attacked South Ossetia and that Putin –who was at the Olympics at the time– merely responded. Why is McMaster deliberately misleading his audience about the details? And why doesn’t he explain how the elected government of Ukraine was toppled in a CIA-State Department coup? Those facts are readily available to anyone who has seriously researched the incident.

It seems obvious that McMaster is twisting the truth to make his case against Russia.

McMaster:

…even though it may have been apparent at least since 2008 that Russia was changing its geostrategic behavior … what we’re seeing now is we’ve awakened to, obviously, this threat from Russia, who is waging limited war for limited objectives – annexing Crimea, invading Ukraine – at zero cost, consolidating gains over that territory, and portraying the reaction by us and allies and partners as escalatory.

The “threat from Russia”? In other words, NATO is not responsible for its relentless push eastward expanding its grip on all the former Soviet satellites in east Europe, deploying its tanks, heavy artillery, troops and missile systems right onto Russia’s doorstep. No. Instead, Russia should be blamed for its fictitious invasion of Crimea.

McMaster is basing his argument on fake facts and a convoluted interpretation of events that doesn’t square with reality. Russia is the victim of US-NATO aggression not the perpetrator.

McMaster then offers a remedy for so called ‘Russian aggression’: “…what is required to deter a strong nation that is waging limited war for limited objectives on battlegrounds involving weaker states … is forward deterrence, to be able to ratchet up the cost at the frontier, and to take an approach to deterrence that is consistent with deterrence by denial, convincing your enemy that your enemy is unable to accomplish his objectives at a reasonable cost rather than sort of an offshore balancing approach and the threat of punitive action at long distance later, which we know obviously from – recent experience confirms that that is inadequate.”

“Forward deterrence”? This needs to be clarified.

What McMaster is saying, is that, instead of threatening to retaliate at some time in the future,  the US should use ‘deterrence by denial’, that is, make it as hard and as costly as possible for Russia to achieve its strategic objectives. By defeating ISIS in Eastern Syria and establishing permanent US military bases, McMaster intends to prevent Russia from restoring Syria’s sovereign borders which is one of the primary goals of the mission.  The “safe zones” that Trump has talked about recently, fit perfectly with this same strategy as they undermine Moscow’s efforts to reunify the state and bring the conflict to an end.

This appears to be the plan that McMaster will pursue as national security adviser.  Expect US ground troops to be deployed to Syria as soon as the details are worked out.

More from McMaster:

… what Russia is employing…is a sophisticated strategy…that combines conventional forces as cover for unconventional action, but a much more sophisticated campaign involving the use of criminality and organized crime, and really operating effectively on this battleground of perception and information, and in particular part of a broader effort to sow doubt and conspiracy theories across our alliance. And this effort, I believe, is aimed really not at defensive objectives, but at offensive objectives – to collapse the post-World War II, certainly the post-Cold War, security, economic, and political order in Europe, and replace that order with something that is more sympathetic to Russian interests.

The Russian strategy employs “criminality and organized crime” to effect “perception and information”?

This is just more demonization of Russia intended to make the case for war. Putin does not want a war with the US nor does he want to “collapse the post-World War II order… and replace that order with something that is more sympathetic to Russian interests.”

Putin is a firm believer in capitalism and still participates in the G-20 and WTO. What Putin objects to is the US using its extraordinary power to topple regimes it doesn’t like spreading death and instability across the planet. That’s what he opposes, the persistent meddling that undermines global security. Is that so unreasonable?

McMaster:

So what do all these conflicts have in common is they’re about the control of territory, people and resources. ….what we need is that synergy between the joint force, where our forces have the capability and the capacity to deter conflict and, if that fails, to resolve conflict in our interest – to protect our security and our vital interests. And that may entail imposing outcomes without the cooperation of the enemy, and that has significant implications for the Army in particular.

In other words, we are going to continue to fight for oil and markets (our “vital interests”), we’re going to go it alone if necessary,  and if somebody tries to stop us, we’re going to annihilate them.

Isn’t that what he’s saying?

You know it is. There’s not going to be normal relations between Russia and the US on McMaster’s watch. The man believes we are in a life or death struggle with an evil enemy that wants to do us harm. That’s not the basis for building peaceful relations. It’s a justification for war.

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

The United States is only one of many nations around the world that is experiencing a dramatic rise in fascist political movements.  NeoFascist political parties have been achieving sizable minorities in several European countries over the past generation, and now America is experiencing the same phenomenon.

Hard right-wing political parties in America have been around forever, but they have always been numerically insignificant – until now.

Citizens who meet the definition of fascist have come out of the shadows in the US since Donald Trump started campaigning for president of the United States.

Of course the current hysterical xenophobia (fear of foreigners – a cardinal sign of fascism) has developed strength ever since the United States military destabilized the entire MidEast with its illegal invasions that spawned the Syrian refugee crisis and caused millions of desperate war refugees to seek shelter in foreign countries that can’t be expected to easily harbor all of them humanely.

Consider the hatred that must have been generated by America’s state-sponsored terrorism in the MidEast, especially the daily acts of cruelty, inhumanity, bombings, massacres and assorted international war crimes that were committed by our soldiers (which have been covered up and gone unpunished).

And then consider America’s obvious “we don’t give a damn” attitude about the massive human suffering, and one can’t claim to be surprised about the occasional acts of retaliatory violence that American officials and their media mouthpieces choose to call Islamic terrorism.

I have been observing the drift toward overt fascism in American for several decades now, but democracy in America has always been just strong enough to keep the movement from over-whelming our supposed democratic ideals.

I used to call what I saw happening to American politics and commerce “Friendly” American Fascism, because of the fake friendly smiles that I have seen on the faces of so many of our nation’s proto-fascist leaders that are gradually trying to destroy our democracy.

The contrast from the perpetual frowns on the faces of the infamous Nazis that we loved to hate was striking.It is pretty easy to be deceived by the smiles on the faces of hard-right wing politicians like Mike Pence, hard right-wing Supreme Court justices like Antonin Scalia, hard right-wing commentators on TV like Bill O’Reilly, hard right-wing Christian clergypersons like Pat Robertson and hard right-wing multibillionaires like the Koch Brothers, all of whom have been greedily gaining control over more and more of our political system, our courts, our cops, our churches, our media, our wealth, and our corporations. (At least the neo-fascist White Supremacists guiding things in Trump’s White House [Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller] have unsmiling faces that truly reveal their inner fascist selves.)

Under the illusion of niceness displayed by the most of the un-elected usurpers in the Oval Office, they have been gaining control over the executive branch of government. But the US Senate’s role in the friendly fascist rolling coup has been facilitated with the help of another unsmiling curmudgeon – Mitch McConnell.

Another brick in the wall was placed when corporations were granted the privileges (but none of the responsibilities) of personhood in the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision. But when Christo-fascists in the Fundamentalist movement teamed with the neo-fascists in the Tea Party and took over the Republican Party, “Friendly American Fascism” wasn’t so friendly anymore.

The frightening rise in bigotry, white nationalism, white racism, white supremacism, Christian supremacism, the KKK, authoritarianism, the tactics of our increasingly militarized police, voting rights pull-backs for non-white minorities, the vicious xenophobia, intolerance, homophobia, anti-intellectualism, and the obvious tendency for many voters to denigrate science and restrict the civil rights of others is, by definition, fascism.

Therefore it seems way past time for somebody to put down in writing some essential definitions to de-mystify fascism that we all should have learned in civics class (but didn’t).

So below are a number of definitions of political, economic and social realities that I found online and abridged, including Wikipedia. I hope readers study it, take it seriously and re-read it as needed and perhaps pass it around to others.

The future of our democracy – not to mention the success of any political discussions readers may have with illiberal friends – may depend on it.

Political Anthology and Terminology

Left-wing politics: supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality. It typically involves a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished (by advocating for social justice).

The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, the creation of a republic and secularization (against church involvement in government).Those delegates who sat on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime. The word “wing” was appended to Left and Right in the late 19th century,usually with disparaging intent, and “left-wing” was applied to those who were unorthodox or heretical in their religious or political views.

The term was later applied to a number of movements, especially republicanism during the French Revolution in the 18th century, followed by socialism, communism, anarchism and social democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries. Since then, the term left-wing has been applied to a broad range of movements including civil rights movements, feminist movements, anti-war movements and environmental movements, as well as a wide range of parties.

Right-wing politics: Although the right-wing originated with traditional conservatives, monarchists and reactionaries, the term extreme right-wing has also been applied to movements including fascists, Nazis, and racial supremacists.In the United States, the right includes both economic and social conservatives. In Europe, and the Right includes nationalists, nativists (opposed to immigration) and religious conservatives.

Democracy (Literally “rule of the commoners”) is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament. Democracy is sometimes referred to as “rule of the majority”.According to political scientist Larry Diamond, democracy consists of four key elements: 1) a political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; 2) the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; 3) protection of the human rights of all citizens, and 4) the rule of law , in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.

Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is either held by an individual, as in an absolute monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy (rule by “the few”). Most governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements. Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or rule by a tyrant (tyranny), thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution.

Plutocracy (from Greek ploutos, meaning “wealth”, and kratos, meaning “power, dominion, rule”) is a form of oligarchy that defines a society ruled or controlled by a small minority of the wealthiest citizens. Unlike systems such as democracy, capitalism, socialism, plutocracy is not rooted in an established political philosophy. The concept of plutocracy may be advocated by the wealthy classes of a society in an indirect or surreptitious fashion, though the term itself is almost always used in a pejorative sense.

Liberalism is a political philosophy founded on ideas of liberty and equality (egalitarianism).Whereas classical liberalism emphasizes the role of liberty, social liberalism stresses the importance of equality.

Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programs such as 1) freedom of speech, 2) freedom of the press, 3) freedom of religion, 4) free markets, 5) civil rights, 6) democratic societies, 7) secular governments, 8) gender equality, and 9) international cooperation.

Socialist political movements includes a diverse array of political philosophies that originated amid the revolutionary movements of the mid-to-late 1700s and of a general concern for the social problems that were associated with capitalism.Socialist politics has been both centralist and decentralized; internationalist and nationalist in orientation; organized through political parties and opposed to party politics; at times overlapping with trade unions and at other times independent of unions.

The term “democratic socialism” is often used to highlight its advocates’ high value for democratic processes in the economy.The term is frequently used to draw contrast to the political system of the Soviet Union, which operated in an authoritarian fashion. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels critiqued the economic dynamics of capitalism. For them “socialism” had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for a post-capitalist system based on some form of social ownership of the means of production. By the 1920s, social democracy and communism became the two dominant political tendencies within the international socialist movement.Socialism proceeded to emerge as the most influential secular political-economic worldview of the twentieth century.

Socialist parties and ideas remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence in all continents, heading national governments in many countries around the world. Today, some socialists have adopted the causes of other social movements, such as environmentalism, feminism, and liberalism.Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. Conservatives seek to preserve institutions like the Church, monarchy and the social hierarchy as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while the more extreme elements called reactionaries seek a return to “the way things were”.Conservatism has been historically associated with right-wing politics.

Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism  that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I before it spread to other European countries. Violently opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left-right spectrum.

Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes to the nature of war, society, the state, and technology. The advent of total war and the total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilians and combatants. All citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war. The war had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines and provide economic production and logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens.

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.

Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascist-leaning movements urge large budgetary outlays for war-making and “defense”.

Political conservatism, in most modern democracies, seeks to uphold traditional family structures and “values”.

Cultural conservatives support the preservation of the heritage of one nation, and they hold fast to traditional ways of thinking even in the face of monumental change. They believe strongly in traditional values and traditional politics, and often have an urgent sense of nationalism.

A social conservative wants to preserve traditional morality and social mores, often by opposing what they consider radical policies or social engineering. Social change is generally regarded as suspect.

Christian conservatives principally seek to apply the theological teachings to politics, sometimes by merely proclaiming the value of those teachings, at other times by having those teachings influence laws. Christian conservatives typically oppose abortion, homosexuality, drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage. For the past generation, many American Christian conservatives have been very active in politics, even envisioning a Christian theocratic state.

Authoritarian conservatism refers to autocratic regimes that center their ideology around conservative nationalism and even anti-Semitism.

Authoritarian conservative movements show strong devotion towards religion, tradition, and culture and were prominent in the same era as fascism, with which it sometimes clashed.

Neoliberalism (neo-liberalism)refers primarily to the 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.These included privatization, fiscal authority, deregulation, free trade and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector  in the economy and society.These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.The implementation of neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of the financial crisis of 2007-2008.

The term “neoliberal” was reintroduced in the 1980s in connection with Augusto Pinochet’s [fascist] economic reforms in Chile. Scholars now tended to associate it with the theories of economist Milton Friedman, along with politicians and policy-makers such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan. By 1994, with the passage of NAFTA and the Zapatistas reaction to this development in Chiapas, the term re-entered global circulation.

Neoconservatism (NeoCon) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among conservative-leaning Democrats who became disenchanted with the party’s non-interventionist foreign policy. Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s.

Neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Bremer. Senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, while not identifying as neoconservatives, listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding their aggressive foreign policy plans, especially the defense of Israel and interventions in the Middle East.

Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of American national interest in international affairs, including by means of military force.

Libertarianism seeks to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, self-ownership and the rule of law.Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power. However, they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems, often calling to restrict or to dissolve coercive social institutions, such as health care, social security, human rights.

Libertarians usually advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights,such as in land, infrastructure, and natural resources.Economic/social systems

1) Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets. In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment are determined by the owners of the factors of production in financial and capital markets, and prices and the distribution of goods are mainly determined by competition in the market.

Economists, political economists, and historians have adopted different perspectives in their analyses of capitalism and have recognized various forms of it in practice. These include free market capitalism, welfare capitalism and state capitalism. Different forms of capitalism feature varying degrees of free markets, public ownership, obstacles to free competition, and state-sanctioned social politics. The degree of competition in markets, the role of intervention and regulation, and the scope of state ownership vary across different models of capitalism; the extent to which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private property, are matters of politics and policy.Capitalism has existed under many forms of government, in many different times, places, and cultures. Following the decline of mercantilism, mixed capitalist systems became dominant in the Western world and continue to spread.

2) Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production; as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim to establish them.Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.

Socialist economic systems can be divided into both non-market and market forms.

Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with capital accumulation and the profit system.Market socialism, by contrast, retains the use of monetary prices and, in some cases, the profit motive with respect to the operation of socially owned enterprises and the allocation of capital goods between them. Profits generated by these firms would be controlled directly by the workforce of each firm or accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend. The feasibility and exact methods of resource allocation and calculation for a socialist system are the subjects of the socialist calculation debate.

3) Communism is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money and the state.

Communism includes a variety of schools of thought, which broadly include Marxism, anarchism (anarchist communism), and the political ideologies grouped around both. All these share the analysis that the current order of society stems from its economic system, capitalism, that in this system, there are two major social classes: the working class (the proletariat) —who must work to survive, and who make up the majority within society—and the capitalist class (the bourgeoisie)—a minority who derives profit from employing the working class, through private ownership of the means of production, and that conflict between these two classes will trigger a revolution. The primary element which will enable this transformation, according to this analysis, is the social ownership of the means of production.

Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. He writes a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, the area’s alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, Big Pharma’s psychiatric drugging and over-vaccination regimens, and other movements that threaten the environment, health, democracy, civility and longevity of the populace. 

Part Three of Three Parts

(Part One is here.)

(Part Two is here)

AFTER RUSSIA TOOK OVER THE NEGOTIATIONS

The conclusion of the first round of post-U.S.-involvement Syrian peace talks took place in Astana Kazakhstan and ended on January 24th, and included, as governmental participants, Syria, Russia, Iran, and Turkey. Neither the Sauds (who had selected and organized the delegation that supposedly represented ‘the rebels’ in the previous, America-led, talks) nor the United States government (which is the main international representative of the Sauds) participated. (However, America’s Ambassador to Kazakhstan was allowed to be one of the «observers»; America’s master, the Sauds, weren’t granted even this recognition.) The Syrian announcement noted that «Regarding the omission of the reference to Syria’s secularism in the statement, al-Jaafari [Syria’s Foreign Minister] said that this was upon the request of Turkey and the armed groups [these ones not having been selected by the Saud family, but by the four governmental participants], which is odd since the Turkish government claims that Turkey is secular, but when it comes to Syria, it stands against secularism».

Both the U.S. government and the Saudi government — and their respective allies — were totally excluded from any decision-making in the post-U.S. talks. Turkey had been a U.S.-Saudi ally (except against them on Kurdish independence) until the failed 15 July 2016 CIA-backed coup-attempt to replace Turkey’s President Erdogan by a U.S.-Gulen junta that would allow the U.S. aristocracy’s aim of creating a Kurdish nation so as to weaken Syria, Iraq, and Turkey and so allow even more Saudi dominance of the region. Russian intelligence had learned of the coup-plan in advance; and, hours before the coup started, Russian President Putin informed Erdogan that it was about to happen, which saved Erdogan’s life and his regime. This is why Turkey was now cooperating with Russia. (However, Turkey still hasn’t yet left NATO; so, Turkey is now the first and only nation that’s allied with both the U.S. and Russia, at least for the time being. Erdogan, after the coup, is «on the fence». Formerly, he had been pro-U.S., anti-Russia, reliably pro-NATO.)

There was a separate announcement, from Al Jazeera, on January 24th, «Astana joint statement by Iran, Russia, Turkey: in Full». It said that the parties:

Reaffirm their commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic as a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, non-sectarian and democratic State, as confirmed by the UN Security Council;

Express their conviction that there is no military solution to the Syrian conflict and that it can only be solved through a political process based on the implementation of the UN Security Council resolution 2254 in its entirety; …

Reiterate their determination to fight jointly against ISIL/DAESH and Al-Nusra and to separate them from armed opposition groups; …

Support the willingness of the armed opposition groups to participate in the next round of negotiations to be held between the government and the opposition under the UN auspices in Geneva as of February 8, 2017

The resistance, by some religious Muslims, to the Russian delegation’s proposed new Constitution for Syria, which is even more secular than the existing one, caused the February 8th resumption-date in Geneva to be moved back to February 20th.

Here are some provisions of that proposed Russian draft:

* * *

Chapter 1. Basic Principles

Article 1

• The Syrian Republic is an independent sovereign state, based on the principle of the rule of the people by the people and for the people, the rule of law, equality of all before the law, social solidarity, respect for rights and freedoms and equality of rights and duties of all citizens regardless of any differences and privileges. …

Article 2

• The sole source of power in Syria shall be its multinational and multi faith people. … The People of Syria shall exercise their sovereignty in accordance with the Constitution directly by means of a referendum, and through their representatives elected on the basis of universal, equal, direct suffrage by free, secret and personal ballot. …

• No person carrying another nationality, in addition to the nationality of Syria, may occupy the position of a member of the People’s Assembly, a member of the Constituent Assembly, President of the Republic, Prime Minister, a deputy prime minister, a minister, or a member of the Supreme Constitutional Court. …

Article 3

The State shall respect all religions and religious organizations, and ensure the freedom to perform all the rituals that do not prejudice public order. Religious organizations shall be equal before the law. …

Article 5

• The political system of the state shall be based on the principle of political pluralism, and exercising power democratically by secret ballot. …

Article 6

• Ideological diversity shall be recognized in Syria. No ideology shall be proclaimed as State ideology or as obligatory. Public associations shall be equal before the law.

• The State shall ensure security and protect the rights and freedoms of national and religious minorities.

• The establishment and activities of political parties and other public associations whose goals and activities are aimed at the forcible changing of the basis of the constitutional order and at violating the integrity of the State, at undermining its security, at engaging in terrorism, at creating armed units, at instigating religious, social, racial, national, and tribal strife; and that are based on sectarian, regional, class, professional discrimination, or on discrimination by gender or origin, may not be undertaken. Such organizations may not be part of the social and political system in Syria. …

Article 7

• Laws and other legal acts, which are adopted in Syria, must not contradict the Constitution.

• Universally recognized principles and norms of international law as well as international agreements of Syria shall be an integral part of its legal system. …

• Syria shall maintain good neighborly relations with other countries based on cooperation, mutual security and other principles stipulated by international legal rules.

• Syria denounces war as an infringement on other countries’ sovereignty and a means to resolve international conflicts.

Article 10

• The army and other armed forces shall be under public oversight and shall defend Syria and its territorial integrity; they may not be used as an instrument of suppression of the people; they may not interfere in politics or participate in the transfer of power. …

Article 11

• In Syria the freedom of economic activity is guaranteed, and private, State, municipal and other forms of property shall be recognized. Property may not be used to infringe on human and civil rights and freedoms, public and State interests, and human dignity.

• Developing the economy on the basis of different forms of property is aimed at improving the people’s wellbeing. The State shall use market principles to bolster economic development, guarantee freedom of entrepreneurship and prevent monopolization and unfair competition in economic relations. …

• Natural resources shall be publicly owned. The law shall regulate how utilization rights for natural resources or concessions are granted. …

• No discrimination by gender, origin, language or faith shall be allowed. …

• The State shall provide women with all opportunities enabling them to effectively and fully contribute to the political, economic, social and cultural life, and the State shall work on removing the restrictions that prevent their development and participation in building society. …

Article 14

• Protection of the environment shall be the responsibility of the state and society and it shall be the duty of every citizen. …

• The National Bank of Syria is owned exclusively by the State. …

Article 18

• Everyone shall have the right to life, security and freedom and the State shall guarantee these rights. No right can be restricted or denied to a person unless otherwise provided by law and following the decision by the appropriate judicial authority.

• All persons shall be equal before the law without discrimination among them on grounds of gender, race, nationality, origin, color, religion, personal convictions, beliefs or views, and economic and social status. …

Article 20

• Everyone shall have the right freely to seek, receive, transmit, produce and disseminate information by any legal means. In accordance with the law the State ensures freedom of the press and mass media.

• Propaganda or agitation, which incites social, racial, national or religious hatred and hostility, and propaganda of social, racial, national, religious or linguistic supremacy, shall be prohibited. …

Article 22

• Everyone shall have the right to the inviolability of his (her) person, home, personal and family privacy.

• Collecting, keeping, using and disseminating information about the private life of a person shall not be permitted without his (her) consent.

• The State shall guarantee a person’s right to privacy of correspondence, of telephone conversations and of postal, telegraph and other communications. This right may be limited by law to prevent a crime or to uncover the truth when investigating a crime.

• Except when the law says otherwise or when following a court’s order, nobody may enter a home against the will of its occupants. …

Article 23

• Everyone shall have the right to work in conditions, which meet safety and hygiene requirements, and to receive remuneration for labor without any discrimination whatsoever. …

• The law shall regulate employer-employee relations based on economic principles and the norms of social justice.

• The State shall guarantee the right of its people to lawfully form labor associations and unions and to join them. …

Article 26

• Everyone shall be guaranteed social security payments for legal retirement age, in case of illness, disability, loss of breadwinner, incapacitation, unemployment, and in other cases specified by law. Minimum state pensions and social benefits shall be established by law. …

• Everyone has the right to health protection and medical care in state and municipal health institutions. …

• Everyone shall have the right to education. The State shall guarantee free secondary education. …

• Punishment shall be personal; no crime and no punishment except by a law.

• Anyone shall be considered innocent until his (her) guilt is proven and confirmed by a court sentence. …

• No one may be investigated or arrested, except under an order or decision issued by the competent judicial authority. …

• No one may be tortured or treated in a humiliating manner, and the law shall define the punishment for those who do so.

• Any person who is arrested must be informed of the reasons for his arrest and his rights, and may not be incarcerated except by an order of the competent judicial authority.

• Any person sentenced by a final ruling, who has carried out his sentence and the ruling proved wrong shall have the right to ask the state for compensation for the damage he suffered. …

Article 35

• Members of the People’s Assembly shall be elected by the public, secret, direct and equal vote. They shall represent the whole people of Syria. …

Article 49

• The President of the Republic is elected for the term of 7 years by citizens of Syria on the basis of universal, equal, and direct suffrage by secret ballot.

• No person can hold the office of the President of the republic for more than two consecutive terms.

• The candidate who wins the election for the President of the Republic is the one who gets more than one half of votes of those who take part in the elections. If no candidate receives such majority, a rerun is carried out between the two candidates who receive the largest number of votes. …

Article 51

3) the candidacy application shall not be accepted unless the applicant has acquired the support of at least 35 members of the People’s Assembly and (or) the Constituent Assembly. No member of the Assemblies can support more than one candidate. …

Article 59

The President of the Republic might call for a referendum on important issues which affect the higher interests of the country. The result of the referendum shall be binding and come into force as of the date of its announcement by the President of the Republic. …

Article 82

The term in office of the current President of the Republic shall be 7 years from the swearing-in date. He has the right to run again for President of the Republic. The President’s term in office as stated in this Constitution shall apply to him as of the next presidential elections. …

* * *

The U.S. had demanded that the Syrian public be prohibited from being allowed to vote for Bashar al-Assad when elections for Syria’s Presidency will next be held. The U.S. government and its allies had held polls throughout Syria, all of which showed that Assad is by far the preferred person, among all Syrians, to lead the nation. The declaration in Astana commits Syria unqualifiedly to democracy, and also opposes the breaking-up of Syria into ethnic enclaves — Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish — which the U.S. regime (such as in a recent Rand Corporation commentary, but actually ever since at least 1957) had striven for (as the likeliest way to enable the American aristocracy’s allies, the royal families of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to pipeline their oil and gas through Syria into Europe, and so undercut Russia’s prices in the world’s largest oil-and-gas market — it’s economic war against Russia). (And its being a «Pipeline War» was confirmed in a 3 September 2016 news report from German Economic News, «Energy war over Syria: Fight only along future pipelines».)

Iran, though itself a theocratic-Shiite regime (after the 1953 fascist U.S.-British-installed regime was overthrown in 1979), has never objected to Assad’s secularism. Of course, Russia, a secular nation after having abandoned the Marxist faith in 1990, has no problem at all with a secular ally. Turkey under Erdogan did, however, have a problem with it, until the U.S. tried to overthrow him to help the Sauds and Thanis. But the increased secularism that’s in the Russian-proposed constitutional draft would be especially unacceptable to the jihadists who have been trying to overthrow Assad. Perhaps those jihadists — many if not most of whom have been imported into Syria by the U.S.-Saudi-Qatari alliance — will need to be either killed or expelled from Syria before any such document will be able to be seriously considered. Russia has there, in its proposed draft constitution for Syria, laid down the gauntlet to The West, to decide whose side The West is really on.

Is it on the Sauds’ side, or on Russia’s side?

This past September, in one of his regular interviews with the newspaper Parlamentní Listy, retired Czech Major General Hynek Blaško commented on the possibility of a conflict between Russia and NATO with a following anecdote:

“I have seen a popular joke on the Internet about Obama and his generals in the Pentagon debating on the best timing to attack Russia. They couldn’t come to any agreement, so they decided to ask their allies.

The French said: ” We do not know, but certainly not in the winter. This will end badly. ”

The Germans responded: “We do not know, either, but definitely not in a summer. We have already tried.”

Someone in Obama’s war room had a brilliant idea to ask China, on the basis that China is developing and always has new ideas.

The Chinese answered:

“The best time for this is right now. Russia is building the Power of Siberia pipeline, the North Stream Pipeline, Vostochny Cosmodrome Spaceport, the MegaProject bridge to Crimea; also Russian is upgrading the Trans-Siberian railroad with a new railway bridge across Lena River and the Amur-Yakutsk Mainline. Russia is also building new sports facilities for the World Cup and athletics, and has in development over 150 production projects in the Arctic … Well, now they really need as many POWs as possible!”

So, now, even NATO members’ generals have noticed something peculiar about Russia.

Made in Russia

According to the myth that is being peddled by Western media, Russia has an underdeveloped economy based on the exchange of raw mineral resources for glass beads… I mean Western produced hi-tech products. Any barber would tell you that even Asians can make iPhones, but Russians can’t.

Let’s look into it:

In 2016, High-Technology Manufacturing as a Percentage of GDP – 22.3%

The most hi-tech product in today’s world is not an iPhone, but a nuclear submarine. Submarines contain a gigantic quantity of hi-tech parts, most of them are secret.

Today, Russia is the only country in the world that manufactures the IV generation of submarines.

[ 2:14]  The fourth Yasen-class nuclear submarine Krasnoyarsk recently completed hydraulic pressure hull tests. The nuclear-powered Project 885 attack submarine is being built by the Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk, Russia.

Total 5 submarines are being built, and 5 submarines SSBN Borei-A class nuclear-Powered submarines.

 

[2:50] The defense industry is looking into increasing the percentage of what they call “civilian products,” and for that it invest huge amount of efforts and resources into training the new generation of highly skilled workers.

Quantorium children’s techno-parks, also known as the new model of extra-curriculum education. Basically they are good old Soviet technological sections for children, only with more advanced with 3-D modeling and robo-tech. Needless to say that studies in the Quantorium techno-parks are absolutely free. Those parks are opening in many regions of the country.

ROBO development corporation from Saint Petersburg that provides leaning materials for Quantoriums and for middle schools also provides products for learning programming skills for schools in Finland.

[4:21] For the last four years the population of Russia is growing. The new system of education is being developing now for all those children.

[5] Russia restarts production of beryllium, which was lost in 1989. Instead, Russia has been buying beryllium from China and the US.

Breakthroughs in beryllium production technology could mean that Russia will be self-sufficient in supplies of one of the world’s rarest and most valuable metals. Beryllium is primarily used in the manufacture of structural materials for high-speed aircraft, missiles, spacecraft and communication satellites and is also deployed in nuclear reactors as a reflector or moderator of neutrons.

By 2020 Russia is expected to take 1/3 of the world market of beryllium.

What else is being made in Russia

Cars and trucks

Russian retro ride Bilenkin Classic cars, modern old-timers

Russian automaker Lada kickstarts sales in Germany

Bikes

All road bikes with low pressure tires

Hoverbike the Scorpion-S

Heavy industrial equipment, tractors and trucks 

KAMAZ 2014 – GAZ, VAZ, UAZ, VIS

KAMAZ 53949 Typhoon-K 4×4 multirole modular armored vehicle

New Typhoon-K deployed for the Western military district in Nizhny Novgorod

Ural and Gaz-66, and Gaz-69

BMP-3 IFV. Kamaz Typhoon-K, Ural Typhoon-U MRAP. GAZ Tiger Kornet-D, Arbalet-DM

Arctic adventure: Russian military vehicles set out on a freezing journey

Ural Next trucks

GAZ TIGER 2330 GAZ-2330 Tiger of The Spirit of the Siberian Tiger the Extreme 4×4

Small Utility vehicles

MKM-1905 (Murashka)

Aircraft: planes, jets and helicopters

·         Who, how and where makes transmissions for helicopters, photo gallery

·         Russian Helicopters to build Russia’s largest helicopter gearbox and transmission assembly and testing facility, 2014

·         Russian Helicopters produce first Ka-52 Alligator in 2017

·         Ka-52 in Arkhangelsk

·         Famous workhorse of every war, MI-8 or our “Little Brother”

A helicopter is a soul of a fallen in battle tank

·         MIG-35

·         Су-30СМ aircraft

A breath-taking video of super-maneuverable multirole Su 35S fighter jet provided by a new engine with thrust vector control

Aviation engines

PS-90A turbofan

Used in

IL-96-300PU airplane of the President of the Russian Federation

Long-range passenger airliner IL-96-300

Mid-range passenger and cargo airplanes TU-204, TU-214 and their modifications

Oil tanker & Freight transport built in Russia

Krasnoye Sormovo shipyard launches Pioneer-2, tanker of project RST27 built for CMS

February 2017, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia based Krasnoye Sormovo shipyard (part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation) launched the Рioneer-2, the second tanker of project RST27 built for Caspian  sea and designed for mixed (river-sea) shipping of liquid bulk crude and oil products,

The RST27 vessels were designed by Marine Engineering Bureau to RS class: KM (*) Ice1 R2 AUT1-ICS VCS ECO-S OMBO Oil tanker (ESP). Detailed design was provided by Nizhny Novgorod based engineering firm Volga-Caspian Design Bureau.

Russia has negotiated a deal to produce  its patrol boats Gepard 5.1 for Sri Lanka.

The time-tested by the naval forces of Russia and Vietnam in various military events frigate Gepard 3.9 is gradually gaining credibility in the arms market of the Asian countries. As it became known to Realnoe Vremya, Rosoboronexport and the Zelenodolsk plant named after A. M. Gorky are completing the two-year negotiations with the Navy of Sri Lanka for the supply of patrol boats Gepard 5.1. Although it is about one vessel, this contract will reinforce the interest in the vessel of other South-Eastern countries — Malaysia, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Bahrain.

Two new Gepard-3.9 will be delivered to Vietnam shortly 

Railroad transportation

Engels locomotive manufacturer in Saratov. a maker of 2ЭB120 electric locomotive speed up to 120 k/h, photo gallery

Saratov railroad depot, photo gallery

Center controls for public safety and security

Moscow subway center of safety and security, photo gallery

Education

Innopolis university and campus

Cyber security

KasperskyLab  officially launch KasperskyOS – world’s most cybersecure platform to date

Startups

Moscow Biomedical startups located in tech-hub  kl10ch

Expositions

Expo City Trans, photo gallery

New Construction

Subway station Ramenki in Moscow, photo gallery

Works in precious metals and gems

Russia has been traditionally known for its goldsmiths and silversmiths

These traditions are still alive with some modern twist

Gold, marble and titanium covers shaped like Makarov revolver for cell phones

Russia: The lady with the golden gun – check out Caviar’s special edition Makarov pistol and iPhone

Award weapon production for Russian Defense Ministry in Zlatoust

made with traditional Russian enamel and goldwork encrusted samples of famous Russia’s firearms for presentations and gifts made by the famous masters of Zkatoust

Photo gallery

Needless to say that this kind of state and the Ministry of Defense orders are the life stream for the jewelers and goldsmiths to keep their craft alive and to teach the new generations of jewelers.

Foreign brands and technologies manufactured in Russia

Mazda CX-5 and Mazda6 manufactured in Vladivostok from the tass corresponded for the Far East

Agriculture

Wines and fine spirits, craft beer

Manufacturer of ‘Abrau-Durso ‘Russian Champagne’ Brut

The winery and center of wine tourism Abrau-Durso

Agro complex Volga from tomatoes and sturgeons, to lions and horses

Russia is the only country in the world where bioresources are increasing every year: forests, fish and wildlife

Tigers and others in Seaside Safari Park near Vladivostok, Primorsky Krai

Vladivostok is a winter home for white-tailed eagles, photo gallery

Tourism in Russia

Museums

Home museum of artist Petrov-Vodkin

Ice hotel, Kamchatka

Russia is a leader in space tourism

Not made in Russia

• So much for “American Made” GE to double its procurements from China to $10 billion

Trump: America’s Latest Warrior President, Surrenders to Wall Street and War Profiteers

By Stephen Lendman, February 23 2017

The nurse from Kerala, with a smile nearing smugness, tests the temperature of her patient. “Give me that!” she says. The plastic wonder is passed along to her. Her fat fingers grab the thermometer. The patient is there, wired, strapped, connected to a device that acts as a medical Global Positional System, tied into contraption that feeds him morsels through tubes.

“Telemetry,” he says, intrigued by the nature of the word. The device lies cuddled in a pocket. Any movement, any cardiac disruption, will be relayed to Central Command. This is suitable terminology: everything about the nature of disease, including the most dangerous ones, suggests military struggle, internecine conflict. We are told that the human race is in a war against cancer, one of the most remarkable of diseases. But we are only at war because, secretly, we all wish to be immortal. Absent this moral dimension, we are either dead or alive.

This is not a war that humans can win for one simple reason: we are living too long. Our bodies eventually breed our downfall. But the machinery is there to fight, to attempt, vainly, to cheat the wasting efforts of a condition that makes Attila the Hun look like a toddler in search of a spade.

Our refusal to die in quiet acceptance suggests an onset of other condition: cellular, depraved, the unseen inserting themselves like combatants into our skin, goring, gnawing, nibbling and incising. We are mortal, they seem to say, and remind us that there is no Holy Grail, no sweet water that will drag us, lingeringly, into another hundred years. We are, in other words, being killed for our durability, our obsession to see the sun rise, have the next glass of wine, or sigh in post-coital bliss.

Cancer, and its lethally enthusiastic friends, is combated in the command centre known as the oncology ward. That ward is located in the broader hospital apparatus, a detestable place where illness reigns as god king, and the maggot queen fronts up with disdain, striking at a moment’s notice. Everything here suggests battle, warfare, campaigns, fought in dry, near dehydrating conditions. There are struggles, and being in such a ward exhausts, deprives, drawing the heart beat.

The hospital, in short, mortgages your life, places you in a form of emotional, and sometimes economic bondage. It suspends life, it quarries resources of depression, and it suspends the routine of the living. Visitors to the oncology ward start looking like ventriloquists for the un-dead, gaunt, haggard. They become mirrors of disease and enervation.

The theatre of operations in an oncology ward seem much like preparations before a gas attack at Ypres during the First World War: wipe, wash, clean hands before engagement. (There, it was gas masks.) “Germs kill!” goes the sign at the entrance point. Enemies are unseen; they thrive in the subterranean field of invisibility – to our naked eye. They may strike, your unwashed hand being an unwitting carrier for the next assault, the next disabling attack. You, in other words, may be responsible. Collaborators, recoil in guilt.

This moral dimension of disease is important, supplying needed ammunition for false causes. Mother Teresa of Calcutta (formerly of Skopje, Macedonia), saw the necessary good (for herself) in people crippled by terminal disease. For one, they deserved it, fallen creatures who had done something terrible in order to make others thrive. She crowed religiously, and felt that riding them to the graves with her charity did good for both herself and the broader enterprise. Disease sells; disease, like greed, is a golden good, currency, a thriving industry. Pharmaceutical companies would agree.

If we are then to see the patient on the bed as both victim and warrior, we understand better the plight of the relative, the friend, or even acquaintance who has been attacked by the Disease. The patient is not merely battling its ravaging affects, but the fluttering curers who bustle with enthusiasm, or treat the patient with disdain.

Nursers may fuss; doctors prognosticate with resigned inevitability. “You have anywhere from one year to ten.” Some do it better than others, sugar coating, brushing, lying. Wars against cancer require deception, masking futility. In this battle, there is only one ultimate winner: death. Death on a skeletally constructed throne, with a grin so broad you could build upon it.

Cancer is itself a remarkable entity, the truest of insurgents, the most wondrously adapted of killers. You can only admire it, even as you blink through the cascading tears and sob your way trough the latest biographical detail of its achievements. You can only admire it with a degree of terror: it will either kill you, your friends or a family member.

What, then, is the patient in an oncology ward (a mere example) supposed to do? For one, he protests. He demands. He wishes for the bed pan. He wishes to be cleaned after his bladder goes on holiday, unable to locate the edge of the toilet rim. (“Is he toxic?,” asks a pregnant nurse, fearing the post-chemotherapy effect on the patient.) He wants head phones, and wishes that they be firm, even “psychedelic” in their properties.

He asks for the leather bag to be relocated from one side of the bed to the other. He requests a fresh pair of loud socks stocked in the hospital, but likes the intimacy of home. Therefore, the pair is washed at home. Who receives these requests? The wife, the lover, the partner, and, in some cases, the offspring, desperately hoping to note all the demands. (“You made an old man very happy today….”)

These requests reflect, perhaps, a throbbing sign of life, pulsating away in defiance: you demand, and so you live. You are stubborn, and so, you will be able to pull through, passing the barbed wire of the cancer demons, gaining victory. The signs, in that sense, are good.

Much of his behaviour, if it is irritating, is a reminder that he was doing that before. Before we become ill, we were a composite of emotions, and tics, blithely continuing, unaware, towards a destination that features decomposition, worms or the oven of cremation. We had our demands, and our perversions. Most of all, we had a certain number of treasured, or reviled eccentricities. These are the signatures that matter, the signs that count.

In illness, we replicate, if in more theatrical style sometimes, what we did in health. It is fitting: he is looking firm, well on this day in February, though wishes to find the optimum point on the bed where sleep will arrive as a soothing servant, with a cooling drink.

That drink is noisily clear in his imagination: robust ice cubes from a set of Scandinavian ice trays, a slice of tart lemon, tonic water, and a decent – or indecent – surge of gin. As the evening settles, the cold cuts, crackers, a busy dry red that teases the palate with flirtatious promise, then coffee and calvados. All the time, there is family chatter. And Goethe; and Kant.

Back in the oncology ward with a jolt. Back to the sterility, the white sheets, the hospital clothing, the smell of caged hygiene. His eyes are not milky, dissolving in a pool – they emit a grey calm today, though stubborn. There is only one thing to fear: will the tenacity kick in? Will that brute force of will come charging through the ranks, a body deprived of red blood cells readying himself for the grand leukaemia knock out? Nurse Kerala interrupts with abrupt authority to take the blood pressure. The war continues.

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

Reports that ISIS have been defeated in al-Bab may superficially being joy to many readers. But the reality is far from good.

In scoring a strategically important victory against ISIS, Turkey and its band of jihadists called the Free Syrian Army have replaced a barbaric terrorist group who seeks the death of the Syrian Arab Republic with the second largest army in NATO, complete with a modern air force.

Turkey like ISIS, seek the destruction of the Syrian Arab Republic, one way or another.  They are illegally occupying the territory of Syria. One illegal occupier has been replaced by another, vastly more powerful occupier.Crucially, the Turks didn’t even kill most of the ISIS fighters, instead allowing them to peacefully leave al-Bab.

Added to this is the presence of the Free Syrian Army who implement ISIS style techniques to terrorise local populations, especially Shia’s Muslims, Christians and those leading a secular lifestyle.

To put it another way, would a country, part of whose territory was under occupation, rather have it occupied by a gang of savages with some tanks, armoured vehicles and crude missiles, or by a NATO army that is only second in size to that of the United States?

Thus far, Russian diplomacy has avoided the very real possibility of the Turkish armed forces and the Syrian Arab Army engaging in a direct clash, but now that Turkey occupies al-Bab, there is once again a renewed chance that such a clash could take place.

Russia’s diplomatic hands are fuller than ever in this respect.

I have no doubt that eventually ISIS will be defeated and disappear. But Turkey is a large state and is not going anywhere. The question is, where are they going in Syria? If they do not leave Syria, it means that things have got a lot worse for Syrians, not better.

UPDATE: An ISIS suicide bomb has killed 41 people in al-Bab. Erdogan’s bloody hands now have even more trouble to content with.

During the meeting with the naval officers on Thursday, Putin said Russian military intelligence estimated that about 4,000 Russians are in Syria and fighting alongside insurgents there. He noted than an additional, estimated 5,000 from former Soviet republics also are fighting alongside insurgents there.

The presence of Islamist insurgents in Syria has repeatedly been noticed by Syrian as well as Russian military and intelligence services. Putin did not break down the numbers, but reports about captured and/or killed fighters from the Russian Federation and material posted by the insurgents themselves strongly suggests that the majority come from Chechnya and other Caucasus regions.

Putin defended military operations in Syria saying that they have dealt a blow to international terrorism. Russia stood alone in this fight, Putin added, hampered by resistance from “so-called partners” in the West. Later on Thursday Putin noted that he planned to further strengthen Russia’s military. Among the priorities, he said, are new investments in strategic nuclear defense and aerospace forces.

Putin’s statement concurred with a statement by Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin who seized the occasion of a military holiday to congratulate Russia’s principal allies, “They are the [Russian]army, the navy, and the military-industrial complex”, tweeted Rogozin.

Any US general providing candid views on fighting and winning a war admit the impossibility of victory as long as the source of an enemy’s fighting capacity remains intact.

In fact, as an excuse for why the US is still struggling in Afghanistan over a decade and a half after initially invading the Central Asian state in 2001, US General John Nicholson blamed outsiders including Pakistan, Iran and Russia for aiding, abetting and harboring anti-US forces.

No amount of military might brought to bear on forces fighting the US within Afghanistan’s borders can disrupt finances, recruitment, training, weapon supplies, logistics and refitting taking place beyond Afghanistan’s borders and thus beyond the US military’s reach. The United States suffered a similar problem during its prolonged occupation of Vietnam. North Vietnam, China and neighboring states provided support and safe havens for fighters in the south facing off against US troops and their South Vietnamese counterparts.

[US General Joseph] Votel, speaking from Jordan on Wednesday, said that one option to speed up a long-signaled attack on Raqqa was to “take on a larger burden ourselves”. Shouldering more of the task would mean US forces, conventional as well as special operations, bringing more artillery and logistics options to the fight.

Absent from US President Donald Trump’s “plan,” and from comments made by US commanders, is any mention of the source of the Islamic State’s fighting capacity. No mention is made as to where they are drawing their fighters from, who is paying for and overseeing their training, arming, outfitting and continuous supplying of when finally they reach the battlefield, or how they have managed to fight the summation of Syrian, Iraqi, Iranian, Lebanese and Russian forces for years now.

Unlike in Vietnam and Afghanistan, two theaters the US desperately sought or seeks victory over indigenous resistance and had openly and repeatedly accused neighboring states of aiding and abetting that resistance, the US has been strangely quiet during both President Barack Obama’s and now President Trump’s administrations regarding neighboring states aiding and abetting the Islamic State.

However, without addressing the very source of the Islamic State’s fighting capacity, defeating the terrorist front will be difficult if not impossible.

A Pretext for US Occupation

A plan to place large numbers of US troops in Syria, without the Syrian state’s consent and amid an intentionally unwinnable, open-ended war against the Islamic State will create a pretext for the long sought after defacto US occupation of Syria. It will also give the US the ability to carve out yet another “safe haven” within Syrian territory, complimenting NATO-member Turkey’s in the north.

From these two locations, terrorist forces can and will be harbored, trained, armed, supplied and sent off deep within Syrian territory to further divide and destroy the Syrian state.

Far from mere conspiracy theory, such plans have been repeatedly articulated by US policymakers since at least as early as 2012, including a Brookings Institution paper literally titled, “Assessing Options for Regime Change” (.pdf).

In it, the document clearly advocates a possible full scale US invasion and occupation of Syria, as well as the creation of what it calls “safe-havens and humanitarian corridors” that would be used not for any sort of actual humanitarian purpose but to further exert what the paper calls “coercive action.”

The  paper also specifically mentions Turkey’s role both in creating “safe-havens” and as serving as a base from which Syria is to be invaded and occupied.

The paper, written in 2012 under the administration of President Obama, depicts a strategy being reintroduced and expanded under US President Trump.

It represents not only a dangerous continuity of agenda, but a complete commitment by the special interests occupying Wall Street, Washington, London and Brussels to divide and destroy the Syrian state, a commitment that persists despite many setbacks.

A real “war” on the Islamic State would involve first and foremost the exposure, condemnation, isolation and destruction of its state sponsors who US intelligence and political circles have repeatedly admitted include interests within their own nation, as well as among their allies including Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Anything less indicates a rouse serving as nothing more than a pretext for an expanded US presence in Syria, not to fight and defeat the Islamic State, but to preserve it while attempting to further divide and destroy the Syrian state.

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

After photos surfaced in the media displaying US forces assisting ISIL terrorists, Javad al-Talaybawi said that the Americans are 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 have 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 on Wednesday 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.

Shortly after the mainstream media erupted in hysteria and neo-McCarthyistic attacks against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn for having a routine conversation with the Russian Ambassador and for once having dinner with the President of Russia as part of an event, aging warmonger Senator John McCain recently announced that he had traveled illegally into Syria to meet with U.S. troops illegally stationed there as well as to meet with ISIS supporter and President of Turkey, Recep Tayip Erdogan.

McCain also met with the Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz and crown prince Sheikh Mohammad bin Zayed Al Nahyan of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. In addition, McCain also met with Kurdish fighters on the ground in Syria.

On February 22, McCain’s spokeswoman, Julie Tarallo, confirmed that McCain had made the trip, saying it was a “valuable opportunity to assess dynamic conditions on the ground in Syria and Iraq.”

Tarallo also praised Trump’s order to require the Department of Defense to provide a plan for combating the Islamic State in Syria within thirty days. She said, “Senator McCain looks forward to working with the administration and military leaders to optimize our approach for accomplishing ISIL’s lasting defeat.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, the trip was organized with the help of the U.S. military.

Curiously, (or, rather, typically), there were no catcalls of suspicion from the mainstream press nor were there suggestions that McCain had violated the Logan Act, even though he admitted he discussed the possibility of establishing “safe zones” in Syria and “strategies” for “fighting ISIS” in Syria with both Erdogan and international relations with the Saudi King and UAE crown prince.

McCain was also present at the Munich Security Conference where he criticized Trump’s rhetoric regarding NATO and his lack of adequate warmongering during the first two months of his presidency. According to the Associated Press,

During a speech Friday at the Munich Security Conference, McCain delivered a withering critique of Trump’s worldview as he lamented a shift in the U.S. and Europe away from the ‘universal values’ that forged the Western alliance 70 years ago.

McCain on Monday welcomed Trump’s selection of Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster to be his national security adviser, calling the pick an “outstanding choice.”

Back in 2013, McCain traveled to Syria illegally where he met with terrorists backed by the United States and NATO, even taking pictures with terrorist leaders and some of the most bloodthirsty commanders of the invasion. McCain received virtually no criticism for his open violation of various American laws (including the ones he voted for). However, when U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard and former Rep. Dennis Kucinich met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad after having traveled to Syria in order to tour the country and see the realities of the destruction the war, both were ravaged in the press.

McCain has had a long history of engaging in behavior that would have long ago torpedoed the career of many politicians and resulted in the incarceration of any average American. Remarkably, however, it doesn’t appear that age has slowed him down at all.

McCain Dismisses Missing Military Personnel

As Sydney Schanburg wrote in his excellent article, “The War Secrets Sen. John McCain Hides,” McCain was consistent, at least in his actions, in his refusal to allow any further attempts to discover and recover missing American POWs in Vietnam as well as even the possibility of allowing any further investigation as to the possibility that Americans were still being held captive. This is, of course, despite McCain’s incessant reliance on his military service as some type of qualification for whatever his political position of the day might be.

As Schanburg writes,

But there was one subject that was off-limits, a subject the Arizona senator almost never brings up and has never been open about — his long-time opposition to releasing documents and information about American prisoners of war in Vietnam and the missing in action who have still not been accounted for. Since McCain himself, a downed Navy pilot, was a prisoner in Hanoi for 5 1/2 years, his staunch resistance to laying open the POW/MIA records has baffled colleagues and others who have followed his career.

Critics say his anti-disclosure campaign, in close cooperation with the Pentagon and the intelligence community, has been successful. Literally thousands of documents that would otherwise have been declassified long ago have been legislated into secrecy.

For example, all the Pentagon debriefings of the prisoners who returned from Vietnam are now classified and closed to the public under a statute enacted in the 1990s with McCain’s backing. He says this is to protect the privacy of former POWs and gives it as his reason for not making public his own debriefing.

[…]

Many Vietnam veterans and former POWs have fumed at McCain for keeping these and other wartime files sealed up. His explanation, offered freely in Senate hearings and floor speeches, is that no one has been proven still alive and that releasing the files would revive painful memories and cause needless emotional stress to former prisoners, their families and the families of MIAs still unaccounted for. But what if some of these returned prisoners, as has always been the case at the conclusion of wars, reveal information to their debriefing officers about other prisoners believed still held in captivity? What justification is there for filtering such information through the Pentagon rather than allowing access to source materials? For instance, debriefings from returning Korean war POWs, available in full to the American public, have provided both citizens and government investigators with important information about other Americans who went missing in that conflict.

Would not most families of missing men, no matter how emotionally drained, want to know? And would they not also want to know what the government was doing to rescue their husbands and sons? Hundreds of MIA families have for years been questioning if concern for their feelings is the real reason for the secrecy.

Others, however, suspect that all of McCain’s insistence in keeping the information classified revolves around whether or not releasing the debriefings would open the door to McCain’s closet, suggesting that there skeletons lurking inside it that the Senator does not want falling out. Schanburg writes,

A smaller number of former POWs, MIA families and veterans have suggested there is something especially damning about McCain that the senator wants to keep hidden. Without release of the files, such accusations must be viewed as unsubstantiated speculation. The main reason, however, for seeking these files is to find out if there is any information in the debriefings, or in other MIA documents that McCain and the Pentagon have kept sealed, about how many prisoners were held back by North Vietnam after the Paris peace treaty was signed in January 1973. The defense and intelligence establishment has long resisted the declassification of critical records on this subject. McCain has been the main congressional force behind this effort.

The prisoner return in 1973 saw 591 Americans repatriated by North Vietnam. The problem was that the U.S. intelligence list of men believed to be alive at that time in captivity — in Vietnam, Laos and possibly across the border in southern China and in the Soviet Union — was much larger.

Possibly hundreds of men larger. The State Department stated publicly in 1973 that intelligence data showed the prisoner list to be starkly incomplete. For example, only nine of the 591 returnees came out of Laos, though experts in U.S. military intelligence listed 311 men as missing in that Hanoi-run country alone, and their field reports indicated that many of those men were probably still alive. Hanoi said it was returning all the prisoners it had.

President Nixon, on March 29, 1973, seconded that claim, telling the nation on television: “All of our American POWs are on their way home.” This discrepancy has never been acknowledged or explained by official Washington. Over the years in Washington, McCain, at times almost single-handedly, has pushed through Pentagon-desired legislation to make it impossible or much harder for the public to acquire POW/MIA information and much easier for the defense bureaucracy to keep it hidden.

Then there is also the case of the Truth Bill. A relatively simple bill which stated that

[The] head of each department or agency which holds or receives any records and information, including live-sighting reports, which have been correlated or possibly correlated to United States personnel listed as prisoner of war or missing in action from World War II, the Korean conflict and the Vietnam conflict shall make available to the public all such records and information held or received by that department or agency. In addition, the Department of Defense shall make available to the public with its records and information a complete listing of United States personnel classified as prisoner of war, missing in action, or killed in action (body not returned) from World War II, the Korean conflict, and the Vietnam conflict.

As one might suspect, a Pentagon implicated in the abandonment of these soldiers thus vehemently opposed the bill.

The bill was defeated in 1989. In 1991, it reappeared only to quickly disappear again. Although the interest from family members of the missing veterans as well as the American public had not necessarily waned, another bill was inserted in its place – The McCain Bill. As Schanburg describes,

This measure turned “The Truth Bill ” on its head. It created a bureaucratic maze from which only a fraction of the available documents could emerge. And it became law. So restrictive were its provisions that one clause actually said the Pentagon didn’t even have to inform the public when it received intelligence that Americans were alive in captivity.

First, it decreed that only three categories of information could be released, i.e., “information … that may pertain to the location, treatment, or condition of” unaccounted-for personnel from the Vietnam War. (This was later amended in 1995 and 1996 to include the Cold War and the Korean conflict.) If information is received about anything other than “location, treatment or condition,” under this statute, which was enacted in December 1991, it does not get disclosed.

Second, before such information can be released to the public, permission must be granted by the primary next of kin, or PNOK. In the case of Vietnam, letters were sent by the Department of Defense to the 2,266 PNOK. More than 600 declined consent (including 243 who failed to respond, considered under the law to be a “no”).

[…]

Finally, in addition to these hurdles and limitations, the McCain act does not specifically order the declassification of the information. Further, it provides the Defense Department with other justifications for withholding documents. One such clause says that if the information “may compromise the safety of any United States personnel … who remain not accounted for but who may still be alive in captivity, then the Secretary [of Defense] may withhold that record or other information from the disclosure otherwise required by this section.”

Boiled down, the preceding paragraph means that the Defense Department is not obligated to tell the public about prisoners believed alive in captivity and what efforts are being made to rescue them. It only has to notify the White House and the intelligence committees in the Senate and House. The committees are forbidden under law from releasing such information.

At the same time, the McCain act is now being used to deny access to other sorts of records. For instance, part of a recent APBnews.com Freedom of Information Act request for the records of a mutiny on merchant marine vessel in the 1970s was rejected by a Defense Department official who cited the McCain act. Similarly, requests for information about Americans missing in the Korean War and declared dead for the last 45 years have been denied by officials who reference the McCain statute.

In 1996, however, another bill appeared. Entitled the Missing Service Personnel Act, the bill attempted to force the Pentagon to do more and act faster to find and subsequently recover missing military service personnel. The bill contained measures that required very strict reporting requirements for these purposes.

Schanburg describes how McCain once again rode into town to destroy any potential that may have existed to discover existing missing personnel or any personnel who might become missing in the future. He writes,

McCain amended the heart out of the statute. For example, the 1995 version required a unit commander to report to his theater commander within two days that a person was missing and describe what rescue and recovery efforts were underway. The McCain amendments allowed 10 days to pass before a report had to be made.

In the 1995 act, the theater commander, after receiving the MIA report, would have 14 days to report to his Cabinet secretary in Washington. His report had to “certify” that all necessary actions were being taken and all appropriate assets were being used “to resolve the status of the missing person.” This section was stricken from the act, replaced with language that made the Cabinet secretary, not the theater commander, the recipient of the report from the field. All the certification requirements also were stricken.

[…]

In response, the backers of the original statute cited the Pentagon’s stained record on MIA’s and argued that military history had shown that speed of action is critical to the chances of recovering a missing man. Moving “the bureaucracy ” to Washington, they said, was merely a way to sweep the issue under a rug.

One final evisceration in the law was McCain’s removal of all its enforcement teeth. The original act provided for criminal penalties for anyone, such as military bureaucrats in Washington, who destroy or cover up or withhold from families any information about a missing man. McCain erased this part of the law. He said the penalties would have a chilling effect on the Pentagon’s ability to recruit personnel for its POW/MIA office.

Schanburg points out how McCain has personally acted as the first line of defense against any who may suggest that POWs were left to their fate in Vietnam. McCain acts, on this issue especially, behind a carefully crafted but false veneer of patriotism and military service that appears to make him infallible in the eyes of many low information voters.

Schanburg writes,

McCain does not deal lightly with those who disagree with him on any of these issues or who suggest that the evidence indeed shows that a significant number of prisoners were alive and cached away as future bargaining chips when he came home in the group of 591 released in 1973.

Over the years, he has regularly vilified any group or person who keeps trying to pry out more evidence about MIAs. He calls them “hoaxers” and “charlatans ” and “conspiracy theorists.” He decries the “bizarre rantings of the MIA hobbyists” and describes them as “individuals primarily who make their living off of keeping the issue alive.” Before he died last year of leukemia, retired Col. Ted Guy, a highly admired POW and one of the most dogged resisters in the camps, wrote an angry open letter to the senator in an MIA newsletter. In it, he said of McCain’s stream of insults: “John, does this include Senator Bob Smith and other concerned elected officials? Does this include the families of the missing where there is overwhelming evidence that their loved ones were ‘last known alive? ’ Does this include some of your fellow POWs?”

Clearly, McCain likes dissent the way he likes his veterans – silent. This silence, for McCain, can come by any means necessary.

Indeed, McCain has been the biggest denier of all when it comes to the possibility that American soldiers were left on the battlefield. Schanburg states,

McCain has said again and again that he has seen no “credible” evidence that more than a tiny handful of men might have been alive in captivity after the official prison return in 1973. He dismisses all of the subsequent radio intercepts, live sightings, satellite photos, CIA reports, defector information, recovered enemy documents and reports of ransom demands — thousands and thousands of pieces of information indicating live captives — as meaningless. He has even described these intelligence reports as the rough equivalent of UFO and alien sightings.

In Congress, colleagues and staffers who have seen him erupt — in the open and, more often, in closed meetings — profess themselves confounded by his behavior. Insisting upon anonymity so as not to invite one of his verbal assaults, they say they have no easy way to explain why a former POW would work so hard and so persistently to keep POW/MIA information from coming out. Typical is the comment of one congressional veteran who has watched McCain over many years: “This is a man not at peace with himself.”

Some McCain watchers searching for answers point to his recently published best-selling autobiography, Faith of My Fathers, half of which is devoted to his years as a prisoner. In the book, he says he felt badly throughout his captivity because he knew he was being treated more leniently than his fellow POWs owing to his propaganda value as the son of Adm. John S. McCain II, who was then the CINCPAC — commander in chief of all U.S. forces in the Pacific region, including Vietnam. (His captors considered him a prize catch and nicknamed him the “Crown Prince.”)

Also in the book, the Arizona Senator repeatedly expresses guilt and disgrace at having broken under torture and given the North Vietnamese a taped confession, broadcast over the camp loudspeakers, saying he was a war criminal who had, among other acts, bombed a school. “I felt faithless and couldn’t control my despair,” he writes. He writes, revealing that he made two half-hearted attempts at suicide. Most tellingly, he said he lived in “dread” that his father would find out. “I still wince,” he says, “when I recall wondering if my father had heard of my disgrace.”

[…]

But how would McCain’s forced confession alone explain his endless campaign against releasing MIA/POW information?

Some veterans and other McCain watchers have speculated that McCain’s mortification, given his family’s proud military tradition (his grandfather was also an admiral), was so severe that it continues to haunt him and make him fear any opening up of information that could revive previously unpublished details of the era, including his own nagging history.

McCain’s nagging problem – at least while surviving Vietnam veterans and/or their family members were more prevalent than they are today – was the fact that there were actual witnesses to the evidence pointing toward the existence of American POWs in Vietnam.

Schanburg writes about the case of Dolores Apodaca Alfond, Chairwoman of the National Alliance of Families. He states,

Her pilot brother, Capt. Victor J. Apodaca, out of the Air Force Academy, was shot down over Dong Hoi, North Vietnam, in the early evening of June 8, 1967. At least one person in the two-man plane survived. Beeper signals from a pilot’s distress radio were picked up by overhead helicopters, but the cloud cover was too heavy to go in.

Hanoi has recently turned over some bone fragments that are supposed to be Apodaca’s. The Pentagon first declared the fragments to be animal bones. But now it is telling the family — verbally — that they came from the pilot. But the Pentagon, for unexplained reasons, will not put this in writing, which means Apodaca is still unaccounted for. Also the Pentagon refuses to give Alfond a sample of the fragments so she can have testing done by an independent laboratory.

Alfond’s testimony, at a hearing of the POW/MIA committee Nov. 11, 1992, was revealing. She pleaded with the committee not to shut down in two months, as scheduled, because so much of its work was unfinished. Also, she was critical of the committee, and in particular Kerry and McCain, for having “discredited the overhead satellite symbol pictures, arguing there is no way to be sure that the [distress] symbols were made by U.S. POWs.” She also criticized them for similarly discounting data from special sensors, shaped like a large spike with an electronic pod and an antenna, that were airdropped to stick in the ground along the Ho Chi Minh trail.

[…]

Other than the panel’s second co-chairman, Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., not a single committee member attended this public hearing. But McCain, having been advised of Alfond’s testimony, suddenly rushed into the room to confront her. His face angry and his voice very loud, he accused her of making “allegations … that are patently and totally false and deceptive.” Making a fist, he shook his index finger at her and said she had insulted an emissary to Vietnam sent by President Bush. He said she had insulted other MIA families with her remarks. And then he said, through clenched teeth: “And I am sick and tired of you insulting mine and other people’s [patriotism] who happen to have different views than yours.”

By this time, tears were running down Alfond’s cheeks. She reached into her handbag for a handkerchief. She tried to speak: “The family members have been waiting for years — years! And now you’re shutting down.” He kept interrupting her. She tried to say, through tears, that she had issued no insults. He kept talking over her words. He said she was accusing him and others of “some conspiracy without proof, and some cover-up.” She said she was merely seeking “some answers. That is what I am asking.” He ripped into her for using the word “fiasco.” She replied: “The fiasco was the people that stepped out and said we have written the end, the final chapter to Vietnam.” “No one said that,” he shouted. “No one said what you are saying they said, Ms. Alfond.” And then, his face flaming pink, he stalked out of the room, to shouts of disfavor from members of the audience.

As with most of McCain’s remarks to Alfond, the facts in his closing blast at her were incorrect. Less than three weeks earlier, on Oct. 23, 1992, in a ceremony in the White House Rose Garden, President Bush — with John McCain standing beside him — said: “Today, finally, I am convinced that we can begin writing the last chapter in the Vietnam War.”

The committee did indeed, as Alfond said they planned to do, shut down two months after the hearing.

Schanburg is no “conspiracy theorist,” it should be noted. He is a Pulitzer Prize winner from 1975 whose coverage of the social and political situation in Cambodia won him the award. Indeed, it was Schanburg’s work that laid the basis for the movie The Killing Fields.

McCain’s Support For ISIS

Yet McCain’s treachery regarding missing US military service personnel is not the only crime of his career by any stretch of the imagination. On the Sean Hannity Show, when responding to some tepid criticism by Rand Paul regarding the methods taken to support Western-backed jihadist death squads in Syria, McCain stated,

Has Rand Paul ever been to Syria? Has he ever met with ISIS? Has he ever met with any of these people? No. No. We’re gonna have a fight because it’s patently false. This is the same Rand Paul that said we didn’t want to have anything to do with anything by the way. I don’t want to get in a fight with him at all. But it’s not true. I know these people. I’m in contact with them all the time and he is not.

Earlier in the interview, after stating that he could personally show Obama places on the map to bomb in Syria to kill ISIS, he also stated that, in regards to the death squads, “I know these people intimately. We talk to them all the time.”

McCain also referred back to the tired line of Syrian death squads actually being peaceful protesters “fighting for freedom.”

Indeed, of those who provide material support to terrorism, John McCain would obviously rank at the top of the list. After all, John McCain led the charge in support of ISIS even before the terrorist group actually was called ISIS. Even after the new name and the brutality of its terrorist acts were revealed, John McCain has continued to push the outlandish lie that ISIS is a better choice than the secular government of Bashar al-Assad. He has also pushed for the U.S. Congress to support acting as Al-Qaeda’s Air Force in Syria.

It is important to note that even as the U.S. House was debating whether or not to pass token legislation to passively allow the Obama administration to perpetrate yet another foreign war against a sovereign nation that poses no threat to the United States, rabid warmonger John McCain was grilling Secretary of State John Kerry in what amounted to nothing more than some mildly entertaining D.C. theatre.

McCain grilled Kerry on the reason why the United States is not engaging in airstrikes against Assad’s air defenses as well as a full-scale ground invasion. Attempting to somehow paint Assad as worse than ISIS, McCain stated,

I think at least we owe the Free Syrian Army, negate the air attacks that they will be subjected to when they finish their training and equipping, and go into the fight. So why is it that we won’t at least news release Bashar al Assad’s air activity which has slaughtered thousands and thousands and thousands, 192,000 dead, 3 million refugees, and we’re not going to do anything about Assad’s air capabilities? And finally, ISIL first, that’s what you’re telling these young men who really view Assad as the one who has slaughtered their family members. Not ISIL. As bad as ISIL is.

Yet while his ideology may not be a crime, actually meeting and coordinating with Al-Qaeda most certainly is. In this regard, McCain has overwhelmingly demonstrated his guilt, having been caught in a number of photographs with the leader of death squad battalions, cannibals, and even the leader of al-Qaeda/ISIS himself.

McCain’s photo-op in Syria is a very interesting case since members of the general public are still considered as guilty of “providing material support” to terrorists if they engage in the same activities.

Regardless, Salem Idriss, one of the men seen in the photograph with John McCain, is the commander of the FSA, the “opposition group” touted as a “moderate rebels.” In reality, of course, the FSA is nothing of the sort. As Daniel Wagner wrote for the Huffington Post in December, 2012,

In the outskirts of Aleppo, the FSA has implemented a Sharia law enforcement police force that is a replica of the Wahhabi police in Saudi Arabia — forcing ordinary citizens to abide by the Sharia code. This is being done in a secular country which has never known Sharia Law. This type of action is currently also being implemented in northern Mali, where the West has officially declared its opposition to the al-Qaeda government that took control earlier this year. If what is happening near Aleppo is representative of what may happen if the FSA assumes control of Syria, the country may become an Islamic state. Is that really what the U.S. and other Western countries are intending to tacitly support?

[…]

The FSA has also been targeting the infrastructure of the country. One of the main power plants in Damascus was knocked out for three days last week, impacting 40 percent of the city’s residents. Do ‘freedom fighters’ typically attack critical infrastructure that impacts ordinary citizens on a mass scale? The FSA long ago stopped targeting solely government and military targets.

The FSA is no stranger to atrocities. The FSA is the “moderate opposition” that was filmed forcing a young child to behead a Syrian soldier. It is also the “moderate opposition” that maintained “burial brigades,” a system of mass murder and mass executions against soldiers and those who support the Syrian government. The burial brigades were only one small part of a much wider campaign of terror and executions implemented by the Free Syrian Army.

Of course, the Free Syrian Army is merely the umbrella group of death squads carefully crafted to present a “moderate” face on what is, in reality, nothing more than savage terrorists. Thus, the FSA encompasses(d) a number of smaller “brigades” of al-Qaeda terrorists in order to cover up the true nature of its own ranks.

One such brigade was the Farouq brigade, to which Abu Sakkar was a member. Sakkar, also seen in photographs with John McCain, was the famous rebel videotaped cutting the heart out of a Syrian soldier and biting into it.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, another one of McCain’s pic-mates, is now the leader of IS (ISIS/ISIL) and was the leader of al-Qaeda forces at the time that the photograph was taken. As Voltaire Netdescribes Baghdadi,

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is an Iraqi who joined Al-Qaeda to fight against President Saddam Hussein. During the U.S. invasion, he distinguished himself by engaging in several actions against Shiites and Christians (including the taking of the Baghdad Cathedral) and by ushering in an Islamist reign of terror (he presided over an Islamic court which sentenced many Iraqis to be slaughtered in public). After the departure of Paul Bremer III, al-Baghdadi was arrested and incarcerated at Camp Bucca from 2005 to 2009. This period saw the dissolution of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, whose fighters merged into a group of tribal resistance, the Islamic Emirate of Iraq.

On 16 May 2010, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was named emir of the IEI, which was in the process of disintegration. After the departure of U.S. troops, he staged operations against the government al-Maliki, accused of being at the service of Iran. In 2013, after vowing allegiance to Al-Qaeda, he took off with his group to continue the jihad in Syria, rebaptizing it Islamic Emirate of Iraq and the Levant. In doing so, he challenged the privileges that Ayman al-Zawahiri had previously granted, on behalf of Al-Qaeda, to the Al-Nusra Front in Syria, which was originally nothing more than an extension of the ISI.

Note that at no time was Baghdadi a “moderate rebel” in any context. Nor was he ever anything more than a puppet for Western intelligence agencies.

So McCain has met with at least three terrorists and terrorist organizations in Syria. But these groups are by no means the end of the trail of McCain’s treachery or his connection to terrorism. After all, it must be remembered that McCain traveled to Libya during the assault against Ghaddafi in order to meet with terrorists in that country and promote the barbarism which they would ultimately bring. As Tony Cartalucci writes in his article, “John McCain Claims Al-Qaeda Thugs Have ‘Inspired The World,’”

He [McCain] had made an April visit to Benghazi, a city cited along with neighboring Darnah by a 2007 West Point report as the terror recruiting capitals of the world and the primary sources of foreign fighters that made their way to Iraq fighting and killing American troops. These fighters did so under the flag of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), listed to this day by the US State Department as a “foreign terrorist organization.” Despite overwhelming evidence and even admissions from Libyan rebels themselves of having ties to, being members of, or in Tripoli “council leader” Abdul Belhaj’s case, a leader of this listed terrorist organization, McCain would declare he had “met with these brave fighters, and they are not Al-Qaeda. To the contrary: They are Libyan patriots who want to liberate their nation.”

Despite McCain’s reassuring words, the rebels over the next several months would increasingly reveal their true nature to a horrified world as they waged racist genocide against Libya’s darker and black tribes, and conducted their “liberation” against cities resisting them with indiscriminate heavy weapons, blockades designed to literally starve the populations into submission and horrific reprisals once cities fell. While the corporate media did its best to obfuscate these atrocities, when entire cities like Tawarga with its 10,000 residents began disappearing from the map, even the propagandists were forced to acknowledge the “liberators” were less than noble.

It should also be noted that McCain is extremely close to the color revolution apparatus organization, the International Republican Institute, a wing of the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID. In fact, he is the current Chairman of the IRI.

As it currently stands, the fact that some people are more equal than others is clearly proven in the case of John McCain. While any other American would be immediately imprisoned and possibly tortured as a result of their connections to terrorism, John McCain is rewarded with the title of U.S. Senator and the false label of “war hero.”

It is thus important for every American to know that not only is there no such thing as a moderate opposition in Syria but that John McCain is no American hero. If the Americans mentioned in the recent AP report can be investigated, tried, and convicted of providing support for terrorists operating abroad then surely John McCain has earned his day in court.

McCain And The Nazis

Yet another stop on his world tour of destabilization and incitement to war crimes was Kiev, where McCain was photographed standing next to neo-Nazi Oleh Tyahnybok, the leader of the nationalist and neo-nazi Svoboda party.

As Tony Cartalucci reported in his article “US Sponsored Democracy: A Tale of Two Protests. Ukraine and Thailand,”

Along with other racist, bigoted, extremist political parties including “Fatherland,” Svoboda has filled the streets, clashed with police, occupied government buildings and called for the overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine – for the sake of joining the European Union. The EU, for its part, awaits these mobs with open arms.

Joining the EU in anticipation is US Senator John McCain of the US National Endowment for Democracy’s (NED) International Republican Institute. McCain went as far as traveling to Kiev, Ukraine, and even taking to the stage at the protest – side-by-side with Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok.

Of Svoboda, the Business Insider would have this to say in their article titled, “John McCain Went To Ukraine And Stood On Stage With A Man Accused Of Being An Anti-Semitic Neo-Nazi:”

…Svoboda (which means freedom in Ukrainian) is one of those reconstructed modern European far right parties — it is aligned with the British National Party and the French National Front, for example — and it has gained some kind of electoral legitimacy, winning 10 percent of the seats in Ukraine’s parliament in 2010.

However, the party’s past is seriously murky. When it was founded in 1995, the party called itself the Social-National Party of Ukraine (SNPU), and it had a swastika-like logo. While it eventually split from its more right wing members, the party remained focused on celebrating Ukrainian ethnic identity in opposition to Russia and Communism.

Tyahnybok himself was expelled from the Our Ukraine parliamentary faction in 2004 after giving a speech demanding that Ukrainians fight against a ”Muscovite-Jewish mafia” (he later clarified this by saying that he actually had Jewish friends and was only against to “a group of Jewish oligarchs who control Ukraine and against Jewish-Bolsheviks [in the past]“). In 2005 he wrote open letters demanding Ukraine do more to halt “criminal activities” of “organized Jewry,” and, even now, Svoboda openly calls for Ukrainian citizens to have their ethnicity printed onto their passports.

One could scarcely imagine what justification John McCain could give for associating with literal Nazis. But one will have to be satisfied with only imagining, since the Western media, charged with seeking the truth, has not raised this question let alone answered it. Even the Business Insider attempts to give McCain the benefit of the doubt in order to allow the protests to continue and to allow the US, UK, and EU to continue openly supporting them.

Conclusion

The fact that John McCain is represented as an expert or, even worse, a hero by any mainstream media outlet is a slap in the face to all basic common sense. The facts surrounding this man show him placing American service men and women in harm’s way on almost innumerable occasions while simultaneously working to stab them in the back by ensuring that those who are missing in action are forgotten or even working closely with the individuals and organizations who are supposedly the enemy of the United States.

This is of no concern to McCain of course, who, like his friend Henry Kissinger, believes that military personnel are just “dumb stupid animals to be used for foreign policy.”

Obviously, GI John is no American hero.

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

There are two new developments on the Syrian front. The Islamic State suddenly changed its tactic and the Turkish President Erdogan again changed his policy course.

In the last 24 hours news announcements about victories against the Islamic state (ISIS) rapidly followed each other:

• The Kurdish U.S. proxy forces in east Syria (SDF) announced that it had reached the northern bank of the Euphrates between Raqqa and Deir Ezzor. This cuts the ISIS communication line between the two cities.
• Turkish forces and their “Syrian rebel” mercenaries have been attacking Al-Bab east of Aleppo for nearly four month. They made little progress and incurred huge losses. Late yesterday they suddenly broke into the city and today took control of it. Various sources claim that a deal was made between the Turkish forces and ISIS for the later to evacuate Al-Bab unharmed and with its personal weapons. It is not yet known what price Turkey paid in that deal.
• South of Al-Bab the Syrian Army is moving further east towards the Euphrates and tookseveral villages from ISIS. The Syrian move is largely designed to cut the roads between the Turkish forces around Al-Bab and the Islamic State forces in Raqqa. (This now might become a race.)
• Further south another Syrian Army group is moving east towards Palmyra.
• In the eastern city of Deir Ezzor the Syrian army garrison is under siege by Islamic State forces. A few weeks ago the situation there looked very dire. But with reinforcements coming in by helicopter and massive Russian air force interdiction the position held out quite well. In recent days the defenders took several hills from a retreating ISIS.
• In Iraq the army, police and the various government militia are pushing towards south Mosul. Today the airport south of the city fell into their hands with little fighting. Like everywhere else ISIS had stopped its resistance and pulled back. Only a few rearguards offered tepid resistance.

While ISIS was under pressure everywhere the sudden retreat on all fronts during the last 24 hours is astonishing and suggest some synchronicity. A central order must have been given to pull back to the buildup areas of Raqqa in Syria and south Mosul in Iraq.

But ISIS has nowhere to go from those areas. Mosul is completely surrounded and Raqqa is mostly cut off. After the massacres they committed everywhere ISIS fighters can not expect any mercy. They have made enemies everywhere and aside from a few (Saudi) radical clerics no friends are left to help them. The recent retreats are thereby likely not signs of surrender. ISIS will continue to fight until it is completely destroyed. But for now the ISIS leaders decided to preserve their forces. One wonders what they plan to stage as their last glorious show. A mass atrocity against the civilians in the cities it occupies?

When in late 2016 the defeat of the “Syrian rebels” proxy forces in east-Aleppo city was foreseeable the Turkish President Erdogan switched from supporting the radicals in north-west Syria to a more lenient stand towards Syria and its allies Russia and Iran. The move followed month of on and off prodding from Russia and after several attempts by Erdogan to get more U.S. support had failed. In late December peace talks started between Syria, Russia, Turkey and Iran with the U.S. and the EU excluded.

But after the Trump administration took over the Turkish position changed again. Erdogan is now back to betting on a stronger U.S. intervention in Syria that would favor his original plans of installing in Syria an Islamic government under Turkish control:

Ankara understands today that Trump is aggressive toward Iran and gave his blessing to Saudi Arabia. Therefore Erdogan is taking a new position: hiding behind Saudi Arabia, mimicking the US hostility towards Iran and, in consequences, declaring himself once more against the Syrian President Bashar Assad.

The new Turkish position was confirmed by Senator John McCain’s visit to the Kurdish YPG and U.S. Special Forces in Kobani. McCain came via Turkey. An earlier visits to the YPK by U.S. special envoy Brett McGurk had been condemned by Ankara. Outside of a wider agreement such McCain’s antics would not be allowed.

The U.S. is allied with the Kurdish YPK in Syria who are blood-brothers of the Kurdish PKK group in Turkey which the Turkish government has been fighting for decades. The YPG fighters are good and reliable light infantry fighters. They work together with U.S. special forces and are well regarded.

Turkey offers to send its own ground troops together with Saudi forces to liberate Raqqa from ISIS. <snark>The expertise the Saudi military shows in Yemen combined with the Turkish military prowess in its “Euphrates Shield” operation in Syria will surely will be welcome by the U.S. military. </snark>

But there are bigger strategic issues at stake and some agreement between the U.S., Turkey and the Saudis has been found (adopted machine translation):

[T]he sudden transformation of the Turkish position occurred after a lengthy conversation conducted with the US president, Donald Trump, and the visit by the head of the U.S. intelligence agency (CIA). A re-shuffling of the cards took place which induced another turn in Ankara on the Syrian file.
…
The new U.S.-Turkish understandings that fixed the bridge between President Erdogan and the old U.S. ally is based on the escalation of hostility to Iran and the (re-)establishment of a “Sunni axis” led by the Turkish president. It includes the establishment of a buffer zone in Syria as a prelude to a partitioning [of Syria] scenario.

This is essentially a fall back to the positions taken by the Obama administration in 2011/12. The lessons learned since will have to be relearned. The signals from the U.S. military now suggest the introduction of additional regular ground troops in support of a U.S. proxy force and an eventual U.S. protected enclave in east-Syria. The YPK is the only reliable proxy force available to the U.S. and it needs heavier weapon support to take on Raqqa. But U.S. boots on ground in the Middle East have never been a solution. They are a guarantee of extended fighting and eventual failure.

The strategic view is contradictory. The U.S. wants to fight the Sunni radical forces that Saudi Arabia grows and pampers. Even while ISIS gets diminished new such forces are already growing in Iraq. Any anti-radical strategy that builds on cooperation with the Saudis will fail.

It is impossible to get Turkey and the YPK/PKK to fight on one side – McCain visit or not. The U.S. would loose its only reliable proxy force in Syria should it make common cause with Erdogan in the fight about Raqqa. Any anti-Kurdish Turkish-U.S. controlled “safe zone” in north Syria will come under fire from all other sides on the ground. Any U.S. base in Syria will be the target of various regular and irregular forces. In the long term the new plans are doomed and Erdogan’s latest u-turn is unlikely to be rewarded.

But until then we can expect more bloodshed and more fighting in Syria. As Eljah Magnier comments:

The US policy in Syria seems frantic and far-fetched without efficient powerful allies on the ground, and is unable to retake cities from ISIS with its Kurdish proxies alone. And the “honeymoon” between Washington and Riyadh will certainly have a substantial negative effect on the war in Syria. This will increase the closeness between Russia and Iran, but the tension between US and Russia is also expected to increase: one side (the US) wants partition and the other (Russia) wants a unified Syria without al-Qaida and ISIS, and without Turkey occupying the north of Syria and a Saudi Arabia return to the Bilad al-Sham. At this stage, it is difficult to speculate on what this clash of incompatible objectives will produce on the ground in Syria.

El presidente estadunidense, Donald Trump, insistió ayer en la idea de aumentar el arsenal nuclear de su país porque debe garantizarse que sea el mejor de todos y porque, según él, Washington se ha quedado rezagado en el desarrollo de armas atómicas. Asimismo, el magnate republicano se quejó por los avances logrados por Rusia en esta clase de armamento. Se dijo muy molesto por los ensayos de misiles que lleva a cabo Corea del Norte y responsabilizó a Pekín por el armamentismo atómico de Pyongyang porque, a su juicio, China no ha ejercido sobre su vecina la suficiente presión para disuadirla de su belicosidad.

“Nosotros también queremos que ustedes entiendan que esta es la comida de nosotros”, le decía hace unos meses Maydany Salcedo, líder campesina de Piamonte en la Baja Bota Caucana, a un soldado colombiano que junto con su tropa, armada de fusiles y machetes, había entrado a sus fincas y estaban cortando las matas de coca.

Alrededor de los arrumes de las matas cortadas hacían un círculo treinta campesinos y campesinas, tomados de la mano, buscando impedir que esto ocurriera, lo que ahora se denomina un cerco humanitario. Un disparo rompió la tensa calma que soportaban ya hace días los pobladores de la región cuando llegaron las tropas a ocupar la escuela veredal, “¡arranquen eso!¡arranquen eso ya!” gritó el sargento al mando.

Hace un par de semanas, 8 campesinos, entre ellos un menor de edad, fueron arrestados por soldados en área rural del Caquetá[1], y trasladados en helicóptero a la capital donde los acusaron de “plantación y conservación de cultivos ilícitos” y aunque al otro día el juez los puso en libertad, el hostigamiento a las comunidades persistió. Al siguiente día en dos lugares diferentes de ese mismo departamento -como se les llama a los estados en Colombia-, policías antinarcóticos erradicaron aún cuando el encargado de la policía en una reunión con concejales prometió que la orden del gobierno nacional era suspender el operativo en la región. El doble cara del gobierno le da más fuerza al secreto a voces que expresa el concejal local Federico Alviz “es que nosotros ya no creemos tanta cosa que el gobierno dice”[2].

En el norte del país, ya empezaron a ser asesinados líderes cocaleros. José Yimer Cartagena defendía el proceso de sustitución de hoja de coca, tenía 30 años y era vicepresidente de la Asociación Campesina para el Desarrollo del Alto Sinú. Fue encontrado con señales de tortura. Nueve días después, Hernán Enrique Agamez Flórez, líder de Asociación de Campesinos del Sur de Córdoba fue asesinado y  también trabajaba en la preparación para la implementación de lo pactado sobre sustitución de cultivos. El temor es que mientras se desarticula el orden guerrillero sobre grandes territorios rurales entre ellos cocaleros, otros actores están ocupando su lugar. El Clan del Golfo en el sur del Córdoba y Bajo Cauca es un ejemplo de estos nuevos actores y sus dinámicas que están ofreciendo pagar muy por encima el precio tradicional del kilo de pasta base, un precio pos-conflicto[3].  Uno de los peores escenarios es que carteles mexicanos entren a operar directamente ahí.

Tres ejemplos de persecución, hostilidad y muerte en medio de la firma del Acuerdo de Paz entre las FARC y el estado colombiano que se están multiplicando por todo el país ¿Qué ocurre en Colombia?¿No que estamos construyendo la paz? ¿Cuál es este nudo en el tejido de la paz? A continuación algunos apuntes para comprender este contexto y los retos de la materialización de un nuevo país en paz, por lo menos en términos de los cultivos de uso ilícito.

El Informe Mundial de Drogas del 2016 muestra que el mercado del consumo de cocaína global va disminuyendo. La prevalencia anual del consumo de cocaína se ha mantenido entre un 0.3% y 0.4% en una población entre 15 y 64 años de edad y cayó la disponibilidad por la reducción de los cultivos de coca. La fabricación de cocaína se mantuvo por debajo del máximo alcanzado en el 2007, llegando a niveles de finales de la década de 1990 (UNODC, 2016)[4].

No obstante, mientras la cocaína en el mundo pierde mercado y atención, las alarmas está en rojo en Colombia. Desde el 2012 aumentaron las áreas cultivadas de coca; solo entre el 2014 y 2015 las hectáreas subieron en un 39%. A pesar de que esto no parece afectar el mercado global, la presión de la embajada estadounidense se ha activado desde el año pasado y la oposición uribista encontró un caballito de batalla política dada la suspensión del uso del glifosato por parte del gobierno de Santos en mayo del 2015 denunciando una traición a la “lucha contra el narcotráfico” y una rendición inaceptable a las FARC[5].

En este periodo también se redactó el punto 4 de los Acuerdos de La Habana denominado “solución al problema de las drogas ilícitas” que tiene tres ejes primordiales: el de los cultivos de uso ilícito, el tratamiento integral al problema del consumo desde la perspectiva de la salud pública, y el ataque al crimen organizado y el lavado de dinero[6]. El primer eje plantea la política del tratamiento penal diferenciado al pequeño cultivador y la construcción de planes de sustitución territoriales con asambleas de cocaleros y cocaleras que entrarían en negociación con el gobierno para determinar los planes de sustitución gradual y concertados[7]. No todo en el acuerdo es color de rosa y he ahí uno de los nudos: si los campesinos no muestran voluntad de sustituir, el estado colombiano puede hacer uso de la erradicación forzada, aún con glifosato.

Otras dos tensiones serias se vienen tejiendo paralelamente a la formulación de los acuerdos. A finales del 2015, Santos lanzó la Estrategia Integral de Sustitución de Cultivos Ilícitos, un reencauche burdo de programas que obligan al campesino a cortar todas las matas para acceder a transferencias económicas temporales. Ante el incremento de cultivos y con la necesidad de mostrar resultados, buscan a las malas destruir 100 mil hectáreas por medio de la famosa zanahoria y garrote  sin escuchar a las comunidades, en contravía directa de lo pactado en La Habana sobre la gradualidad y el consenso. La segunda es que el Ministerio de Defensa Nacional a través de la Resolución 3080 del 2016 adoptó una estrategia de lucha contra el narcotráfico en el sector defensa reforzando las viejas estrategias de interdicción y hostilidad sobre los pequeños cultivadores[8].

Enfrentando la eterna esquizofrenia del estado colombiano, esa que Bourdieu y Wacquant plantean como el Estado Centauro, la conjunción de un ala penal y el ala paternalista (Wacquant, L. 2010; Bourdieu, 1997), los campesinos y campesinas cultivadoras y recolectoras se empezaron a organizar para exigir un proceso concertado y gradual. Después de 20 años de la última marcha campesina cocalera en el país, que fue calladamente reprimida con el asesinato de la mayoría de sus líderes y el incumplimiento del estado colombiano de lo pactado, se vuelven a encontrar en el relanzamiento de la Coordinadora de Organizaciones de Cultivadores de Coca, Amapola y Marihuana (COCCAM)[9], de inmediato estigmatizada por Eduardo Díaz, director de la Agencia para la Sustitución de Cultivos Ilícitos, como una organización que quiere “obstaculizar el proceso”.

El panorama se hace mucho más complejo cuando queda en evidencia una de las falacias que el estado colombiano ha defendido a capa y espada: las FARC son una narco guerrilla y una orden de la guerrilla podría acabar con los cultivos de coca pues el asunto es más complejo. Un día antes del relanzamiento de la COCCAM, hubo un comunicado común tanto de la guerrilla como del Ministerio del Posconflicto[10] dando el primer paso al plan de sustitución voluntaria de cultivos de uso ilícito por medio de apoyos económicos y creando el Consejo de Dirección del Programa Nacional Integral de Sustitución (PNIS) con cinco asientos para las comunidades. Este fue recibido con desconfianza por los y las líderes cocaleras que no creen en subsidios ni transferencias sino en inversión social integral y no van a erradicar por órdenes de la guerrilla. Por estas sillas, inicia también una pugna partidista[11].

Lo cierto es que a lo largo del país se ha desplegado fuerza militar y policiva arrestando campesinos y destruyendo matas, en contravía de lo acordado en La Habana y provocando ruido en un proceso de implementación de los acuerdos que va lentamente. Las comunidades han expresado abiertamente su interés y compromiso total en la sustitución pero de manera gradual y buscando amarrar lo más posible que el gobierno cumpla lo prometido, después de décadas de desconfianza e incumplimiento estatal y ante unas condiciones del campo críticas.

El estado colombiano tiene la cara de los acuerdos de paz pero mantiene a la fuerza la ejecución de la erradicación forzada. Urge transgredir los eternos lugares comunes y presupuestos falsos de treinta años de “la guerra contra las drogas” en Colombia; la cuestión acá es de hambre y de dignidad, de concertación. Si se está construyendo una paz estable y duradera, esta es la oportunidad para crear soluciones que corresponden menos al trillado discurso del “problema de las drogas ilícitas” y más a la dignidad y bienestar de los hombres y mujeres del campo colombiano.

Estefanía Ciro Rodríguez

Estefanía Ciro Rodríguez: Economista, historiadora y socióloga especializada en políticas de control de drogas, comunidades rurales y Amazonia colombiana. También se desempeña como investigadora de AlaOrilladelRío (www.alaorilladelrio.com).  

 Referencia bibliográficas:

Wacquant, L. 2010. Castigar a los pobres: el gobierno neoliberal de la inseguridad social. Gedisa.

Bourdieu, P. 1996. “Espíritus del Estado” en Revista Sociedad No. 8., UBA Facultad de Ciencias Sociales Buenos Aires, pp. 5.29.

Notas:

La guerra del “estado profundo” contra el presidente de los Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, se agudizará en las próximas semanas, para evitar que se consolide en el cargo. (El “estado profundo” tiene su cara visible en el complejo militar, financiero, industrial y mediático que es conocido como el “establishment” y que tiene más poder que el Presidente estadounidense en turno) 

Los siguientes pasos de la campaña de desprestigio contra Trump tendrán que ver con un tema que, desde finales de la II Guerra Mundial, ha angustiado a los norteamericanos: un posible ataque nuclear contra su país.

Flynn y el miedo nuclear 

Uno de los hombres más cercanos al entonces candidato presidencial republicano Donald Trump, fue el general Michael Flynn, hombre que escaló altas posiciones en el Ejército de los Estados Unidos, a pesar de no ser egresado de la academia de West Point, de donde salen, por lo general, los mandos militares más importantes de su país. Flynn se graduó en la Universidad de Rhode Island.

Flynn, sin embargo, escaló tanto que fue nombrado (2012) director de la Agencia de Inteligencia de la Defensa, es decir, de la principal instancia de espionaje extranjero del Pentágono. Duró en el cargo dos años debido a su postura radical contra el terrorismo islámico (el mismo que, por cierto, el papa Francisco dice que no existe).

Durante la pasada campaña electoral en EEUU, Flynn fue el principal asesor de Seguridad Nacional del candidato republicano, Donald Trump.

Flynn asumió una abierta postura en contra del Estado Islámico (ISIS). En alguna ocasión, tuiteó que después de la liberación de Mosul, el ISIS podría atacar a los Estados Unidos. Para él, el Estado Islámico es una amenaza global, criterio que comparte el nuevo jefe de la Casa Blanca.

En lo doméstico, se pronunció de manera abierta porque la candidata demócrata Hillary Clinton fuera llevada a prisión, por haber subido información confidencial a una cuenta de correo electrónico no oficial.

El general Flynn fue nombrado asesor de Seguridad Nacional por el presidente Trump, pero su estancia en el cargo fue muy breve, porque renunció el 14 de febrero pasado. Y no lo hizo por su “islamofobia”, o por haber pedido -alguna vez- que encarcelaran a la señora Clinton, miembro distinguidísimo del “establishment”, sino por haber mentido.

Resulta que sin haber entrado en funciones, habló por teléfono, en diciembre pasado, con el embajador ruso en Washington, Sergey Kislyak y discutió con él la manera de atemperar el impacto de las sanciones impuestas a Moscú por el todavía presidente, Barack Obama, a raíz la recuperación rusa de Crimea.

Esa conversación fue grabada y filtrada a uno de los medios más importantes del “estado profundo” y de su estructura visible, el “establishment”: el  Washington Post.

La periodista Claudia Cinatti nos da un dato muy revelador:

Detrás del escándalo Flynn se transparenta la mano negra de las fracciones del “estado profundo”. Flynn fue director de inteligencia militar en el último mandato de Obama, entre 2012 y 2014. En 2013, ese departamento presentó junto con el jefe del estado mayor, el General M. Dempsey, un informe sobre Siria que cuestionaba la línea oficial de Obama que planteaba como condición para cualquier negociación la caída del régimen de Assad. Para este fin, como Estados Unidos no estaba dispuesto a comprometer tropas, la vía era “armar a los rebeldes moderados”, una política llevada adelante como operación encubierta por parte de la CIA, en acuerdo con aliados norteamericanos como Catar, Arabia Saudita y Turquía.

Según la inteligencia militar, de la que Flynn era el jefe, no había tal cosa como “rebeldes moderados” por lo que el resultado de la política llevaba directamente a un escenario similar al de Libia y la caída de Kadaffi, que como es conocido derivó en un estado fallido disputado por fracciones islamistas, disputa que se llevó puesto nada menos que a un embajador norteamericano.”

Sin embargo, a juicio de Cinatti, Flynn no fue cesado por eso, como director de la agencia de inteligencia del Ejército de los Estados Unidos. Sigamos leyendo:

Pero el mayor escándalo no era el enfrentamiento entre el Pentágono por un lado y la CIA y el Departamento de Estado (dirigido por Hillary Clinton en el momento de la guerra de la OTAN en Libia) por otro, sino que, como trascendió luego públicamente, los militares decidieron llevar adelante su propia línea, boicoteando en los hechos la política oficial de Obama y los esfuerzos y negocios de la CIA.

Según el periodista Seymour Hersh, que construyó su legitimidad informando sobre la masacre de My Lai en la guerra de Vietnam, Flynn y el Pentágono admitieron haber compartido de manera indirecta inteligencia militar con Rusia y el régimen de Assad sobre la ubicación de milicias opositoras, ligadas a Al Qaeda y el Estado Islámico.

Finalmente Dempsey pasó a retiro y ocupó su lugar el general J. Dunford que sintonizaba con la línea del gobierno y del departamento de Estado.”

La doctrina que identificaba al terrorismo islámico como la principal amenaza para la seguridad nacional de los Estados Unidos, cambió de pronto, sólo nueve días después del cese de Flynn.

Una nueva guerra fría

En efecto, el presidente Trump declaró el jueves 23 de febrero, a la agencia de noticias británica Reuters -muy vinculada al “establishment”-, que quiere aumentar el arsenal nuclear de Estados Unidos para garantizar que sea “el mejor de todos”, afirmando que el país ha quedado a la zaga en su capacidad de armamento atómico.

El material, firmado por el periodista Steve Holland, consigna que Trump dijo, entre otras cosas, las siguientes: “Sería maravilloso, un sueño sería que ningún país tuviera armas nucleares, pero si los países van a tener armas nucleares, vamos a estar en lo más alto”.

Enseguida, el reportero de Reuters, agrega:

Rusia tiene 7.300 ojivas nucleares y Estados Unidos 6.970, según el Fondo Ploughshares, un grupo antinuclear.

“Rusia y Estados Unidos tienen muchas más armas de las necesarias para impedir un ataque nuclear del otro o de otro país que posea armas nucleares”, dijo Daryl Kimball, director ejecutivo del grupo sin fines de lucro Arms Control Association.

El nuevo Tratado de Reducción de Armas Estratégicas entre Estados Unidos y Rusia, conocido como “New START”, requiere que para el 5 de febrero de 2018 los países reduzcan sus arsenales atómicos y que los mantengan en un mismo nivel por 10 años.

Se tiene el antecedente de que el 22 de diciembre de 2016, el todavía presidente electo, Donald Trump, tuiteó que “EEUU debe fortalecer en gran medida y expandir su capacidad nuclear hasta que el mundo entre en razón en lo que se refiere a las armas atómicas”.

Luego, el 7 de febrero de 2017 -una semana antes de la renuncia de Flynn como asesor de Seguridad Nacional de Trump- el general David Goldfein, jefe de la Fuerza Aérea de los Estados Unidos, anticipó que en primavera, su país podría revisar la doctrina de empleo de armas nucleares.

Conclusión: 

La jugada del “estado profundo” es muy clara: hacer que los estadounidenses se desentiendan del terrorismo islámico y tengan como principal temor el de una guerra nuclear con Rusia.

De esta manera, prepararían el terreno para otro atentado controlado, como el  del 11 de septiembre de 2001, con el que exhibirían la “falta de capacidad de Trump”, a fin de expulsarlo de la Casa Blanca y, por otro lado, reactivarían la Guerra Fría.

Estamos hablando de un negocio redondo, pues ISIS es un engendro del “estado profundo”, que lo sostiene porque le permite intervenir en diversas naciones, además de redituarle ganancias multimillonarias en dólares, por la venta de armas, equipos de seguridad en aeropuertos, sistemas de espionaje, etcétera.

La versión revisada y actualizada de la Guerra Fría dejaría decenas de miles de millones de dólares adicionales al complejo financiero, militar e industrial del “estado profundo” al que, está visto, nada le importa que continúe el reguero de sangre.

Jorge Santa Cruz

Jorge Santa Cruz: Periodista mexicano.

La casi totalidad de los analistas y de la opinión pública consideran a Odebrecht como una gran empresa constructora. Sin embargo, bajo el gobierno de Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (2003-2010) se ha convertido en una pieza clave del complejo militar-industrial brasileño, lo que puede explicar que no siendo la única empresa que utiliza la corrupción para lubricar sus negocios, esté en el ojo del huracán de la investigación judicial Lava-Jato.

Antes de abordar este aspecto, hay que realizar dos consideraciones previas.

La corrupción es el modo natural de operar de las grandes empresas brasileñas, en particular en el sector de la construcción civil que contrata directamente con el Estado, a nivel federal, estadual o municipal. En Brasil no existe financiación estatal de las campañas electorales, papel que juegan las grandes empresas por cuyos aportes disputan los candidatos.

Por cada dólar que invierten en las elecciones, las empresas recogen mucho más en contratos de obras. Esto es algo aceptado y todos en Brasil conocían el modus operandi de los políticos. Un informe sobre las elecciones de 2006, reveló que las empresas recibieron entre 14 y 39 veces el valor donado a los partidos en contratos con el poder público en los años siguientes.

Las grandes empresas privadas brasileñas nacieron bajo el ala del Estado. Se trata grupos familiares que comenzaron con medianos emprendimientos como lo muestran los propios nombres de muchas de ellas: la siderúrgica Gerdau, el frigorífico JBS (fundado por Jose Batista Sobrinho, es la mayor procesadora de carne del mundo) y las constructoras Camargo Correa, Andrade Gutierrez y Odebrecht, entre las más importantes.

Las cosas cambiaron cuando en 2007 Lula firmó la Estrategia Nacional de Defensa (END) que estableció los caminos para potenciar el complejo militar industrial en Sao José dos Campos (estado de Sao Paulo) y las tareas asignadas a las Fuerzas Armadas. En 2008 se rubricó un acuerdo estratégico con Francia para la construcción de cinco submarinos (cuatro convencionales y uno nuclear) incluyendo transferencia de tecnología.

El Programa Nacional de Desarrollo de Submarinos (PROSUB) contemplado en la estrategia de defensa, se propuso adquirir las capacidades necesarias para que la Marina estuviera en condiciones de negar el uso del mar a cualquier país extranjero, con dos tareas centrales: la protección de la Amazonía, estableciendo una segunda base naval en la desembocadura del Amazonas, y la defensa de los yacimientos de petróleo en la plataforma marítima (pre-sal), las mayores reservas encontradas en el mundo en décadas.

Para la construcción de los submarinos se formó la empresa Itaguaí Construcciones Navales, integrada a medias por Odebrecht (que creó un área especializada denominada Odebrecht Defensa y Tecnología) y la francesa semiestatal DCNS con larga experiencia en construcciones navales. La nueva empresa es coordinada directamente por la Marina de Brasil. Los acuerdos incluyen la construcción de un astillero, una base naval y la Unidad de Fabricación de Estructuras Metálicas en la Bahía de Sepetiba, en Río de Janeiro, todas ellas ya finalizadas.

En este momento se están construyendo los cascos de tres submarinos, dos de ellos completamente elaborados en Brasil, y se espera que pronto comience la construcción del submarino nuclear. Con ello el país ingresaría al selecto club de países capaces de fabricar submarinos nucleares, y sería junto a India el único país que no integra el Consejo de Seguridad permanente de la ONU con esa capacidad.

Odebrecht no sólo está a cargo de la construcción de los submarinos, sino que sería la empresa clave en el desarrollo de la Marina, arma que prevé construir 20 submarinos convencionales y seis nucleares hasta 2047, además de otros desarrollos como un portaaviones construido íntegramente en Brasil. En 2011 Odebrecht compró Mectron, empresa brasileña fabricante de misiles aire-aire, misiles anti-navío y anti-tanques, y radares, posicionándose así como la empresa más importante en el área de la defensa.

Especialistas militares no dudan en sospechar que detrás de las denuncias sobre corrupción de Odebrecht existe un interés geopolítico por impedir que Brasil desarrolle sus capacidades de defensa, como lo señala defesaneet.com.br, una de las principales páginas militares del país.

Sin embargo, la reacción más potente de los militares se produjo luego del encarcelamiento del almirante Othon Luiz Pinheiro da Silva, en julio de 2015, considerado el padre del programa nuclear brasileño. El almirante fue acusado de desvío de fondos en la construcción de una central nuclear, pero la publicación Defesanet lo defendió en un editorial por haber impulsado el programa de enriquecimiento de uranio, en particular por su espíritu nacionalista que lo llevó a “enviar sus técnicos, en los años 80 y 90 a Alemania Oriental y la Unión Soviética en busca de conocimientos bloqueados en Occidente”.

Los militares nacionalistas no olvidan que los proyectos de construcción de su defensa nuclear, desde los submarinos hasta el enriquecimiento de uranio, fueron sistemáticamente bloqueados por la derecha brasileña aliada de las potencias occidentales, y en particular de los Estados Unidos. La prisión del almirante Othon, presidente de la estatal Electronuclear, es interpretado por estos militares de modo similar a las denuncias contra Odebrecht: el debilitamiento de sectores estratégicos de la defensa.

Aún sin estar de acuerdo con esta posición de los militares nacionalistas, suena sospechoso que habiendo decenas de empresas involucradas en actos de corrupción, sea Odebrecht la que está en el ojo de la tormenta, la que fue tomada como símbolo de los actos ilegales en toda la región sudamericana. El tiempo y nuevas filtraciones dirán quién maneja los hilos de la operación Lava-Jato. Por ahora lo incuestionable es que el estratégico programa de submarinos sufre importantes retrasos, ya que el primero debía haber sido botado en 2015.

Raúl Zibechi

Raúl Zibechi: Periodista e investigador uruguayo, especialista en movimientos sociales, escribe para Brecha de Uruguay, Gara del País Vasco y La Jornada de México.

Los lazos económicos, políticos y militares que se desarrollan entre Irán, China y Rusia forman lo que yo veo como un emergente triángulo de oro en Eurasia, que busca penetrar en regiones aisladas. Esto sucede mientras que parece que la estrategia geopolítica de EEUU bajo la perspectiva de la administración Trump es el alejamiento de Washington de Irán y China, haciendo así resaltar un posible relajamiento del enfrentamiento entre Washington y Moscú. La geopolítica clásica, al estilo de Halford Mackinder o de Kissinger, buscaba evitar una guerra en dos frentes que estaba a punto de volverse contra un Washington aferrado a su intento de modificar el equilibrio de poder. En la actualidad, la dinámica de una cooperación mas estrecha, iniciada en estos últimos años, entre los tres Estados pivotes del corazón euroasiático, está ganando impulso estratégico. La última señal de ello es la visita del ministro chino de Defensa y de altos responsables rusos a Teherán.

El 15 y 16 de noviembre en Teherán, durante el encuentro de alto nivel entre el ministro chino de Defensa, general Chang Wanquan y el presidente iraní Hassan Ruhani y el ministro de Defensa Hossein Dehghan, los dos principales países euroasiáticos han firmado un acuerdo para mejorar su cooperación militar. El acuerdo prevé la intensificación de la formación militar bilateral y una cooperación mas estrecha respecto a lo que Irán considera cuestiones de seguridad regional, con el terrorismo y Siria a la cabeza de la lista. El Jefe del Estado Mayor de las Fuerzas Armadas iraníes, general Mohammad Hossein Baqeri, ha dicho que Irán está dispuesto a compartir con China su experiencia en la lucha contra los grupos terroristas en Irak y en Siria. Dehghan ha añadido que ese acuerdo representa una “mejora en la cooperación militar y de defensa a largo plazo con China”.

En estas últimas semanas China se ha comprometido directamente, uniéndose a Rusia, con Irán y a la demanda del gobierno del presidente sirio Bashar Al-Assad, en la guerra contra el Califato Islámico y otros grupos terroristas, incluyendo el Frente Al-Qaeda/Al Nusra y sus numerosos asociados. El acuerdo formal con Teherán, que tiene una considerable experiencia práctica en la lucha en Siria, representa claramente una profundización en las relaciones bilaterales entre China e Irán.

Mientras China e Irán se reunían en Teherán, Viktor Ozerov, jefe del Comité de Defensa y Seguridad del Consejo de la Federación Rusa, la cámara alta del Parlamento, también estaba en Teherán. Allí declaró a RIA-Novosti que Rusia e Irán estaban en conversaciones para una venta de armas por un importe de alrededor de 10.000 millones de dólares. Rusia entregaría tanques T-90, sistemas de artillería, aviones y helicópteros a Irán.

En resumen, tenemos una profundización de los vínculos militares de militar entre los tres puntos del triángulo euroasiático emergente. Esto tendrá enormes consecuencias no solo para la estabilización de la situación en Siria, Irak y Medio Oriente. También dará igualmente un impulso a las relaciones económicas emergentes entre las tres grandes potencias del Corazón de Eurasia.

Halford J. Makinder, el padre de la geopolítica británica, ha calificado a menudo a Rusia de potencia del Corazón de Eurasia y hacia el fin de su vida, en un artículo de 1943 en Foreign Affairs sugirió que China podría también jugar el mismo papel geográfico y político que Rusia en esa misma zona en cuestiones energéticas.

Hoy en día, dado el enorme crecimiento desde 1943 de la importancia geopolítica de los países petrolíferos y gasísticos del Golfo Pérsico para la economía mundial, el acercamiento de Irán a China y Rusia está dando forma a una nueva potencia del Corazón de Eurasia.

El elemento añadido desde 2013 es la iniciativa del presidente chino, Xi Jinping, de atravesar el conjunto de Eurasia e incluso del sur de Asia por lo que denomina “Un cinturón, una carretera”. Rusia ha acordado oficialmente colaborar con China en este vasto proyecto de infraestructuras por valor de muchos miles de millones de dólares, para enlazar los mercados emergentes de Asia central a Irán, y potencialmente a Turquía, gracias a una red de trenes de alta velocidad e infraestructuras portuarias conectadas que, de aquí a finales de esta década, comenzarán a transformar el valor económico de toda Eurasia.

El comercio China-Irán

A pesar de las duras sanciones de EEUU y la UE contra Irán, el comercio chino-iraní había comenzado a aumentar aún antes de que el acuerdo nuclear de 2015 levantara algunas sanciones. El comercio bilateral ha pasado de 400 millones de dólares en 1989 a cerca de 52.000 millones en 2014. La Cámara de Comercio e Industria Irán-China ha pasado de 65 miembros en 2001 a 6.000, lo que indica la intensidad de la cooperación económica.

Con el levantamiento de las sanciones en enero de 2016, el presidente chino Xi Jinping fue a Teherán, en donde los dos países han firmado importantes acuerdos económicos. Tras las conversaciones del 23 de enero, el presidente iraní Rouhani anunció que “Irán y China han acordado aumentar sus intercambios comerciales hasta los 600.000 millones de dólares durante los 10 próximos años”, añadiendo que ambos países “han convenido establecer relaciones estratégicas como, refleja un completo documento de prospectiva de los próximos 25 años”. Por otra parte, Irán ha aceptado la cooperación en el campo de la energía nuclear y ha participado oficialmente en la conferencia auspiciada por China “Un cinturón, una carretera”, proyecto al que Rusia y los países de la Unión Económica Euroasiática habían aceptado ya formalmente unirse en 2015.

Irán: nexo clave

El proyecto chino “Un cinturón, una carretera”, a veces también denominado la Nueva Ruta de la Seda Económica, es un brillante proyecto geopolítico, económico, militar y cultural. Permitirá a los países miembros estar mucho más protegidos contra el poder naval de los EEUU, que puede bloquear el comercio marítimo de mercancías vitales procedentes de Europa o de Medio Oriente, y que deben atravesar el estrecho de Malaca, patrullado por EEUU. En tanto que Washington y Bruselas imponen sanciones económicas al comercio ruso con Europa, la crisis ucraniana ha obligado a Rusia a un serio “giro hacia el este”, en particular hacia China.

Lo que ha surgido después del golpe de Estado ucraniano de 2014 impulsado por EEUU para enfrentarse a Rusia es una cooperación estratégica entre las tres grandes potencias, Irán, China y Rusia; exactamente lo que Zbigniew Brezezinski describía en su libro de 1997 “El gran tablero de ajedrez”, como representación del mayor desafío geopolítico al que deberá enfrentarse la supremacía excepcionalista estadounidense, tras la destrucción de la Unión Soviética por parte de Washington entre 1989 y 1991.

Brezezinski declaraba entonces que “la manera en que Estados Unidos gestione Eurasia es crítica. Una potencia que domine Eurasia controlaría dos de las tres regiones más avanzadas y económicamente productivas del mundo. Una simple mirada al mapa sugiere también que el control sobre Eurasia supondría casi automáticamente la subordinación de África, haciendo el hemisferio occidental y Oceanía (Australia) geopolíticamente periféricos al continente central del mundo. Alrededor del 75% de la población mundial vive en Eurasia, y la mayor parte de la riqueza física mundial está también allí, tanto en sus empresas como bajo su suelo. Eurasia representa alrededor de las tres cuartas partes de los recursos energéticos mundiales conocidos”.

Irán es estratégico para la cohesión euroasiática, en el marco de los avances de la infraestructura “Un cinturón, una carretera” china. No solamente es China un importante comprador de petróleo iraní, sino su mayor exportador. Irán es igualmente vital para el proyecto chino de crear centros manufactureros y logísticos totalmente nuevos o nudos estratégicos en Asia central y en Europa. Y, como señala el consultor estratégico indio Debalina Ghoshal, China “tiene un vivo interés por la situación geoestratégica de Irán, bordeando a la vez el Mar Caspio y el Golfo Pérsico. El emplazamiento permite China realizar su proyecto ‘Un cinturón, una carretera’”.

Irán está ligado ya en parte a una sección completada recientemente de este proyecto, en China. Desde el comienzo de 2015, el transporte ferroviario ha comenzado a circular por las nuevas vías entre Zhanaozen-Gyzylgaya-Bereket-Kyzyl Atrek-Gorgan, terminado en diciembre de 2014, en un impresionante período de apenas cinco años de trabajo.

Esta línea ferroviaria une Irán con China a través de Turkmenistán y Kazajstán, miembro fundador del proyecto desde que Xi Jinping lo inauguró durante una visita en 2013. La nueva unión ferroviaria, conocida bajo el nombre de Transnational Rail Corridor, une Irán al Kazajstán a través del Turkmenistán y a la frontera con China. La nueva línea de tren se extiende sobre 908 kilómetros, arrancando de Uzen en el Kazajstán (120 Km.) pasando por Gyzylgaya-Bereket-Etrek, en el Turkmenistán (700 kilómetros) y finalizando en Goran (Irán), (88 Km.). Gracias a este nuevo enlace ferroviario, el tráfico de mercancías pasa del camión al rail, porque la línea une todos los puertos y terminales claves de toda la región del Mar Caspio.

El ferrocarril entre Uzen y Gorgan, recientemente terminado dentro del marco del proyecto “Un cinturón, una carretera” transforma la importancia económica de una parte entera de Asia central. Transformará toda la importancia económica de esa vasta región. Bereket, en el Turkmenistán, en el centro de la existente línea Trans-Caspio, que une Turkmenbashi en el Mar Caspio con Uzbekistán, Kazajstán oriental y China, se convertirá en sede un gran centro de mantenimiento de locomotoras, con una terminal ultramoderna que hará de ello un importante centro de transporte de mercancías.

Además, el gobierno turkmeno está construyendo un gran puerto en Turkmenbashi que permitiría nuevos enlaces comerciales potentes con la Federación Rusa, por vía marítima. El enlace ferroviario a Gorgan en Irán está ya conectado con la red ferroviaria nacional iraní y permitirá así el transporte ferroviario entre China, Asia Central y el Golfo Pérsico. La ruta se acorta en 400 kilómetros, y reduce el tiempo de transporte más o menos a la mitad, pasando de los actuales 45-60 días a unos 25-30. Es un enorme avance económico.

Desde abril de este año, Moscú y Teherán se han comprometido en discusiones sobre la construcción de un canal marítimo que una el Mar Caspio con el Golfo Pérsico a través de Irán. Rusia Azerbaiyán e Irán también han aceptado acelerar las conversaciones sobre un corredor de transporte Norte-Sur, que en parte iría a lo largo de la costa occidental del Mar Caspio desde Rusia hacia Irán, a través de Azerbaiyán. Ese corredor Norte-Sur, una vez terminado, reducirá el tiempo de transporte desde India a Asia Central y Rusia, ahora de unos 40 días para unir Mumbai, en la India, con Moscú, en 14 días, sin pasar por el congestionado y costoso Canal de Suez.

Por todos los puntos que recorramos en Eurasia, desde el Golfo Pérsico y el Mar Caspio a Rusia, a Kazajstán, a Turkmenistán y a China, se desarrolla un proceso en curso, por primera vez desde la época de la original Ruta de la Seda, hace mas de dos mil años. Se construye un nuevo espacio económico, el Corazón de Eurasia. Si el gobierno turco se une sin reservas a este proyecto, el potencial de una transformación euroasiática sería enorme. Queda por ver lo que los Estados Unidos, bajo la presidencia de Trump, hagan o no hagan para intentar destruir este bello edificio euroasiático. Si es tan sabio como sus promesas, tendrá que reconocer que este tipo de desarrollo es el único porvenir para los Estados Unidos que no supone quiebra, depresión económica o guerras de destrucción. De cualquier forma, y cada vez más, el resto del mundo parece decidido a avanzar sin la “única superpotencia”.

F. William Engdahl

F. William Engdahl: Consultor de riesgo estratégico y conferenciante, licenciado en política por la Universidad de Princeton.

Artículo original en inglés:

The Iran-Russia-China Strategic Triangle, publicado el 21 de noviembre de 2016.

Traducido para el CEPRID por María Valdés.

Global Research Editor’s Note:

The ISIS is an instrument of US intelligence. it is not an autonomous force.

The Combat UAV drones analyzed in this report were supplied to the ISIS by the Western military alliance and its Gulf partners.

The US is not waging a war against the ISIS, which is integrated by US and allied special forces and intelligence.

The ultimate objective of US-NATO is the destruction of Mosul under a fake counter-terrorism mandate.

Covert support has been channelled to the ISIS. The hidden agenda is the destruction of Iraq as a nation state.

Western media reports point to the “Liberation of Mosul” and the defeat of the ISIS without mentioning that the occupation of Mosul in 2014 by the ISIS was facilitated by US Forces.

A similar operation allegedly against the ISIS is being waged in Raqqa, Northern Syria.

Michel Chossudovsky, February  24, 2017

*        *        *

Iraqi military for the first time officially admitted their losses from bombing, carried out by small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), used by ISIS.

The casualties were suffered during incidents in eastern and southern Mosul on February 21. As the Daily Sabah newspaper reported, citing Brigadier General Abdul-Mahdi al-Ameri, an ISIS UAV “fired a missile” and killed two secondary school students in the district of Karaj Al-Shamal. Separately, three Iraqi servicemen were killed by a grenade, dropped from a quadrocopter in Furqan district, while two other soldiers lost their lives in the historical part of the city (the eastern part of Nineveh), and two others – in Al-Nour district.

In total, according only to the Iraqi government’s reports, 9 people were killed in attacks by UAVs. At the same time, ISIS claims that at least 30 Iraqi servicemen were killed as the result of dropping of various bombs from UAVs.

ISIS has been massively using various UAVs for the reconnaissance and correcting of artillery fire since 2014. However, since the end of 2015, the group has started to use its UAVs for aerial attacks. The compact Mosul battlespace allows to ignore problems with a lack of range of the used commercial UAVs. The fact that the city is separated by the Tigris also increases the role of UAVs in reconnaissance and ammunition supplies.

ISIS members launch UAVs from roofs of civilian buildings which allow, in general, avoiding artillery and aerial strikes from US-led coalition and Iraqi forces.

Warplanes are ineffective against small UAVs and Iraqi forces deployed to Mosul don’t have means of electronic warfare to ping and mute ISIS UAVs. While this problem is not solved, ISIS UAVs will pose a threat to Iraqi and US-led coalition military personnel on the ground and to play an important role on the Mosul battlespace.

ISIS is actively promoting its UAV attacks inits  own media outlets, de-facto encouraging the terrorist group’s supporters to use UAVs for terrorist attacks in Europe and across the world.

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

Among his many other achievements, Fidel’s accomplishments as the constructor of the new Cuban society include:

overthrowing capitalism in favour of socialism and its related principles of equality and solidarity;

defeating U.S. neo-colonialist domination to attain sovereignty,

independence and dignity;

upholding human rights in the areas of health, education, culture and sport; respecting racial equality, gender equality, food and housing for all;

and defending freedom of speech and the press, the latter being one of the domains in which Fidel’s example still has much to teach us, and creating a civilized social/political atmosphere without violence.

The basis of these exploits, which did not exist before 1959, is the political power of the people resulting from the Revolution that quashed the U.S.-backed state.

Arnold August

As early as 1953, the conquest of a new revolutionary people’s power was at the forefront of Fidel’s mind. This unshakeable goal was combined with the spirit of self-sacrifice that characterized his entire political life. Through defeats and victories from 1953 to 1956 until 1959, his every thought and action were inspired by this overriding guiding objective. It was indelibly combined with key creative tactics that were designed to convert the aspiration to conquer people’s power through armed revolution into a reality. This was the focus of Fidel’s passion.

The current new society bequeathed to the Cuban people finds its origins in the liberated areas during the wars of 1868 and 1895, the latter reaching new levels of organization under the leadership of the Revolutionary Party of Cuba and José Martí. Thus, the seeds of new political power were sowed in the second half of the 19th century, to be resuscitated and updated by Fidel in compliance with the new conditions. Local political power forged in the Sierra Maestra’s liberated areas in 1957–58 was embedded as a virtual state within the neo-colonial dominated state. The July 26 Movement and the Rebel Army were founded and developed by Fidel and his comrades. They grew as the seeds of the Communist Party of Cuba and the Armed Forces respectively. These institutions constitute two ramparts in the maintenance and development of the people’s power, in combination with Cuba’s socialist culture as the shield.

In the course of this epic victorious march and in the ensuing decades, Fidel contributed toward a new feature of the culture of enacting politics within the Cuban Revolution. He was a communicator par excellence, a key component to conquer and improve political power. Thus, his thought and action, among other aspects of his legacy, constitute a new culture of communication between the leader and his people. Let’s look at five examples of how Fidel’s culture of enacting politics was fuelled by the new culture of communication, both of which mutually propelled each other.

First, there was the 1953 writing and distribution of History Will Absolve Me. One may ask how it is possible to speak of the communication talents of a leader representing the people’s quest for political power, when he was imprisoned in solitary confinement, far from the masses. However, despite these extreme restrictions, he managed to communicate secretly with other jailed combatants, with some inmates serving time for common crimes and even with guards and prison employees. Before and after his defence, this was his extremely limited world.

Despite being limited to this underground communication system only and combined with the few books he was able to muster, he prepared his defence by memory. It was reported that he wrote and edited in his cell day and night, committing every word to memory until the moment he was brought to court. Only a person entirely devoted to solving Cuba’s problems through a revolution to open the path for people’s power could have maximized such scant communication tools at his disposal.

After delivering his defence from memory, he returned to his cell to find that his written statement had vanished. He set about rewriting it from memory. With close clandestine connections inside and outside the prison walls, he further expanded his communication with the people. Fidel smuggled out his defence piece by piece, using ingenious methods, such as using lemon juice for invisible ink to write on tiny bits of paper. By the time they reached their destination in Havana, the papers inscribed with invisible ink passed through prison security, but, as planned, they then dried up and could be read in Havana.

In Havana,  Melba Hernández and Haydee Santamaria, the two women who had participated in the Moncada attack, were among a handful of people in charge of assembling the pieces of paper like a jigsaw puzzle and then printing the text in pamphlet form. Fidel initially instructed his limited world, consisting mainly of these two women, to produce 100,000 copies of his defence. He wrote to Melba and Haydee on June 18, 1954: “Without propaganda there is no mass movement, and without a mass movement, no revolution is possible.” Fidel was no doubt inspired by this interaction with his two comrades, who once again, like in Moncada, were putting their lives on the line under the Batista dictatorship. They themselves, in turn, were galvanized by Fidel’s thinking and heroic resistance in prison. And thus the lemons growing from Cuba’s fertile soil returned to fertilize the revolutionary movement through Fidel’s makeshift pen.

A second illustration is Fidel’s unique communication skill in defending people’s power. On January 8, 1959, this time in front of an immense crowd in Havana, in contrast to the extreme limitations of his solitary cell, Fidel said, “There is immense joy. However, there is still much to be done. Let us not fool ourselves into believing that the future will be easy; perhaps everything will be more difficult in the future.” No doubt the leader was inspired by the jubilant people. However, he was also making use of his unparalleled perspicacity in front of overjoyed supporters, realizing that he had to convey to them, and the national TV audience, caution and vigilance for the coming months and years. Fidel and the people converged into one political and ideological entity by means of his dexterity to communicate. It is difficult to say whether that classic statement spontaneously emerged out of the Havana political atmosphere of the time, given his extraordinary gift to feel the pulse of his people, or whether Fidel had already thought it through. In any case, he said what had to be said.

Either way, there are many other memorable moments in which his communication was indeed spontaneous, leaving in its wake a permanent imprint on the Cuban political landscape. This brings us to our third illustration, which occurred on September 28, 1960, where Fidel spoke in Havana in front of a mass gathering. The transcript reads the way many Cubans still remember it today, either through their own participation or by that unequalled Cuban revolutionary collective memory, through family and friends. I quote from the transcript this first portion in parentheses:

“(Sounds of the explosion of a firecracker) Fidel says, ‘A bomb?’ (People shouting: ‘Block them! We will win!’) (People sing the national anthem and shout, ‘¡Viva Cuba! ¡Viva la Revolución!’)”

The transcript continues:

(Someone from the public speaks with Dr. Castro) (Sounds of a second explosion)

Fidel goes on:

… Do not underestimate the imperialist enemy.

Out of this dramatic U.S.-backed threat in the heart of Havana, the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution (CDRs) spontaneously emerged in the neighbourhoods and then further developed with the assistance of the Cuban revolutionary leadership. The need for this new type of mass organization was one of life and death for the Cuban Revolution. At the time, in 1961, their formation proved to be indispensable in defending Cuba against U.S.-supported and financed incursions and terrorist acts designed to subvert revolutionary political power. The CDRs, a fruit of the Fidel-and-the-people dynamic, also contributed substantially to governing at the national and local levels, especially from 1959 to 1976, when the political system was institutionalized and the new Constitution approved. The CDRs continued its work after 1976 in many other ways.

In sum, Che captured the essence of this unsurpassed leader-and-people communication. The guerrilla wrote, “At the big public mass meetings, one can observe something like the dialogue of two tuning forks whose vibrations interact, producing new ones in the speaker.”

The fourth illustration draws on a presentation by Fidel on November 25, 2005 to students and professors at the University of Havana on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of his entry there as student. While a student at the University, Fidel dealt in detail with problems confronting Cuba, such as the need to save electricity and oppose corruption. The talk was punctuated with applause and laughter, depending on the point being made. Reading through the transcript again, it provides an almost visual record, such is the vivid interaction of the leader with students and professors. About two-thirds of the way into the talk, he concluded with what was likely an instinctive statement based on perhaps the look on the concerned faces of the students:

This country can self-destruct; this Revolution can destroy itself, but they can never destroy us; we can destroy ourselves, and it would be our fault.

Once again, the defence and the further development of people’s power were at the centre of Fidel’s message. After this statement, the interaction between the audience and Fidel accelerated. Che also summarized Fidel’s relationship with the people in this way:

Fidel and the mass begin to vibrate together in a dialogue of growing intensity until they reach the climax in an abrupt conclusion.

More than 11 years after the University of Havana talk, corruption is still a problem. However, despite this and other problems, the Revolution based on the people in power is undefeated. The maturity and steadfast nature of the vast majority of Cuban youth may be one of the reasons for its enduring nature.

There are innumerable similar examples. One that comes to mind is February 4, 1962, when more than 1 million Cubans gathered in Plaza de la Revolución following the call of the Revolutionary Government to constitute the Second People’s National General Assembly. Last week was the 55th anniversary of this occasion when Fidel Castro had read the declaration and galvanized the people by both its content and his extraordinary flair for communication to consciously vote in favour of it. In fact, this historical moment inspired me to use a photo of this show-of-hands vote as the cover of my 1999 book on democracy in Cuba.

The fifth example is Fidel’s March 27, 2016 article “Brother Obama.” At first glance, as in the initial example of the 1953 Moncada defence, one may ask how an article written by the retired President in relatively fragile health can be illustrative of the leader–people dynamic by means of active communication between the two to defend the Revolution? While it was no longer possible for him to address and exchange with large crowds, aside from a few exceptions since 2008, he found a way through journalism, to which he had been attracted for many decades. During and right after the Obama visit, a lively debate erupted in the Cuban press and among the people regarding the approach taken to some of Obama’s speeches. It was far from unanimous. “Brother Obama” was written in the context of these controversies. Fidel knew, despite the condition of his health, what was happening in Cuba, and thus his most auspicious article struck a chord with society. It rippled like a wave through the political conversations taking place in Cuba and indeed internationally.

He began his “Brother Obama” address with the following:

“The kings of Spain brought us the conquistadores and masters.” It impacted many inside and outside Cuba, as Obama could not be naively appraised. There is a history of colonialism, neo-colonialism and imperialism from which Obama cannot be detached. However, one of the best and focused of Fidel’s charges was yet to come. He referred to Obama’s startling assertion, quoted by Fidel: “It is time, now, to forget the past, leave the past behind, let us look to the future together, a future of hope.” Fidel felt obliged to answer:

I suppose all of us were at risk of a heart attack upon hearing these words from the President of the United States.

Fidel, the revolutionary journalist, courageously wrote what many Cubans, and friends of Cuba, were thinking and writing in their respective ways. It was as if Fidel had somehow inhabited our minds. His timely intervention served as an enormous stimulus and fortification of the Cuban socialist cultural shield. This is held aloft by the vast majority of Cubans to protect people’s political power, independence and dignity and, with this, all the economic, social and cultural achievements of the Revolution.

This is but one of many examples that epitomizes Fidel’s uncanny ability to maintain his dialogue with Cubans through the pen. From the use of lemon juice as indelible ink in 1953 to employing appropriate instruments of writing in 2016, there existed one common thread: Fidel’s concern for the people’s needs of the time expressed by synthesizing them into his ever evolving Marxist-Leninist and Martiano thought to guide action with the goal of safeguarding political power as the foundation of the Cuban Revolution. Thus, in the course of history, Melba and Haydee became millions.

Throughout Fidel’s political life, he contributed to this new culture of communication without historical parallel, given its unique style and long duration, from 1953 to 2016. It is now part of the Cuban Revolution’s patrimony available to every Cuban to exercise on his or her own. But Fidel set the bar very high. Thus, it is not possible to replicate his example, because Fidel is Fidel. However, his legacy as a communicator is the model for leaders at all levels and for revolutionaries in general.

Fidel’s legacy is also part of the world heritage to guide writers and journalists in our countries, such as Canada, to maintain intimate dialectical communication with the needs and concerns of the peoples we are writing about and for.

English version of the Spanish-language presentation given as part of the panel titled “Fidel, Builder of the New Society” at the “Fidel, Politics, and Culture Symposium” held February 10–11, 2017 during the Havana International Book Fair.

Source:

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Fidel-Political-Power-and-the-New-Culture-of-Communication-20170222-0023.html

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. Cuba’s neighbours under consideration are, on the one hand the U.S. and on the other hand, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. Arnold can be followed on Twitter @Arnold_August and FaceBook

 

New York’s Museum of Modern Art is currently exhibiting Francis Picabia: Our Heads Are Round so Our Thoughts Can Change Direction, an exuberant and sometimes disquieting retrospective of an artist who consistently defied expectations. Marcel Duchamp said of Picabia: “[he was] a negator… whatever you said, he contradicted.” In an exhibit that spans over fifty years – which included work as a painter, poet and filmmaker – Picabia’s refusal of any fixed position is on full display, while his restlessness and eclecticism makes him seem oddly contemporary.

Born in Paris in 1879, the son of a Cuban diplomat, Picabia came from a wealthy family – which allowed him to indulge his penchant for the life of a playboy. But wealth also meant that Picabia did not have to bend to the market’s preference for stylistic consistency and predictable output.

Picabia began painting by copying the works in his father’s collection, and did so with such precision that he succeeded in replacing them with his own and selling off the originals. Even as an adolescent, he was “bootlegging” so to speak, and would continue to do so until his debut in 1899 at the Salon des Artistes Français, where critics lauded him as a young master of Impressionism – favorably compared with Claude Monet and Alfred Sisley (who is currently enjoying a retrospective at the Bruce Museum).

In fact, this first period, which lasted six years roughly, is more aptly described as pseudo-impressionist: for Picabia made use of photographs rather than plein air painting. This outraged Camille Pissarro and already revealed Picabia’s tendency towards pranksterism, his irreverence and readiness to appropriate an established, ready-made style only to overturn its presuppositions.

By 1911, Picabia had shifted to cubisim, and his work was shown that year at the Salon d’Automne in Paris, the first Cubist group exhibition. He produced extraordinary works during this time, pieces which display movement, and energy; the sheer joy of the restless surfaces are remarkable – earth-toned planes and solids seem on the verge of an identifiable form only to continue to shift and roll, converge and disperse. The Dance at the Springs [II] is one of the standout works from this period. Its forms are discernible, but utterly enveloped within each other and their surroundings – it as lyrical as cubism gets.

The mechanomorphs were Picabia’s great contribution to the Dada movement, and they are the works for which he is most readily known. These fictional machinic forms are on the one hand satirical portraits – personality is revealed as the working of gears and levers – and on the other hand, ironical images of sexual union. Picabia’s portrait of the photographer Alfred Stieglitz takes the form of a metal contraption, with a retractable metal grille, while a “nude American girl” appears as a hydraulic cylinder.

In Tableau Rastadada, a collage from 1920, we see a photo of the artist and on his chin Picabia has placed a label with the word “RATÉ” – meaning, a loser, a failure: in a world that had gone mad with war and nationalistic fervor, to be “a failure” or “a loser” was perhaps Picabia’s way of markedly rejecting the values of a society that had produced so much pointless misery.

Ever uncomfortable with definable movements of any kind, Picabia soon abandoned Dada. The so-called monster paintings followed and they are probably the most fun of all. Using enamel – an example of his avant-garde practice of mixing fine art and industrial materials – he painted gaudy carnivalesque images of men and women in outlandish costumes kissing, and in some cases almost cannibalistically devouring each other. With zigzags and polka dots, confetti flying all around, never were “bad paintings” so gorgeous. And, admitting their garishness, their ugliness even, they are also no less irresistible for it.

Undoubtedly, the most controversial and reactionary works date from the War Years, when Picabia copied nude blondes from soft-core porn magazines. He deliberately retained the soft-focus studio lighting of commercially reproduced photographs to portray high-contrast, kitschy images that seem to draw on Hollywood publicity stills and the fascistic painting of the day. In terms of their appropriation of imagery from reproductions in mass media sources we can trace their lineage back to the early photographed-based impressionistic works.

The Adoration of the Calf (1941-42) was inspired by a black and white image, The Minotaur or The Dictator (1937) produced by surrealist photographer Erwin Blumenfeld, and it is perhaps one of the greatest works of this period, and certainly the timeliest. The painting depicts a torso robed in royal purple, with the head of a calf menacingly baring its teeth. Not in the original source, Picabia included in the foreground a number of expressionistically painted hands splayed open in gestures of entreaty, praise and fanatical zeal.

Picabia offers viewers a pointed warning about the dangers of authoritarianism and empowered imbecility – one that we should take heed of when we have a commander-in-chief who recently declared that the media “is the enemy of the American People,” and is currently preparing to deport millions of undocumented immigrants.

Picabia seems to embody the fluid subject, permanently reinventing and reconstructing itself. In 1923 he writes: “What I like is to invent, to imagine, to make of myself at every moment a new man, and then to forget him.” In this light it is easy to see him as one of us – an artist heralding the arrival of a new subjectivity that joyfully experiments with combinations of different identities. The question that is less often raised is where is the emancipatory potential in this vision of a new fluid subjectivity? Is this not precisely the hegemonic form of subjectivity today? As the philosopher Slavoj Žižek has pointed out, the prevailing ideological message today is don’t get too fixated on any one role, reconstruct yourself continuously, play with numerous identities, sexualities, etc. But how emancipatory in fact is this trend? Could this not be another example of the predominant ideology presenting itself as really subversive?

All of which is to say that Picabia is an artist who resists summation. It is tempting to see his work as essentially freeing, upsetting expectations, defying the premises that define movements and styles. It is tempting to see Picabia as one of our own, an artist who feels perhaps more contemporary now than he ever did in his lifetime. It is especially tempting to see Picabia as brother-in-arms against the religion of Trumpism, with its worship of winning and being a winner, its glorification of dictatorial leaders, and its rejection of the importance of art in contemporary society.

While some critics insist that Picabia was a nihilistic anti-artist, this seems to be an unduly harsh assessment. If nothing else, here was a painter with a genuine passion for the medium in all its physicality. There is something wonderful and liberating about this body of work, especially in its embrace of experimentation, its joyful abandon, and playful mockery of aesthetic conventions.

Still, we might do well to remind ourselves that it is not enough to merely “change direction”, that genuine emancipation today will come not from merely embracing change as an end in itself. Especially at this crucial social-political juncture, we need to give more attention to our direction and to the kind of change we want.

Dr. Sam Ben-Meir teaches philosophy at Eastern International College. His current research focuses on environmental and business ethics.
[email protected]                             Web: www.alonben-meir.com

 

The Gallup organization samples Americans’ approval-disapproval of Russia in February of each year, and the approval-figure for this year is only slightly more than half as high as it had been back in 2012 when Obama publicly mocked his Presidential-campaign opponent Mitt Romney’s famous statement that «Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe».

A Gallup poll released on 20 February 2017 showed that Americans’ favorability rating of Russia, immediately after U.S. President Barack Obama left office, is only 28%, which is just above Americans’ 24% favorability toward The Palestinian Authority, and just below the 31% favorability toward Saudi Arabia. Russia hasn’t always been rated down in that low league of American popularity.

Back in 2012, before Obama’s second term, that favorability rating toward Russia was 50%. The year before that, in 2011, it was 51%. It had been reasonably stable until Obama’s re-election (except during 1998-2004 when it gyrated wildly because of Americans’ uncertainty of what the post-Soviet, post-communist, Russian government was like).

The lowest-ever American approval-rating for Russia occurred in Gallup’s poll on 8-11 February 2015, almost a year after the overthrow of Ukraine’s government and the vote of Crimeans to abandon Ukraine’s government and rejoin Russia, when it was 24%. In Gallup’s immediate-prior poll, which was taken right before the 20-26 February 2014 overthrow of the Ukrainian government, the Gallup poll on 6-9 February 2014, 34% of Americans approved of Russia.

No other nation has plunged even nearly as steeply in Americans’ favorability as did Russia, during Obama’s second term. The plunge, from 50% to 28%, which is a 44% plunge in the rating, compares with, as the second-steepest such plunge, Saudi Arabia: it’s a plunge from 42% in 2012, to 31% now, which is a 26% plunge — far less than the 44% plunge for Russia.

The biggest rise during Obama’s second term was for Cuba: 37% favorability-rating in 2012, 51 % today, which is a 38 % rise, during the four years of Obama’s second term.

Cuba’s remarkable rise during Obama’s second term cannot reasonably be attributed to Obama’s having restored, on 20 July 2015, diplomatic relations with Cuba, which had been severed in 1961. The rise instead occurred gradually throughout Obama’s second term. And, prior to 2012, going all the way back to 1998, Americans’ approval-rating of Cuba had been rather stable, within the 25 % to 30 % range. So: apparently throughout Obama’s second term, the U.S. press were providing increasingly favorable ‘news’ coverage of Cuba.

Russia’s chart-topping plunge occurred fairly steadily throughout Obama’s second term. It wasn’t caused entirely by the events in February and March 2014 in Ukraine: the overthrow of President Yanukovych and the plebiscite in which over 90 % of Crimeans (who had voted overwhelmingly for Yanukovych) voted to no longer to be in Ukraine but instead to return to being citizens of Russia, which Crimeans had been until 1954, when the Soviet dictator arbitrarily transferred Crimea from Russia to Ukraine (he was a Ukrainian: Nikita Khrushchev). Obama’s policy on that was to insist that the people of Crimea had no right of self-determination of peoples (which right he agreed with when it pertained to Catalonians in Spain and to Scots in UK but not to Crimeans in Ukraine) but that instead Russia’s acceptance of Crimeans back into Russia is ‘conquest of land’ by Russia, and so Obama imposed economic sanctions against Russia, and NATO poured U.S. and other troops and missiles onto Russia’s borders, allegedly so that there would be no more such ‘conquests’ by Russia (as if there were anything like a plebiscite in Romania or Latvia or Poland etc. in which a majority of the residents there sought for their land to become a part of Russia).

What is especially important to note regarding the plunge in Americans’ approval-rating for Russia is that it didn’t occur only after, but started well before, those events in Ukraine in 2014; it started at the very end of Obama’s first term, in 2012.

Obama’s State Department started planning the overthrow of Ukraine’s government by no later than 2011, when they were probing Julian Assange for information about how to stir revolutions by drawing supporters into online resistance activities. Assange did not know, at that time, what use the U.S. State Department (assisted by Google’s chief, Eric Schmidt) were aiming to make of the information that he provided. However, by the time the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine started on 1 March 2013 its «tech camps» to implement the ‘revolution’, it became clear what use Obama’s people were making of Assange’s insights.

Apparently, the ‘news’ coverage of Russia during the years of the plunge, 2012-2016, was somehow becoming progressively more and more unfavorable, in preparation for the 2014 Ukrainian coup and its aftermath of economic sanctions and the positioning of increasing numbers of U.S. troops and missiles on and near Russia’s borders. The U.S. government even publicly celebrated its propaganda-success.

Manipulating the public in a ‘democracy’ has become so much of a science, so that a person can reasonably doubt whether democracy, in even the limited extents to which it has existed in the past, possesses any realistic meaning in today’s world — or (if so) what meaning.

The basic theories of politics and understandings of ideology — everything that employs the concept «democracy» — are false now, even if they weren’t false earlier, when ‘democracies’ routinely included societies such as ancient Athens, where the majority of citizens owned one or more slaves.

Where lies reign, what meaning has ‘democracy’? Has it become merely one more lie? This is a serious question.

The Financial Times’ Special Report (2/16/2017) published a four-page spread on the ‘use and possible dangers of artificial intelligence (AI)’.  Unlike the usual trash journalists who serve as Washington ’s megaphones on the editorial pages and political columns, the Special Report is a thoughtful essay that raises many important issues, even as it is fundamentally flawed.

The writer, Richard Walters, cites several major problems accompanying AI from ‘public anxieties, to inequalities and job insecurity’.  Walters pleads with those he calls the ‘controllers of autonomous systems’ to heed social and ‘political frictions’ or face societal ‘disruption’.  Experts and journalists, discussing the long-term, large-scale destruction of the working class and service jobs, claim that AI can be ameliorated through management and social engineering.

This essay will proceed to raise fundamental issues, questions leading to an alternative approach to AI relying on class analysis.  We will reject the specter of AI as a ‘Frankenstein’ by identifying the social forces, which finance, design and direct AI and which benefit from its negative social impact.

Basic Questions:  Demystifying AI

The best and the worst of the experts reporting on AI assert that it is an autonomous system, devoid of any link to the class structure within which it operates.  Their version of technological determinism, above and beyond the needs and demands of capitalists, has fits neatly with the corporate ideology of the trash journalists and pundits.

The fundamental questions that must be raised include: 1) ‘AI’, for whom?; 2) How are the productivity gains of AI to be distributed between capital and labor? 3) How are work time, income and pensions distributed between the owners of technology and the labor force?; and 4) What kinds of socio-economic activity does AI serve?

‘Artificial Intelligence’ and related technological innovations are financed, designed, controlled and ultimately applied by the major corporations and financial institutions in order to reduce the cost of labor and to enhance profits and competitiveness between capitalist rivals.

AI and similar capitalist technological changes, along with the overseas relocation of information technology and manufacturing production are the principal destroyers of workers’ employment and living standards in the US .

AI technology, alongside vast spending for imperial wars and military procurement, multi-billion dollar bank-bailouts and the promotion of finance-over-productive capital represent the forces driving down wages, salaries, living standards, pensions and, lately, life expectancy for the marginalized working class and rural population.

The innovators and promoters of AI, whether individuals or small groups, seek capitalist support to finance, market and ‘acquire’ their ‘discoveries’.  In fact, the entire industry has been built upon large-scale, tax-funded public research centers and university laboratories, which have paid for the buildings as well as the scientists’ and professors’ salaries.

Most of IT and AI related profits are distributed among the military-industrial complex, the chemical agro-industrial monopolies and the transport and consumer goods manufacturing elites.  While garbage journalists and experts cite ‘AI’s contribution to health, education and social services, they forget to clarify that these ‘innovations’ are controlled by private health corporations, private ‘charter’ schools and public sector education elites intent on increasing profits, lowering teachers’ salaries, slashing programs and undermining student learning.  The dismal, fragmented and mal-distributed state of healthcare and education in the United States are never seriously discussed because they put the lie to the absurd claims made about the benefits of AI and IT for the broader population.

Far from being ‘autonomous’ and subject to abstract ‘controllers’, AI, IT and high technology serve to concentrate wealth, power and profits for multiple sectors of the ruling class who determine how such technologies will be used.

The financiers of AI and their partners direct the scientists, engineers and marketers.  The garbage journalists are paid to proclaim the arrival of  ‘history-making’ innovations.  The media describe AI as ‘machine learning, a form of advanced pattern recognition technology to make judgments by analyzing large amounts of data (which) could supplement human thought’ (FT Special Report 2/17/2017).

Contrary to the above-mentioned assumptions, the ‘judgments’ are made by the ruling class, using parameters and metrics determined by the elite, deciding on what kinds of ‘patterns are to be recognized’ in order that they can derive the kind of information they need to enhance profits, make war, maximize killing and engineering massive layoffs of workers.  In a word, class assumptions dictate AI, IT and the use of these innovations.

Conclusion: Alternatives

If class determines AI, and in present-day America that means the ruling class, then only changes in the class structure can pose different questions and answers to our originally stated problems.  Only by sharpening the class struggle, which changes who rules the banks, factories and social institutions, will new assumptions direct AI and IT and other innovations.

Only workers, professionals and scientists, who replace the prioritizing of profits with meeting social needs, can produce an AI that lowers the retirement age, increases national health care, facilitates workers’ decision making, distributes high quality education and information to the citizenry, reduces inequalities and shifts earnings from capital to labor.

What is at stake are extensive crimes against humanity committed by the US under the pretext of a counterterrorism operation.

The Liberation of Raqqa is fake. The US is bombing Raqqa in Northern Syria largely targeting civilians. 

The city was occupied by ISIS and the ISIS is supported by the Western military alliance. ISIS was protected by the US. 

The ISIS combatants were recruited by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey on behalf of Washington. 

The occupation of Raqqa and Mosul by the ISIS has provided Washington with the justification to wage a counterterrorism operation launched by Obama in 2014.

During a period of more than two years, extensive bombings have taken place.

The object of the counterterrorism operation was not to go after ISIS. 

It was largely intended to destroy the civilian infrastructure of both Iraq and Syria.

The ISIS are the foot soldiers of  US-NATO supported covertly by the CIA.

The destruction of Raqqa as described in the video below has largely been ignored by the Western media. Crimes against humanity committed by the US and its allies are not front page news.

The source of the video is Amaq Agency, the official Islamic State outlet. Amaq published footage on February 21 “showing the aftermath of coalition airstrikes that have targeted the Islamic State capital since 2014.  The video is graphic and should not be watched by the faint-hearted”

The Islamic State (ISIS) and its rebel force was until recently an instrument of Washington. It is now cannon fodder.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, February 24, 2017

Click here for Twitter video.

or click image below

 

When I last visited Bob at his nursing home in Kincardine, a nurse politely pulled me aside to tell me that he no longer talked much but remained quite sociable. The deterioration in his condition was sad to hear, but I remarked that his retention of social skills was no surprise. ‘As a union organizer he had a natural sociability’. She lit up and excitedly whispered to a nearby nurse: ‘That explains it!’. ‘Explains what?’ I asked. ‘Well, the one thing he keeps telling us is: “You know, all of you work really hard but don’t get paid enough; you should get a union”.’

More than anything else it was the sentiments of an organizer that defined Bob as a union leader. One of my great pleasures was seeing Bob, once union president, move through a room of workers. No politician with a pasted-on smile. No aura of ‘Here I am!’. Instead, someone attentive to people stopping him, ready to kid and laugh, serious and thoughtful when a troubling question was asked – the comfortable, engaged chattiness of an organizer. Bob had a genuine common touch that matched his practical common sense.

His family had immigrated to Canada when he was 14. A year later he left school and found a job in a wood-working plant. At 16 he got involved in the union even though his father warned him it was ‘full of commies’. By the time he was 22 he was taking the plant’s 500 workers out on strike and at 25 he was appointed to staff (his autobiography claims he was the youngest staffer in the UAW at the time, Canadian or American). At 26 he was the Director of Organizing for the Canadian section of the UAW (United Auto Workers).

Fighting Concessions

His official legacy, it has long been evident, will rest on his role in not just fighting the auto industry kingpins but the internal battle with his own union. For Bob, breaking away from the union that had been his home and inspiration since he barely got out of his teens was one of the most painful decisions of his life. But that anguished struggle and the creation of the Canadian Auto Workers in 1985 (now UNIFOR) brought out the best in Bob and the Canadian members.

What isn’t always appreciated and speaks to the depth of the union at the time, is the extent to which this ‘split’ was more than an expression of Canadian nationalism (though of course it was that too). The conflict revolved around how the union should respond to the concerted corporate-state attack on social and union gains made in previous decades. This overlapped with questions of union democracy. In the U.S., an opposition had emerged around internal democracy; in Canada the focus was on Canadian workers having to do what was done in no other country – go through a foreign-based parent for approval of key decisions over bargaining demands and the right to strike.

The Canadian autoworkers, unlike the majority of their U.S. counterparts, were adamant not to make the concessions demanded in bargaining. And while Canadian business and the Brian Mulroney government were looking toward further integration with the American empire, the autoworkers were determined to carry on the concession fight even if it led in an opposite direction – in their case breaking away from an American institution.

In bucking the economic and political trajectories of Canadian and U.S. elites, the Canadian workers were in particular taking on GM, Ford and Chrysler, three of the largest corporations in the world. And they were doing so in the most integrated cross-border industry anywhere. With the Canadian industry only one-tenth the size of the overall Canada-U.S. industry, cynical pundits repeated, ad nauseam, that ‘the tail can’t wag the dog’. When the union went on strike against GM in 1984 – the event that most directly precipitated the split with their parent – The Globe and Mail patronizingly editorialized that the Canadian autoworkers “looked staunchly backward.” An editorial in the nationalist-leaning Toronto Star proclaimed “it’s hard to see what they hope to achieve by this strike.” And the Montreal Gazette warned the union it was “remarkably short-sighted.”

Most workers, staff and local leaders were at first very uncertain themselves, not sure that they really had the power or expertise to go it alone. This reflected a semi-colonial mentality that came with past dependence on the UAW and the U.S. more generally. To boot, all the collective agreements in Canada, even those outside the auto majors, were formally signed by the UAW and so were legally invalid if any corporation – or group of workers – decided to challenge them.

The significant achievements of Bob in this period, in addition to his strategic and public handling of all the potential pitfalls, rested on four principles. First, an appreciation that if the Canadians stayed in the UAW, they would become the vehicle for bringing U.S. concessions to Canada. The argument that concessions would provide job security was something that Bob consistently argued against, a view that future developments powerfully confirmed.

Second, concession bargaining didn’t just rob workers of what they deserved but it robbed them of faith in the relevance of their union, something that would inevitably lead to the withering of the union as a social force. Here too Bob’s side of the debate proved to be right.

Third, the key wasn’t just the impact on bargaining but working class self-confidence in the larger sense of Canadians moving out of the shadow of the U.S. union and achieving the right to make their own decisions. This came with taking responsibility for those decisions rather than passively accepting concessions while blaming the Americans for their plight.

Finally, change took preparation and patience. Such radical breaks with the status quo couldn’t occur as a dictate from above; the members needed to be firmly on side. As Bob described it, “we almost completely reorganized our communications network to bring the local union leadership closer to the rank and file. We had to be certain that our membership understood why we were going against the wind.” The union prepared extensive materials, held educational sessions in every local, pushed their stewards to get out on the shop floor and talk to workers, and ordered the staff to “stay close to the members.” Bob spent a great deal of his time going to locals to meet with members and answer their questions and concerns. And the union took the issue to the CLC convention so that it wouldn’t be isolated in the fight against concessions (it was also a way of presenting their tensions with the UAW as not just reflecting that of stubborn Canadian autoworkers but of the Canadian trade union movement in general).

Breaking away could, however, only be broached after workers learned, through battles at Chrysler and GM, that they had the power to go it alone. White’s genius – his true leadership role – lay in his ability to develop the confidence among his members that they could pull the breakaway off and survive. But this itself rested on his own fearlessness in taking on the breakaway (which is not to deny his nervousness about the stakes involved).

Which Side Are You On?

After the split, Bob argued that the funds the Canadians received as part of the settlement should go into organizing and education, the latter to be about union philosophy, history, and political economy. Organizing extended power to other workers and was ‘the backbone of the union’. Education was really a matter of organizing those already unionized as part of strengthening on-going and future struggles. In addition, and speaking to the relationship between breaking the bonds with the U.S. and nationalism, the Canadians became more active internationally after the split, building much closer relations to, for example, workers in South Africa, Brazil, and Nicaragua.

Looking back on Bob’s tenure as a union leader, what sustained him through the turmoil of the times was his clarity over what side he was on. His job was to defend workers. Whatever ‘peace’ was made with employers, he understood that to be temporary and reversible. His original organizing assignment in the 60s – to chase down and unionize runaway plants (i.e. plants moving to escape the union) – left him very sober about the realities of labour-management relations even in the alleged ‘golden age’ of capitalism.

For Bob, his personal standing with the media, business and the government was a tactical asset not to be dismissed, but secondary to what was right for Canadian workers. However popular he was in the media, Bob knew full well that it could also be a trap if it seduced you. And it could also change abruptly if your pursuit of justice for workers crossed certain boundaries. Some saw Bob’s iconic status in the media as a boon for the labour movement as a whole and this was certainly true in part. But the larger truth was that Bob was generally seen as an exception rather than a representative labour leader, a plus for the autoworkers and the causes Bob championed, but not a change in the wider perception of unions and working people.

Bob didn’t romanticize workers but neither did he patronize them. He often noted that when workers were on strike ‘they become philosophers’. What he was getting at was that with the respite from deadening work, and time with their fellow workers away from the machines and clatter, workers proudly passed around pictures of their families, shared their life stories and frustrations, talked about what they would have liked to do and become, and confessed to the shrinking likelihood of realizing those dreams.

Bob himself, as a worker who was comfortable confronting CEOs, prime ministers, premiers and cabinet officials over their policies, was a prime example of the potentials of workers. ‘If a grade-school drop-out like me can do it’, he often said, ‘why not other workers if given the chance like I was?’ Whether or not Bob was just being modest, it captured a great and tragic truth about capitalist society: its disregard and denial of workers’ potentials for having a richer role in society.

Bob had a particular style of leadership. In a telling moment at a Massey Hall benefit for the Fleck strikers, immediately after he became the leader of the union, Bob came on stage, thanked everyone for coming, raised his fist in solidarity and – in deference to the importance of the strike to the women’s movement – turned the event over to Madeleine Parent. Madeleine was a long-time union organizer and feminist, but the significance of the gesture lay in the fact that Madeleine was a co-founder of the left-nationalist Confederation of Canadian Unions which the mainstream labour movement considered a sworn enemy, never to darken any of their functions.

In the early 80s, a rash of plant closures threatened not just a cyclical threat but a new era in worker insecurity. At the CAW Council, as delegate after delegate stood up to tell their depressing story, White quietly listened. As the frustrations grew in anger he calmly took the mike and simply stated ‘I think you all know what has to be done’. No editorializing, no instructions, no unnecessary speechifying. Workers left the council plotting a response and within days, plants were taken over in Windsor, Oshawa and Ottawa.

Those takeovers didn’t reverse the trend, but they led to modest modifications in plant closure legislation and confirmed that workers had only one institution to depend on, their union. (White stayed away from the takeovers for the first few days so the news would have to rely on affected workers, rather than a union official, talking about how their lives had been turned upside down by the closures.)

Soon after, two-tier wages spread from the U.S. airline industry to the U.S. aerospace industry and from there McDonnell Douglas tried to bring this to the negotiations in Canada. Bob angrily labelled two-tier wages a ‘cancer’ and declared that it had to be stopped ‘before it spread into Canada’. And though the union accepted an 18 month grow-in to the top wage, two tiers were effectively stopped, at least until the period following the financial crisis of 2007-2009.

Above all, Bob instinctively reacted to the nature of the times and grew in stature as he led the union through its minefields. It was increasingly state policies in Canada on free trade, taxes, jobs and social programs that affected Canadian workers, not their bargaining ties to the Americans. This placed a premium on working class unity and the development of community ties within Canada.

It was in this period that Bob White grew from an important trade union leader to a charismatic social and political leader. The fight against NAFTA revealed a dramatic shift in the traditional roles of the labour movement and the NDP, its political arm. Now it was the trade union movement and its social allies leading the most important political fight in the country. And Bob, fresh from the national credentials he had achieved in the fight for a Canadian union, served as a key spokesperson for the anti-NAFTA side.

Bob did lose his temper on rare occasions but he quite generally acted with grace, not bluster, and even with a certain impishness. He once came back from a meeting with management and solemnly announced to the bargaining committee that he had some good news and bad news. The bad news was that he had accepted the need for concessions. As the stunned committee froze, wondering what the good news could conceivably be, he added, ‘but I was able to convince them to make it retroactive’. (Bob could only maintain his straight face for another two seconds before he, followed by the committee, broke into roaring laughter).

Bob did as well have his fights with other unions over CAW raiding. But that was inseparable from supporting other workers who democratically expressed their will – as the now-CAW workers had done – over choosing another union to represent them. However controversial this was, it didn’t block a consensus among the Canadian labour movement’s leadership around Bob becoming the head of the CLC (1992-1999) when he retired, nor of Bob working closely with the union heads to lead on issues of racism, gender equality, immigrant rights and international human rights.

No trade union leader can aspire to universal popularity, but the few brushes with other union leaders aside, Bob White came darn close. He was a working class hero when such things were rare and becoming rarer.

Labour Today

We need, however to be cautious of resting our hopes on the arrival of hero-saviors. Bob’s achievements were inseparable from his inheriting a union with a remarkable culture of struggle and supportive structures. His understandings and skills were significantly developed through his interactions with mentors like Tommy McLean (the hard-nosed assistant to the president of the union). McLean identified the potentials of the young Bob White early on, threw him out in the field to get rid of his naiveté and prove himself, and endlessly educated him on the complexities of class struggle and union life.

Moreover Bob came with no magic wand. The victories he led demanded tough work, risky decisions, and sustained education and committed organizing of the members. At the CLC, even though there was progress on Bob’s watch on certain social issues, for all of Bob’s s mediating skills he could not bring the leadership of the unions together to play a more substantive national role on fundamental economic and political issues. This frustrated Bob, but he knew full well that this limit on the CLC was virtually inevitable if the affiliates weren’t ready to both move in new directions themselves and surrender some autonomy so as to facilitate coordinated national actions.

Unions today are in crisis – deep crisis – and waiting for heroes won’t bail them out. A first step is an honest acknowledgement of the depth of this crisis, not only here but across the capitalist world. The second is to confront the radical rethinking this implies about the orientation of unions, their structures and their relation to their members. To use Bob’s legacy to ignore this challenge and so confirm labour’s status quo is to betray that legacy.

The successes Bob was part of include rich and important clues to a way forward but we will not find answers there. The story of Bob White will only provide a living legacy if it inspires workers and unions to draw on elements of his achievements to figure out anew how, in this particular era, unions can once again mobilize their members and their communities and lead the more general struggles for equality, justice, solidarity and a more meaningful democracy.

The challenge of Bob White’s legacy is therefore how the movement he joined and led might be renewed to deal with a more dangerous world.

Sam Gindin was an assistant to Bob White when he was CAW president, research director of the Canadian Auto Workers from 1974–2000 and is now an adjunct professor at York University in Toronto. He is the author of The Canadian Auto Workers: The Birth and Transformation of a Union.

Earthquakes in Pennsylvania are usually rare but fracking operations triggered a series of small temblors in Lawrence County last year, officials at the state’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) announced in a Feb. 17 report.

Hilcorp Energy Co., a Texas-based oil and gas company, was fracking a pair of wells in the Utica Shale when seismic monitors detected five earthquakes measuring between 1.8 and 2.3 on the Richter scale between April 25-26, 2016.

“Our analysis after doing the review… is that these events are correlated with the activity of the operator,” DEP Acting Secretary Patrick McDonnell told Penn Live.

While the tremors were too small to be felt by humans or cause any damage, they are the first quakes in the state to be blamed on fracking. Pennsylvania happens to be the second largest natural gas-producing state in the country.

“At least within Pennsylvania, this is the first time that we have seen that sort of spatial and temporal correlation with [oil and gas] operator activity,” Seth Pelepko, chief of well-plugging and subsurface activities for DEP’s oil and gas management program, told Allegheny Front, a western Pennsylvania public radio program.

“No faults identified along portions of the well bore where these seismic events were detected,” Pelepko continued.

Hilcorp spokesman Justin Furnace said operations were immediately suspended after learning about the tremors. Fracking and stimulation operations have since been discontinued at the well pad indefinitely.

The DEP said that Hilcorp was using a technique known as “zipper fracturing” at the time, which involves the concurrent fracking of two horizontal wellbores that are parallel and adjacent to each other.

So how did the earthquakes happen? As Penn Live explains:

Four wells were drilled to depth of about 7,900 feet in that location.

Evidence indicates that induced earthquakes occur when the separation between Utica Shale and basement rocks is lessened during drilling operations. That means, when someone drills too close to basement rocks, there can be earthquakes.

Pelepko said that seems to have been the case in Lawrence County, where the basement rock is shallow compared to other areas in the state.

The distance between Utica Shale and basement rocks were between 2,500 to 3,000 feet at the fracking site.

The DEP has since given a number of recommendations to Hilcorp, including the discontinuation of zipper fracturing near gas wells in North Beaver, Union and Mahoning Townships where the earthquakes occurred. Additionally, the company must shut down operations and notify the DEP should any earthquake larger than 2.0 or three successive quakes between 1.5 and 1.9 in magnitude occur within a three-mile distance of a wellbore path.

Earthquakes caused by fracking a well are uncommon. However, the notorious spate of earthquakes in Oklahoma, which were caused by the disposal of large quantities of fracking wastewater into underground wells, are rampant. The disposal of wastewater produced from fracking, has led to the alarming increase of earthquakes with magnitude-3 or larger by nearly 300 times, or 30,000 percent in north-central Oklahoma alone. In 2014, more than 5,000 earthquakes were reported.

But a 4.8-magnitude frack-quake that struck Alberta, Canada in Jan. 2016 set a world record for the largest earthquake triggered by the controversial drilling process.

There are concerns about a potential nuclear ‘incident’ in Europe.

According to reports, small amounts of highly radioactiveradioisotope, iodine-131, of unknown origin, have been detected over large areas of Europe.

A nuclear ‘incident’ in the vicinity of the Arctic circle may have spread the mysterious radioactive leak during the past week.

According to IRSN ( Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire ), a French institute specialising in nuclear and radiological risks, Iodine-131 (131I), a radionuclide of anthropogenic origin, has recently been detected in tiny amounts in the ground-level atmosphere in Europe.

Iodine-131 was first detected over large areas of Europe in January.

Since the isotope has a half-life of only eight days, the detection is proof of a rather recent release, reports the Independent Barents Observe.

The source of the leak remains a mystery.

Zero Hedge reports:

The air filter station at Svanhovd – located a few hundred meters from Norway’s border to Russia’s Kola Peninsula in the north – was the first to measure small amounts of the radioactive Ionide-131 in the second week of January.  Shortly thereafter, the same Iodine-131 isotope was measured in Rovaniemi in Finnish Lapland. Within the next two weeks, traces of radioactivity, although in tiny amounts, were measured in Poland, Czech Republic, Germany, France and Spain.

Norway was the first to measure the radioactivity, but France was the first to officially inform the public about it.

“Iodine-131 a radionuclide of anthropogenic origin, has recently been detected in tiny amounts in the ground-level atmosphere in Europe. The preliminary report states it was first found during week 2 of January 2017 in northern Norway. Iodine-131 was also detected in Finland, Poland, Czech Republic, Germany, France and Spain, until the end of January”, the official French Institute de Radioprotection et de Süreté Nucléaire (IRSN) wrote in a press release.

No Health Concerns For Now

Mitigating some of the concerns, however, was the head of section for emergency preparedness at the Norwegian Radiation Protection Autority, Astrid Liland, who spoke to the Barents Observer and said the levels measured raise no health concerns. “We do measure small amounts of radioactivity in air from time to time because we have very sensitive measuring equipment. The measurements at Svanhovd in January were very, very low. So were the measurements made in neighbouring countries, like Finland. The levels raise no concern for humans or the environment.  Therefore, we believe this had no news value,” Astrid Liland answers when asked why the public was not informed.

She points to Norway’s nation-wide online network of 33 stations were people can check real-time measurements.

At Svanhovd, measurements in the period January 9-16 show levels of 0,5 micro Becquerel per cubic meter air (µBq/m3). In France, where authorities decided to publish the information, measured radioactivity were much lower, from 0,1 to 0,31 µBq/m3. Levels measured in Finland were also lower than in northern Norway with 0,27 µBq/m3 measured in Rovaniemi and 0,3 µBq/m3 in Kotka. Finland’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) decided to follow the French example and posted a press release about the increased levels of radioactivity.

But No Explanation Where The Radiation Came From

Finnish authorities also underscores that the levels measured are far from concentrations that could have any effect on human health. Neither STUK, nor IRSN speculate in the origin of the released Iodine-131.

Astrid Liland can’t either explain the origin of the radioactivity. “It was rough weather in the period when the measurements were made, so we can’t trace the release back to a particular location. Measurements from several places in Europe might indicate it comes from Eastern Europe,” Liland explains. “Increased levels of radioactive iodine in air were made in northern-Norway, northern-Finland and Poland in week two, and in other European countries the following two weeks, Astrid Liland says.

As the Barents Observers adds, Iodine-131 in the air could come from an incident with a nuclear reactor. The isotope is also widely used in medicine and for that purpose; many countries around the globe produce it.

All operators of nuclear reactors or institutions using Iodine-131 for medical purposes have detectors for external releases of radioactivity. In other words, as the Observer concludes, “Someone out there knows why the radioactivity was spread over larger areas of Europe.”

Nuclear installations in northwastern Europe, were the radioactivity was first discovered, includes nuclear power plants in Finland, Sweden and Russia, in addition to nuclear powered vessels on Russia’s Kola Peninsula and White Sea area. The source could as well come from even further away installations.

Constant Phoenix Deployed

Finally, adding an air of mystery to this alleged “incident” was the spotting of the “Constant Phoenix”, which on Friday arrived in the UK’s Mildenhall airbase after departing from Florida.

As the Aviationist explains, the WC-135 Constant Phoenix has been used in the past to determine whether nuclear tests or detonations have taken place in any given region. The WC-135 is a derivative of the Boeing C-135 transport and support plane. Two of these aircraft are in service today out of the ten examples operated since 1963. The aircraft are flown by flight crews from the 45th Reconnaissance Squadron from Offutt Air Force Base while mission crews are staffed by Detachment 1 from the Air Force Technical Applications Center.

The WC-135, known as the “sniffer” or “weather bird” by its crews, can carry up to 33 personnel. However, crew compliments are kept to a minimum during mission flights in order to lessen levels of radioactive exposure.

Effluent gasses are gathered by two scoops on the sides of the fuselage, which in turn trap fallout particles on filters. The mission crews have the ability to analyze the fallout residue in real-time, helping to confirm the presence of nuclear fallout and possibly determine the characteristics of the warhead involved: that’s why the aircraft is important to confirm the type of explosion of today’s test.

As Darin R. Pfaff, a former WC-135 aircrew member explained to us in a comment to a previous article on this aircraft: “airframes have two large supplemental charcoal filter packs, as well as HEPA/ULPA filters (we called them “lungs”) for their cabin air. When the instruments indicate contact with radioactive debris, the crew will also reduce cabin airflow to just maintain pressurization, and all personnel on board will go to 100% oxygen through their masks. They will stay on 100% O2 until activity readings drop back down into the safe levels. Everybody wears a dosimeter, and those records are monitored to prevent unsafe exposure.”

Along with monitoring nuke testing, the WC-135 is used to track radioactive activity as happened after the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster in the Soviet Union in 1986 and Fukushima incident back in 2011.

So far there has been no official statement by any entity providing further details on the spike in Iodine levels, nor an explanation from the US military why the “Constant Phoenix” was deployed to Europe.

A European parliament delegation that attempted to enter the besieged Gaza Strip to assess the residual damage of Israel’s 2014 military offensive was denied entry by Israeli authorities today.

According to a statement released by the European Parliament’s Delegation for relations with Palestine, Israeli authorities told the group that their entry was denied owing to the fact that only humanitarian workers and diplomats accredited by the Israeli government or the Palestinian Authority (PA) are allowed access to Gaza, which has been under an Israeli military blockade for a decade.

The statement noted that the delegation has been denied entry since 2011.

The delegation’s statement decried the decision to refuse them access to Gaza, saying that the decision was based on “arbitrary grounds” and that the Israeli explanation was “unacceptable”.

“We had hoped that that visit had ushered in a new more cooperative era, but this has not been the case… What is there to hide from us? Our positions are well-known,” the statement read.

The delegation went on to demand the return of the PA to the Gaza Strip. “We urge all Palestinian forces to resume efforts towards reconciliation without delay, building on the latest unity deal reached in January,” the chairman of the delegation Neoklis Sylikiotis said.

He also called on the international community “to put pressure on Israel” in order to end the crippling Israeli siege on the Palestinian territory.

“On the ground in Gaza our aim is to assess the reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts to which the EU is the major donor. EU aid targets the promotion of employment and the poverty in Gaza. We are working to ensure the people in Gaza have access to basic necessities including potable drinking water, food, housing and schools,” Sylikiotis added.

Heading to Gaza:

• Four members of the European Parliament
• Margrete Auken (Denmark)
• Brando Benifei (Italy)
• Ivo Vajgl (Slovenia)
• Angela Vallina (Spain)

“I wasn’t the wrong person to become Jane Roe. I wasn’t the right person to become Jane Roe. I was just the person who became Jane Roe, of Roe v Wade.”— Norma McCorvey with Andy Meisler, I am Roe: My Life, Roe v Wade (1994)

The late Norma McCorvey changed US legal and political history as the plaintiff “Jane Roe” in the 1973 US Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade. The case has become the shorthand for bodily autonomy, dignity, shield of an expansive idea on privacy. The due process clause, so the judgment went, contained “a concept of personal liberty” while “the penumbras of the Bill of Rights” retained in its awe-inspiring mystery “a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy.”[1]

For the US women’s movement, it was more than just legal stardust: it was solid gold, providing nuggets for the rights revolution. In the wording of the decision, the privacy right was “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy”.

As with anything, where there are rights, seething, sometimes irreconcilable conflict, exists. Even Roe was not absolute in its abstract renderings, with the judgment noting that States could still ban third-trimester abortions while also regulating abortion “in ways that reasonably related to maternal health” in the second. It was only for the first trimester that “the abortion decision and its effectuation [had to be] left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.”

Rights, in short, are not seen as creatures born and isolated. Duties follow with weighted feet, reciprocally attaching themselves. In the US cosmology of rights, there was always going to be the indignant counter that duties also mattered, perhaps even more, and that the foetal cult would seek a counter-reformation.

That counter-reformation was reflected in the actions of the plaintiff herself. McCorvey had sued the state of Texas after seeking an abortion on falling pregnant again. “Back in 1973, I was a very confused 21 year-old with one child and facing an unplanned pregnancy.”

She had every reason to be, living through what the New York Times termed “a Dickensian nightmare.” She had been “the unwanted child of a broken home, a ninth-grade dropout who was raped repeatedly by a relative, and a homeless runaway and thief consigned to reform school.”[2] The poster child, it was implied, of American dysfunction: married at 16, bisexual though mainly lesbian, three children by three men, all given up. There were the rough jobs, the drugs, the alcohol.

It was the sort of confusion that provided carrion for pro-life movements eager to swoop in on doubt. One such emotional vulture was Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life, who suggested that McCorvey had been “coerced” and “encouraged to lie about the situation being the result of rape.”

By the 1990s, McCorvey’s rights perspective had morphed, transferring to the foetus on the wings of a newly found faith. Being harangued as a “baby killer” and an ample number of death threats did their trick. Abortions came to be seen as forms of sanctioned murder advanced by damaged and confused mothers easily influenced, aided by a judicial pronouncement of grim reaper selfishness.

Roe No More was established; McCorvey spent time working for Operation Rescue. She attended rallies, wrote books. God seemingly crept up on her with divine intrusiveness (pro-lifer goons helped), then captured her conscience with terribly sweet reminders of what amounted to crime, an afterlife more dramatic than a Hieronymus Bosch triptych. It was “upon knowing God, I realized that my case which legalized abortion on demand was the biggest mistake of my life.”

Guilt is hard to measure, but various desert religions obsessed by apoplectic moralism do their best to bring out calculations, however artificially generated. McCorvey, for Tom Peterson, president and founder of VirtueMedia, struggled with a heavy “heart that 50 million babies had died because of her participation in this case.”

With zeal, Peterson’s soul hunting outfit launched JaneRoe.com which runs on the rich fuel of confessions – from mothers who have regretted their abortions. Finding that mothers may be damaged from their experience, it is also appropriate to exploit them for it. (Monotheistic morality is such a treat.)

Fittingly, all matters of legal and social debate eventually become aggressive industries in the turbulent richness of US soil: the right to abortion, the right of the foetus, and guilt itself, transmuted into a market of regret, doom and the blessed promise of confession.

Praise from pro-life groups was abundantly heaped after word of McCorvey’s passing spread. “Ultimately,” claimed Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List, “Norma’s story after Roe was not one of bitterness but of forgiveness. She chose healing and reconciliation in her Christian faith.”[3]

Dannenfelser’s remarks are very much readied against the rights industry fashioned around abortion (“Norma suffered tremendously at the hands of those who cared more about the institution of abortion than this courageous woman’s life”), and in them is also contained the mania about liberty and notions of false emancipation. McCorvey “overcame the lies of the abortion industry and its advocates and spoke out against the horror that still oppresses many.”

The battle continues. States persist in campaigns that seek to impose regulatory burdens that are designed to eliminate the exercise of abortion altogether, less in name than form. Clinics and those providing abortions remain favourite targets. Needless cant, and moral rage, continues.

Even beyond Roe, there is a fundamental point about US legal identity, one irritably rife with dissent and theatre in using the court system. Great battles and poor law (for hard cases make bad law) have been the result, be it over guns or electoral campaign spending. But such cases can obliterate the individual, leaving in their stead a mythology of rights. There could be few better examples than McCorvey in her quest to litigate, then repent.

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

Notes

[1] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/18/obituaries/norma-mccorvey-dead-roe-v-wade.html?_r=0
[3] http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/life-conversion-of-roe-v-wades-norma-mccorvey-remembered-35081/

El asedio mediático al que está sometido Donald Trump, tiene muchos puntos en común con los métodos que se utilizaron en la “guerra contra el terror” de Bush Junior. El uso sistemático de la mentira por parte de la CIA, la NSA y el FBI, transformó a esta agencias en una verdadera policía secreta. La presidencia de Trump se ve ahora amenazada por oponerse al programa que alimentó por décadas (con un gigantesco presupuesto) a estas agencias de inteligencia y a las políticas “neo-con” de hegemonía mundial en materia militar y de “seguridad nacional”.

En la práctica, tanto la CIA como la NSA están actuando como policía interna al esparcir falsas informaciones acerca de las “conexiones” de Trump con Rusia. El plan es sencillo, utilizar los medios de comunicación para obligar a Trump a dejar su cargo porque sus “conexiones” serían una amenaza para la seguridad de los Estados Unidos.

Actuar abiertamente contra un presidente recién elegido es un sorprendente acto de audacia que implica una enorme confianza o, una gran desesperación de las agencias de inteligencia. En la actualidad la CIA está cooperando abiertamente con la CNN en el “tratamiento periodístico” de especulaciones irresponsables y sin fundamentos. La cadena de televisión sostiene -como si es fuera un hecho fundado- que Trump está bajo la influencia de Rusia. Su única prueba es un “informe” producido por la CIA para el New York Times hace un par de semanas. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46476.htm

Es evidente que la CNN y la CIA consideran al pueblo estadounidense ingenuo y totalmente estúpido.

La siguiente es parte de una entrevista a Glenn Greenwald, periodista y abogado constitucionalista que publico en The Guardian las revelaciones Edward Snowden. La entrevista fue realizada por Amy Goodman para el Canal de Televisión de “Democracy Now”.

Habla Glenn Greenwald :

” Aunque no hay una definición precisa del “Deep State” (el estado profundo) esta noción esta referida a corporaciones de inteligencia con poder permanente en Washington. Mientras los presidentes elegidos van y vienen los agentes de inteligencia se mantienen en el tiempo y disfrutan del mando real. Ejercen su poder en secreto, en la oscuridad, y no están sujetos a ninguna responsabilidad democrática,

La CIA, la NSA, y otros cuerpos de inteligencia, fueron concebidos fundamentalmente para propagar mentiras, propaganda y desinformación. Pero, sus actividades no se limitan a la manipulación, también tienen un largo historial de atrocidades, torturas, escuadrones de la muerte y crímenes de guerra.

Gente como el neoconservador Bill Kristol y, también un montón de demócratas están empujando a las agencias del “Deep State” para que actúen como oposición y contra-poder a las autoridades políticas a las que deberían estar subordinadas.

Durante la campaña electoral, los principales miembros de la comunidad de inteligencia, incluyendo a Mike Morell, jefe de la CIA del presidente Obama, y Michael Hayden, mandamás de la NSA y de la CIA con George W. Bush, se declararon abiertamente partidarios de Hillary Clinton.

De hecho, Michael Morell se instaló en el equipo de dirección del New York Times, y Michael Hayden ocupo el mismo lugar en el Washington Post. El objetivo de ambos agentes era respaldar a Hillary Clinton y culpar a Donald Trump “ porque había sido reclutado por Rusia”.

La CIA y la comunidad de inteligencia apoyaron con vehemencia a Hillary Clinton y se opusieron vehementemente a Trump. ¿La razón? Estaban comprometidos con la política exterior de Hillary Clinton y se oponen sin descanso a la política de Donald Trump.

Durante los últimos cinco años una de las principales prioridades de la CIA ha sido la guerra en Siria. Para lograr la defenestración del régimen de Assad, Hillary Clinton fue muy crítica con Obama porque no le permitió agravar el conflicto. Clinton quería imponer una zona de exclusión aérea en Siria y enfrentar a los rusos.

Donald Trump asumió exactamente el punto de vista opuesto. Sostuvo, en campaña, que a “los Estados Unidos no le debe importar quien gobierna en Siria” ; incluso debe colaborar con los rusos para terminar con el ISIS y al-Qaeda. Por tanto, la política exterior de Trump, estaba en la antítesis de lo que pretendía la CIA. La CIA apoyo incondicionalmente a Hillary Clinton porque ella quería exactamente lo que la CIA demandaba.

En la campaña electoral las agencias de inteligencia trataron de socavar a Trump por todos los medios. Una vez que ganó, pretenden destruir su credibilidad con trascendidos sin fundamento real . Además, al retener información de inteligencia (con el argumento que el Presidente no es una persona de “confianza”) están actuando de manera sediciosa. En los hechos las agencias de inteligencia se arrogan la capacidad para imponer su propia política.

Ahora, que quede claro. yo creo que la presidencia Trump es extremadamente peligrosa. Usted ,en su noticiero, acaba de ofrecer muchos argumentos validos. Trump y sus políticas devastarán el medio ambiente. Eliminarán las redes de seguridad pública . Beneficiarán a los multimillonarios. Han puesto en marcha políticas intolerantes contra inmigrantes y musulmanes .

Es muy importante resistir estas políticas. Y, hay un montón de maneras de resistir. Es obligatorio contenerlos mediante el activismo ciudadano. Pero también es muy importante que el Partido Demócrata se haga una sería auto-crítica . Debe preguntarse, que puede hacer para ser una fuerza política significativa después de haberse derrumbado en todas partes”.

Sin embargo, el Partido Demócrata está muy lejos de una autocritica . No está haciendo nada para promover la resistencia popular. Lo que está haciendo es apoyar lo peor de Trump junto con empujar al “Deep State” y la CIA ( con todas sus historias de atrocidades) a participar en un golpe blando contra el presidente electo. Esa política es extremadamente peligrosa.

Si usted cree (al igual que yo ) que la CIA y el “Deep State”, por una parte, y la presidencia Trump, por la otra, son extremadamente peligrosos, estoy de acuerdo pero hay una gran diferencia entre estas opciones;.

Trump fue elegido democráticamente y está sujeto a controles democráticos, como lo han demostrado los tribunales y como lo están demostrando los ciudadanos movilizados. La CIA y sus agentes nunca han sido elegidos ni podrán ser elegidos por la gente. Y por tanto no están sujetos a ningún control democrático.

Así que instar a la CIA y la comunidad de inteligencia para que quebranten los poderes electos es un locura total. Es una receta para la destrucción de la democracia, bajo el pretexto de salvarla. Sin embargo, es lo que están haciendo los neoconservadores y sus aliados liberales del Partido Demócrata. Es lo que están reclamando. Su estrategia es increíblemente torcida y peligrosa. ” Http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46476.htm

Los Estados Unidos se encuentran en una extraña situación ; los llamados liberales progresistas están asociados con el “Deep State”. Los liberales progresistas presionan para destituir a un presidente que no ha cometido ningún delito censurable. Por su parte los neoconservadores se han manifestado claramente por un golpe de estado contra la democracia. Por eso los grandes medios de comunicación mantienen un bombardeo diario de mentiras, insinuaciones y desinformación. Mientras tanto la opinión pública despreocupada se “chupa el dedo” .

¿Qué puede hacer Trump? Debe limpiar las agencias de inteligencia y terminar las licencias concedidas a la CIA, por Bush y Obama, para llevar a cabo actividades inconstitucionales. Además, puede utilizar las leyes que prohíben los monopolios en los medios de comunicación que Clinton permitió conformar.

Si Bush y Obama utilizaron la detención indefinida a ciudadanos estadounidenses sin el debido proceso y si Obama ordenó asesinar con drones, lo menos que puede hacer Trump es utilizar las leyes de defensa de la competencia para poner fin a los grandes conglomerados de medios que hablan, en su contra, con una sola voz,.

Trump no tiene más alternativa que luchar. Debe acabar con el trabajo de policía secreta que están practicando las agencias de inteligencia y debe terminar con los grandes conglomerados de medios que han orquestado una campaña permanente de desinformación .

Descartar a Flynn fue un grave error. Trump debería haber mantenido a Flynn y debería haber actuado contra las “fugas información”. La NSA sabe quienes son los responsables de esas filtraciones. Trump debe llevar a cabo una limpieza en la corrupta gestión de la NSA y colocar a funcionarios que identifiquen los puntos de fuga. Con esa información debería procesar a los “filtradores” con todo el rigor de la ley.

Ningún presidente puede sobrevivir a organismos de inteligencia que ejercen de policía secreta y que están decididos a destruir su gobierno. Si los asesores de Trump no saben esto, Trump necesita desesperadamente nuevos asesores”.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Artículo original en inglés:

The Stakes for Trump and All of Us, publicado el 19 de febrero de 2017.

Traducido por Emilio Pizocaro.

La Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO) presentó 15 tendencias y 10 desafíos que sus países miembros deberán tener en cuenta hoy para enfrentar la crisis alimentaria mundial.

Situaciones y retos en los que están presentes desigualdades sociales, crecientes presiones sobre los recursos naturales y los intensos efectos del cambio climático, como prolongadas sequías y desertificaciones, los cuales ponen en peligro la capacidad de la humanidad para alimentarse.

Uno de los mayores desafíos identificados por el organismo mundial es lograr una gobernanza nacional e internacional coherente y eficaz, con objetivos claros de desarrollo y el compromiso para alcanzarlos, del cual depende encontrar soluciones a otros problemas.

En su informe preparatorio del Marco Estratégico y el plan 2018-2021, la FAO insta a una mejora sostenible de la productividad agrícola para satisfacer la creciente demanda con el debido cuidado a los recursos naturales.

Abordar el cambio climático y la intensificación de las amenazas naturales, erradicar la pobreza extrema y reducir la desigualdad; acabar con el hambre y todas las formas de malnutrición y hacer que los sistemas alimentarios sean más eficientes, inclusivos y resilientes, forman parte de los retos de la humanidad en las próximas décadas.

En el documento se señala, además, la necesidad de mejorar las oportunidades de ingresos en las zonas rurales y abordar las causas profundas de la migración; así como reforzar la capacidad de las personas para hacer frente a las crisis prolongadas, desastres y conflictos.

El escenario mundial exige cambios. Desde 1990 a nivel mundial el hambre y la pobreza extrema descendieron, pero aún unas 700 millones de personas, la mayoría de las zonas rurales, son extremadamente pobres.

De igual modo, bajó la tasa de subalimentación y mejoraron los niveles de nutrición y sanidad, pero sin embargo, aún cerca de 800 millones de personas padecen hambre crónica y otros dos mil millones tienen carencias de micronutrientes.

La pobreza generalizada obstaculiza los avances ante sistemas alimentarios de más alto coeficiente de capital, suministros e insumos concentrados en menos manos, y crecientes flujos migratorios, sobre todo de los hombres, hacia zonas urbanas, lo cual hace que la agricultura quede en manos de las mujeres.

Las crisis, conflictos y catástrofes naturales aumentan, son cada vez más peligrosos e impiden labrar la tierra y producir alimentos, en un ambiente donde prevalece la ausencia de servicios médicos y la protección social.

La FAO insiste en que no se puede producir a costa de la deforestación masiva, escasez de agua, agotamiento de los suelos y elevados niveles de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero.

Propone, en tal sentido, establecer sistemas innovadores capaces de preservar los recursos naturales los cuales, a la vez, eleven la productividad con procesos transformadores y holísticos.

Estos incluyen la agroecología, la actividad agroforestal, la agricultura inteligente en función del clima y la agricultura de conservación, también basada en conocimientos tradicionales e indígenas.

La aplicación de los avances tecnológicos, reducciones drásticas del uso de combustibles fósiles en la agricultura y economía, ayudarían a enfrentar al cambio climático y los crecientes peligros naturales que dañan los ecosistemas y la vida humana son otras de las consideraciones de la institución.

Insiste, asimismo, en la urgencia de una mayor colaboración internacional para evitar surjan nuevas amenazas transfronterizas a los sistemas agrícolas y alimentarios, como plagas y enfermedades.

Las estrategias de crecimiento hacia los pobres deben asegurar el derecho a la tierra, participación en los mercados, inversiones agrícolas y otras medidas que les permitan generar ingresos, lo cual, junto a una adecuada protección social detendría sensiblemente las migraciones.

El secretario general de la ONU, Antonio Guterres, demandó la víspera una respuesta urgente de la comunidad internacional para salvar a más de 20 millones de personas amenazadas por la hambruna en Sudán del Sur, Yemen, Somalia y Nigeria.

Una clara evidencia de las amenazas futuras si no se actúa a tiempo. El Cuerno Africano es apenas una pálida crónica de una crisis anunciada.

Silvia Martínez

Trump’s first month in office proved nothing he said campaigning holds water. All politicians lie, saying whatever it takes to get elected, doing whatever they please once in office.

In short order, America’s 45th president surrendered to Wall Street and war-profiteers, gorging at the public trough – at the expense of humanity at home and abroad.

The hoped for antidote to Hillary appears no different when on policymaking – both subservient to monied interests at the expense of popular ones, both warriors, not peacemakers, both intolerant of challenges to America’s hegemonic aims, both hostile to all sovereign independent states, a deplorable situation, a dangerous one risking  possible nuclear war.

Hillary’s defeat didn’t dodge a nuclear bullet. It gave Trump the trigger, perhaps as willing to squeeze it to prove his machismo.

Both aspirants appear near two sides of the same coin, much alike on issues mattering most. It’s a tough judgment this soon into Trump’s tenure. Things sometimes change, though rarely, except for the worst, not better.

Trump calling NATO “obsolete” on the stump proved deceptive hyperbole. He fully supports the alliance, according to Vice President Pence, Defense Secretary Mattis, for sure hawkish National Security Advisor McMaster, and UK Prime Minister Theresa May.

Trump’s South China Sea saber-rattling risks confrontation with Beijing. Other administration figures speaking for him, demanding Russia end Kiev’s war on Donbass and relinquish its Crimea territory, is a prescription for no change in hostile US policy toward Moscow.

Threats made against Iran, North Korea and Venezuela risk more trouble, thinly veiled ones for regime change. All this going on in a few short weeks into Trump’s tenure is breathtaking and disturbing for a White House aspirant promising a different way.

There’s more. Additional US combat troops may be sent to Afghanistan to continue America’s longest war – instead of ending what never should have been waged in the first place.

Bipartisan members of Congress want a new Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to wage phony war on terrorism – instead of demanding recision of the September 14, 2001 measure, three days post-9/11.

US Central Command head General Joseph Votel wants more US combat troops for Syria – not to fight terrorism, to support it.

The way to defeat ISIS and likeminded groups is by no longer providing them with weapons, funding, training and direction. They exist because of foreign backing. Without it, they’re a spent force once exhausting their supplies.

Trump directing “mad dog” Mattis to develop a preliminary plan on how to defeat ISIS appears more about designing a way to use these foot soldiers more effectively – continuing America’s war OF terror on humanity, not waging peace instead.

His campaign hoopla about draining the swamp was deceptive hyperbole. His agenda continues serving privileged interests at the expense of most others.

US imperial madness remains unchanged – world peace and stability as threatened as ever.

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.

 

The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank study, “The End Is in Sight for the U.S. Foreclosure Crisis” states:

In the first half of August of 2016, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) located at Fort Benning, Georgia, invited almost 200 representatives from the defense industry to a meeting to discuss the desire to acquire a whole new type of vehicle.

The program was named “Mobile Protected Firepower” (MPF). The U.S Army has decided to dispense with its overly bureaucratic acquisition system of past decades, and has instead had the TRADOC, the command that is most knowledgeable of what the Army requires, sit down directly with industry professionals from the very start to design a vehicle that takes existing technologies and capabilities to design a workable solution at minimal cost. Apparently, the U.S. Army has learned something from past failed programs.

In concept, the MPF is seen as a highly mobile vehicle that is able to accompany and support Stryker Brigade Combat Teams and mobile and mechanized infantry formations, and aid reconnaissance-in-force missions. The MPF will be a fully tracked armored vehicle light and small enough to negotiate urban areas, and traverse poor roads and bridges in underdeveloped regions of the globe.

General Dynamics has already proposed the use of the chassis of its Ajax vehicle, being produced as an armored recon vehicle for the British Army, as a possible starting point for an acceptable MPF prototype. Named the Griffin, the vehicle mounts the XM-360 light weight 120mm rifled tank gun in a fully enclosed turret on the Chassis of the Ajax. The XM-360 gun was originally designed during the height of the FCS program. It is about 800 pounds lighter than the gun mounted on the M1 Abrams tank, is fitted with a muzzle break to reduce recoil, and is equipped with an autoloader to reduce the crew requirement by one man. Although still in the early stages of prototype development, the U.S. Army hopes to field an MPF vehicle by the mid-2020s.

The Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) program was initiated in March of 2013. BAE Systems was awarded the contract to supply the new vehicle in December of 2014, and unveiled the first production example in December of 2016. The AMPV is based on the M2 Bradley family of vehicle, and thus now shares many components with the Bradley and newly designed M190A6 Paladin. An M2 Bradley based vehicle to replace the M113 was extremely logical and offers many benefits over the older design. The new vehicle is much larger than the M113, offering 78% more internal volume.  Five variants are being produced; General Purpose, Mortar Carrier, Armored Ambulance, Mobile Medical Clinic and Mobile Command vehicle.

• General Purpose. This is an armored personnel carrier designed to move troops and materiel.
• Mortar Carrier. This vehicle provides fire support to mechanized units. A 120mm mortar will be carried.
• Armored Ambulance. This variant provides armored emergency transport of casualties to rearward medical facilities.
• Mobile Medical Clinic. Allows the forward positioning of medical services closer to the combat area.
• Mobile Command Vehicle. Providing commanders superior battlefield situational awareness and command and control capability when and where it is needed most.

Probably the most important procurement program of the last quarter of a century for the U.S. Army, the AMPV will modernize the lifeblood of the services mechanized units.

The Joint Light Tactical vehicle (JLTV) combines the utility of the HMMWV with increased mobility, armament, multiple modular armor protection packages, and the best IED defeating qualities of a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle (MRAP). Oshkosh Defense, who produces the M-ATV for the U.S. military, was awarded the JLTV contract in the summer of 2015. The JLTV balances mobility, utility and protection in a proven combination of existing technologies. The vehicle can be equipped with machine guns, a grenade launcher, or a 30mm autocannon.

The U.S. Army seemed to acknowledge its own failures in recent years, and revised its acquisition process in a number of key areas. The AMPV, JLTV and MPS programs illustrate a more pragmatic approach, aiming for more realistic goals and relying on improving upon existing, proven technology. The U.S. Army is playing catch-up to acquire the armored vehicles desperately required to replace aged and outdated fleets. It remains to be seen how financial constraints will effect these programs, as a new Trump administration, which has vowed to strengthen and rebuild the U.S. military, takes over executive functions in January of 2017.

The leadership of the U.S. Army is faced with the challenge of maintaining a material and technological edge over its “Near-Peer” challengers, Russia and China. Both of these nations have developed impressive and capable armored vehicles during the years when the U.S. Army was throwing money down the drain. The battlefield accomplishments of the Russian T-90 MBT and TOS-1 Self-Propelled Rocket Artillery have been demonstrated in Syria, with the T-90 being the only advanced tank in theater proven to survive ATGM attacks on more than one occasion. New Chinese armored vehicles, though unproven in combat, are surely drawing the interested attention of the U.S. defense industry and the U.S. Army top leadership.

It appears that the U.S. Army has finally turned the page on its failed acquisition efforts, and is progressing in the right direction; however, it must rely on updated legacy systems for at least another decade before new vehicles start making their presence felt in significant numbers.

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

Racial problems persists decades after African American literary awakenings

Review: I Am Not Your Negro

Filmmaker: Raoul Peck

Narration: Samuel L. Jackson

In the aftermath of World War II the African American people intensified their struggle against Jim Crow segregation for the acquisition of full equality and the right to political self-determination.

This resurgence in commitment towards realizing the objectives of previous generations from the period of slavery through Reconstruction, the Great Migration, the Harlem Renaissance and the Great Depression was exemplified on a literary level.

African Americans had utilized the pen as a method of protest and organization extending back into the 19^th century when luminaries such as Maria Stewart, Mary Ann Shadd, David T. Walker, Frederick Douglass, Anna Julia Cooper and Ida B. Wells-Barnett opened up avenues of expression and communications which had global impact.

James Arthur Baldwin, who was born in Harlem, New York on August 2, 1924, represented the reemergence of this literary and political tradition when he began to address the so-called “race problem” in the United States through both fiction and essays. With a string of books during the 1950s and early 1960s such as Go Tell It on the Mountain (1953), Giovanni’s Room (1956), Another Country (1962), Notes of a Native Son (1955), Nobody Knows My Name (1961) and The Fire Next Time (1963), Baldwin became one the most sought after public intellectuals in the mid-20^th century.

“I am not Your Negro”: Trailer

The writer’s early life was marked by poverty and a rapidly growing awareness of institutional racism. Baldwin’s step-father was a minister which undoubtedly played a role when the author after a mystical experience took up the ministry at the age of 14. He would later reject preaching and Christianity as a religion and instead became a full-time writer and lecturer by the time he was a young adult.

He would soon move to Paris, France at the age of 24 in order to focus on his writing. He said that France provided him with the creative space to work as the racial situation of African Americans in the U.S. was fueling his personal rage.

I Am Not Your Negro

Raoul Peck’s treatment of Baldwin’s development and social impact utilizes archival television and film footage on both the subject of the documentary as well as productions which reflect the historical and cultural legacy of the U.S. The narration is taken from a manuscript Baldwin was working on at the time of his death entitled “Remember This House.”

The book was autobiographical in character where Baldwin looks into his own personal trajectory through the lives of three pioneering leaders within the African American freedom movement: Medgar Evers, Malcolm X (El Hajj Malik Shabazz) and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. All three personalities were intricately involved in the struggle against national oppression and social injustice during the 1950s and 1960s. Evers, Malcolm X and Dr. King were all assassinated for their political beliefs and social practice.

Evers (July 2, 1925-June 12, 1963) as a organizer for the Mississippi National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) had played an important role in the investigation into the August 1955 lynching of Emmett Till, a 14-year-old African American youth from Chicago who was brutally slain after allegation were made that he had dared make sexually suggestive comments to a white woman. Till was from Chicago visiting his great uncle near Money, Mississippi when he fell victim to the lynch mob. The two assailants, the husband and brother-in-law of the white woman who lied about Till, although claiming innocence during the trial, later confessed to the killing in a January 1956 interview with Look magazine for the sum of $4,000.

As a field secretary of the NAACP, Evers drew the ire of local white supremacists during the early 1960s. As the movement for Civil Rights escalated through mass demonstrations forcing federal government interventions, he was targeted for assassination on June 12, 1963. Evers was shot to death outside his home in Jackson by a member of the White Citizen’s Council, Byron De La Beckwith.

Malcolm X (May 19, 1925-February 21, 1965) was the national spokesperson for the Nation of Islam (NOI) under the leadership of the Hon. Elijah Muhammad. Baldwin had debated Malcolm X in 1961 over W-BAI radio in New York City on the role of the student sit-in movement and the character of the Civil Rights struggle in general. Baldwin in 1961 seemed to have been more in agreement with approach of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), headed by Dr. King.

Nonetheless, by 1963, Baldwin would publish his groundbreaking essay entitled “The Fire Next Time.” The book prefigured the rise of urban rebellions, revolutionary nationalism and the demand for Black political power in both the North and the South. By the time of Malcolm X’s assassination, after he had left the NOI and formed the Muslim Mosque, Inc., an orthodox Islamic group, and the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU), patterned on the national liberation movements in Africa and the state-dominated Organization of African Unity (OAU), the Muslim leader and Baldwin were closer together ideologically. Malcolm X was assassinated on February 21, 1965 while preparing to address a public meeting in New York City.

Baldwin was also close friend and supporter of Dr. King and the SCLC. Nonetheless, he appeared to have rejected the nonviolent and direct action approach to the struggle voicing his rage through his books, lectures and media interviews. The SCLC leader was gunned down in Memphis, Tennessee on April 4, 1968 while he was providing support to striking sanitation workers seeking recognition as a labor union.

The documentary captures a segment of the late night ABC talk program then known as the Dick Cavett Show from June 13, 1968, when Baldwin is challenged by philosopher Paul Weiss who criticizes the author for placing too much emphasis on race a major factor in analyzing American society.

Baldwin says that within the U.S. African Americans are kept out of certain labor unions; they are segregated in ghettos by the real estate lobby; and that the school system provides inadequate and racist textbooks for substandard schools that Black children are forced to attend. He notes that this is the evidence of the history and contemporary situation in the country as of 1968.

He then raises the rhetorical question to Weiss emphasizing that this white academic is asking African Americans to believe in a set of ideals which do not reflect the reality of the social situation. Within the theater while the documentary was running people began to applaud Baldwin words which were spoken nearly five decades ago.

Race and the American Crisis in the 21^st Century

Consequently, the evoking of these searing questions still has much relevance for the current period in the U.S. The ascendancy of the Trump administration has made many whites comfortable to express their greatest fears through racist demagogy and practices.

This film by Peck makes an important contribution in fostering a dialogue about race, class and social justice. It is good to see Baldwin, who was a highly visible figure in the 1960s and 1970s both through the print media and mass communications outlets, almost resurrected through this documentary. Baldwin died from cancer in France on December 1, 1987.

Similar voices such as Baldwin’s are needed today. This film raises the question as to who are the public intellectuals in the America of the second decade of the 21^st century; those activists and thinkers that are immersed in the burning and pressing issues of the day.

This inquiry can only be answered by the younger generation which has recognized the need to continue the revolution to its completion. How this is to be done remains a chapter to be written for the annals of the future.

 

President Trump remained true to his customary flip-flopping on just about every issue when he stated during a joint press conference with Prime Minister Netanyahu that he is “looking at two-state and one-state, and I like the one that both parties like… I can live with either one.” By stating so, Trump gave Netanyahu what he was hoping to get—a departure from the two-state solution.

To achieve that, Trump is reportedly looking at other options that would enlist the Arab states—who presently share mutual strategic interests with Israel to form a united front against their common enemy, Iran—to help broker a solution to the Palestinian problem.

 

To be sure, the two leaders who are both in trouble—Netanyahu is under multiple criminal investigations for corruption, and Trump is being attacked from just about every corner for his outrageous statements, contradictions, and self-indulgence—found comfort with one another.

Netanyahu went back home feeling triumphant, as he seemingly managed to sway Trump from the idea of two states, while Trump presented himself as a statesman thinking out of the box by looking at an Israeli-Arab comprehensive peace through which to fashion a solution to the Palestinian conflict.

Although CIA Director Mike Pompeo met with Mahmoud Abbas the day before the press conference, I was told by a top Jordanian official in Amman that Abbas was abundantly clear during the meeting that there is not and will never be an alternative to a two-state solution based on the Arab Peace Initiative (API). Moreover, Abbas indicated that Hamas’s position on a two-state solution is unequivocal, and in any case, Gaza and the West Bank must constitute a single Palestinian state.

While Netanyahu often pretended that he still believes in the two-state solution, during the many encounters he had with former Secretary of State John Kerry (including a joint meeting with Egypt’s President Sisi and Jordan’s King Abdullah in Aqaba in 2016) where he was presented with a comprehensive peace plan, he repeatedly changed his position.

Netanyahu habitually claimed that his extremist right-wing partners oppose the creation of a Palestinian state under any circumstances and that his government would collapse if he were to actively pursue the idea, as if he could not form a new government with the left and center parties who are committed to a two-state solution. Nevertheless, he continued to sing the song of two states for public consumption and to get the Obama administration off his back.

Regardless of what new ideas Netanyahu and Trump concocted, one thing remains certain: there is simply no other realistic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict other than two independent states, Jewish and Palestinian.

The viability of this solution does not only rest on preserving Israel as a democracy with a Jewish national identity while meeting the Palestinians’ aspiration for a state of their own. A careful scrutiny of other would-be alternatives floating around have no basis in reality.

Jordan is not and will never become a Palestinian state (as some Israelis advocate) because the Hashemite Kingdom will resist that with all its might; a binational state is a kiss of death to the Zionist dream; the establishment of a Palestinian state in Gaza while incorporating much of the West Bank into Israel is a non-starter; the creation of a federation between Israel, Jordan, and Palestine is a pipe dream; and finally, confining the Palestinians in the West Bank in cantons to run their internal affairs as they see fit, while Israel maintains security control, will be violently resisted by the Palestinians until the occupation comes to an end.

It is true that the Arab states view Israel today as a potential ally in the face of the Iranian threat, and there may well be a historic opportunity to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the context of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. This opportunity, though, can be materialized only in the context of the API.

The central requirement of the API is a settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on a two-state solution, which would subsequently lead to a regional peace. Indeed, only by Israel first embracing the API will the Arab states lend their support to a two-state solution by putting pressure on the Palestinians to make the necessary concessions to reach a peace accord.

Those who claim that the two-state solution has passed its time and new and creative ideas should be explored must know that many new ideas have been considered. None of them, however, could provide a solution that meets the Israelis’ or the Palestinians’ requirement for independent and democratic states enjoying Jewish and Palestinian national identities, respectively.

Netanyahu has found in Trump a co-conspirator. Both have a proven record of double talking, misleading, and often outright lying. Both are blinded by their hunger for power and are ready and willing to say anything to please their shortsighted constituencies. Neither has the vision or the courage to rise above the fray, and nothing they have uttered jointly meets the hardcore reality they choose to ignore.

What Netanyahu and Trump have demonstrated during their press conference was that both seem to revel in illusions where they find a zone of real comfort, while leaving Israelis and Palestinians to an uncertain and ominous future.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.
[email protected]                            

Web: www.alonben-meir.com

Hydro in Ontario is a mess and rates are skyrocketing. The high number of people who have trouble paying or can’t pay their Hydro bills is growing by the day. Businesses are leaving the province and/or refusing to locate here because of high Hydro rates. A group that is especially being ignored is small and medium business including farmers (that’s from a former union activist!).

On 19 November 2016, Premier Kathleen Wynne said she made a “mistake on Hydro” and took “responsibility for it.” But it wasn’t just an accident that Hydro rates skyrocketed. Rates shot through the roof because they were structured that way through Provincial Government legislation. In actual fact, all three Provincial parties bear responsibility for the Hydro “mistake.”

It’s worth reviewing that history.

Shortly after the Mike Harris Conservatives took power in 1995, they commissioned an advisory committee to report on Hydro in Ontario. The report, A Framework for Competition: The Report of the Advisory Committee on Competition in Ontario’s Electricity System to the Ontario Minister of Environment and Energy, recommended breaking up the public monopoly and opening Hydro up to competition from private companies. Lorne Richmond from the law firm Sack, Goldblatt and Mitchell’s in-depth analysis of the Advisory report succinctly summarized it: “It looks like just a way to drag profit out of the public system.”

1998: End of Public, Non-Profit Hydro

The most significant piece of legislation affecting Hydro rates was Mike Harris’s Bill 35 in 1998, The Electricity Competition Act. It ended 94 years of public, non-profit, at-cost power in Ontario, where profits were given back to businesses and rate payers in the form of low and stable rates. On April 1st, 1999, all Municipal Hydro’s as well as Ontario Hydro were changed from non-profit, at-cost Commissions into for-profit corporations. Ontario Hydro was broken up into five Corporations, the two largest being OPG (Ontario Power Generation) and Hydro One. The Harris Tories conducted a massive advertising campaign on Hydro Deregulation promising that “A competitive deregulated electricity market, will lead to lower rates” [see “Harris certain Ontario power rates will drop”].

At public hearings then and all through the 2000s, as part of the campaign to maintain public hydro, the question repeatedly asked was “How do you get lower rates when you add in profits to generators, profits to distributors, profits to retailers, dividends to investors and commissions to commodities brokers?” When Tory Energy Minister Chris Stockwell was confronted with this question, he angrily left his own town hall meeting.

In 1998, the Conservatives set up a Market design committee. The main player on that committee came from ENRON, an American corporation that had recently committed one of the biggest corporate frauds in American history. It had designed electricity markets around the world including Alberta, California, and here in Ontario. Not surprisingly, Alberta had the same problems with high rates as we came to have here in Ontario. California subsequently had a major crisis with its electrical system after ENRON designed its electricity market and – in order to raise market rates – manipulated supply so low that it resulted in major blackouts. The deregulation that originated in the U.S. was the major cause of the 2003 blackout here in Ontario.

Ontario’s electricity market opened in the spring of 2002 but in November of that year Premier Ernie Eves had to close the retail market because the market price had spiked up to 49 times the rate during the summer months. The ENRON designed wholesale market – called the IESO (The Independent Electricity System Operator) remains open to this day and is one of the major reasons for price spikes in Ontario.

In April of 2002, CEP, CUPE and the Ontario Electricity Coalition stopped the Harris/Eves sale of Hydro One in court. During the court case Judge Gans asked the governments lawyer “Why did you separate the debt from the Bruce nuclear deal?” The Government Lawyer answered. “To make it easier to sell” [the ruling can be found here].

In June of 2002, after losing the court case to sell Hydro One, the Tories under Ernie Eves passed Bill 56 giving them the legal authority to sell Hydro One. But they didn’t dare do it. It is this legislation that Kathleen Wynne is using to sell Hydro One now. (In 2000, in a deal far worse than the sale of HWY 407, the Tories had privatized the Bruce nuclear station via a long term lease. The profits are privatized but the debt, the risks and decommissioning remain public). Tory leader Patrick Brown seems to have amnesia about the Tories’ actions and the Tory deregulation legislation that is the major part of skyrocketing hydro rates.

The ENRON designed IESO electricity market however remains open and hidden. The IESO submits a bill to the OEB (Ontario Energy Board), twice a year and the OEB “trues up” rates. That’s why for the last ten years, your Hydro bill has gone up every May 1st and November 1st. There is not an ENRON designed electricity market anywhere in the world where prices have not skyrocketed.

In the spring of 2002, part of the NDP’s energy plan was that “All new generation will be private.” (As well, during the early 1990s, Bob Rae’s appointee to head Ontario Hydro, Maurice Strong, was instrumental in laying the groundwork for the restructuring of Ontario Hydro for the Harris Tories). At the convention that year, leader Howard Hampton deleted that part of the NDP’s plan and he campaigned on Public Power in the 2003 provincial election.

On September 5, 2003, with Dalton McGuinty Liberals low in the polls, he took the main campaign plank of the NDP and promised Public Power. In an exclusive interview with the Toronto Sun‘s editorial board on that date, he declared: “Deregulation and privatization hasn’t worked and we can’t go back there. I’ve drawn a lesson from that. Number one, we’ve got to keep Hydro Public.” McGuinty is also on the record as saying, when Eves closed the retail electricity market, that “We don’t have any choice. I didn’t create this mess; My job is to clean it up. The market is dead, deregulation is dead, privatization is dead.”

The Liberals went on to win the election, broke their promise for Public Power, and continued to enact legislation which expanded Hydro deregulation and privatization. They passed Bill 100 in 2004 which changed regulations in favour of more deregulation. That year the Liberals introduced “time of use” pricing and Smart Meters with the promise that “Smart Meters will save you money.” McGuinty also said that Smart Meters were the primary tool for conservation. The Ontario Electricity Coalition said at the time that Smart Meters would not do anything for conservation. All “time of use” pricing and Smart Meters would do is funnel massive profits into the electricity market – a claim confirmed by the Auditor General’s 2014 report on Smart Meters.

The Liberals also won the 2007 Provincial election. Despite Public Power being the main campaign plank of the NDP in the 2003 election, the NDP never mentioned a word about Public Power during the entire 2007 election. The Liberals quickly went on to bring in the billion-dollar Integrated Power Supply plan promising more competition and increased efficiencies, and the Green Energy act in which the Liberal Government signed 20 and 30 year contracts with private green energy producers (wind turbines and solar farms) as high as 80 cents a Kwh, which forms the major part of that Global Adjustment Fee. In stark contrast, the price of power in 1998 was 4.3 cents a Kwh.

Since then, rates have soared as the Ontario Energy Board basically rubber stamps all applications for delivery (distribution) rate increases. Despite being touted as an independent watchdog, there is a revolving door for employment between the OEB and Hydro companies in Ontario.

In Toronto, since 2006, the OEB has approved $6-billion in rate increases with no effective oversight. How is it possible, in this day and age, for the CEO of Toronto Hydro to lie on his résumé (getting paid $1.2-million a year based on credentials he doesn’t have), lie under oath at regulatory hearings, raise rates by $6-billion, put a company $2-billion into debt with no scrutiny, and allow the Institutional knowledge required to run the utility to just walk out the door with no succession plan? When the OEB was presented with iron clad proof of the situation at Toronto Hydro, it did nothing.

Meanwhile small and medium businesses and citizens in Toronto suffered. Under deregulation, delivery or distribution charges went from about $6/month to as high as $120 in some rural areas, hitting farmers hard. There is much more to the story especially on the current sale of Hydro One. When the Liberals passed Bill 91 they removed all public oversight of Hydro One in order to make it easier to sell.

Rate Freezes

Once consistent, government response to rates going haywire because of deregulation has been to come in with a rate freeze to “protect” us – without in fact making any substantive change to deal with the underlying problem. Eves did it, McGuinty did it and now Wynne has done it. This latest round of rates freezes does nothing more than protect deregulation and the profits made by private energy producers.

Wynne is also financing the Global Adjustment fee which has greatly profited private green energy producers. Refinancing Global Adjustment fees just piles up more debt. Nor did Wynne close the IESO Electricity market. Market debt is also piling up; debt that must be paid by ratepayers… after the election.

In short, deregulation and privatization did not deliver on its promises of “lower rates,” or create “greater efficiencies.” Smart Meters did notsave you any money. In fact, Hydro deregulation has been a complete disaster for Ontario’s businesses, citizens and its economy. Deregulated electricity markets have not worked anywhere and never forget, the vested interests who profit greatly from the ENRON designed, IESO electricity market here in Ontario with do anything and everything to keep that market open.

How to Fix the ‘Mistake’

What needs to be done to fix Ontario’s electricity system and economy – it won’t be easy:

1. All privatization, mergers and the sale of Hydro One must immediately stop. (European countries like Germany are buying back their utilities. We must make a plan to buy back our Public utilities).
2. Deregulation didn’t work. Period. The IESO electricity market must be closed and deregulation legislation must be repealed.
3. Rates must be regulated. “Time of use” rates must be scrapped and replaced with a single rate. (Smart Meters can still be used for a single rate).
4. The entire Ontario Energy Board must be replaced and restructured to be a real public and democratic watchdog with real teeth so that it acts in the public interest not for the private few. A review should be conducted on the OEB’s decisions on delivery and distribution charges and some of the more glaring conflicts of interest.
5. We need green power. But in order for green power to be effective, conservation must be first. The planet is in trouble. Deregulation and private, for-profit power is never going to do what needs to be done. It is ten times cheaper to use less power than build new generation of any kind. Private electricity producers, green or conventional, are however not in the business of selling less power. There have been no real conservation measures under deregulation.
6. In order for Green power such as wind and solar to be successful, it must be owned locally, cooperatively and benefit the local community, not profit driven multinational corporations. The private sector does its job of making and manufacturing all the things we need for a Hydro system, wire, transformers, switches, poles connectors, relays etc. But – driven by their commitment to maximize profits for their shareholders – they do a terrible job of acting in the public interest. That’s the dividing line between public and private in the hydro industry.
7. Those long term agreements for private wind and solar power will have to be dealt with. This will be one of the most difficult issues. They will sue under NAFTA (As some of us predicted in 2002).
8. Make a plan and rebuild our public utilities. Ontario’s businesses, jobs for youth, the environment and the economy depend on that to happen. Returning these levers of control to local and provincial governments is critical.

If these things are not done, then our problems with high Hydro rates will remain. Some people are tired of hearing about Sir Adam Beck and his vision of Public Power. But… it is a fact. We did have 94 years of Public, non-profit power in Ontario. Sir Adam Beck wasn’t a socialist, he was a practical businessman backed by small and medium businesses and eighteen referendums in Ontario. His vision of Public Power made Ontario’s economy great. It made Ontario a great place to do business. On his death bed, Sir Adam Beck said “I wished I could have lived long enough to build a band of Iron around Hydro, to keep it safe from the politicians.” He might have added “And keep it safe from the profiteers.”

Conclusion: The 2018 Provincial Election

The people of Ontario never wanted private, deregulated power. They have always wanted regulated, public power. They now understand that rate freezes just delay the inevitable rate hikes after the election. They are ready to press for a fundamental change in how we deal with energy.

Ontario Tory Leader Patrick Brown has amnesia about the history and cause of high Hydro rates and is blaming Kathleen Wynne. Andrea Horwath’s NDP had the right campaign at the wrong time in 2003, but is now silent on Hydro deregulation and the ENRON designed IESO electricity market. Why is that? The NDP spent a ton of money on the Public Power campaign in 2003 and could claim that the NDP was right all along. Why isn’t she doing that?

The longer the delay to dump Hydro Deregulation, the worse our electricity problems will become. Whichever party has the courage to admit that Hydro Deregulation was a big mistake and deal with the electricity crisis with a plan to dump deregulation and regulate rates, will likely form the next Government in Ontario. •

Paul Kahnert was a Toronto Hydro worker and CUPE Local One member for 33 years. He was a spokesperson for the Ontario Electricity Coalition from 2001 to 2010. The Ontario Electricity Coalition and its members CEP and CUPE stopped the sale of Hydro One in a Province wide campaign and court case in the Spring of 2002.

The Cliff of Nuclear Annihilation: Humanity is on the Brink of Extinction! Thirty Seconds to Midnight

By Regis Tremblay, Helen Caldicott, Ray McGovern, David Vine, Chris Hedges, and Colonel Ann Wright, February 20 2017

Eric Zuesse, follow-up of version originally published at The Saker

Zerohedge’s “Tyler Durden” headlined on February 21st, “Bannon Breaks With Pence, Delivers Warning To Europe” and noted that before U.S. Vice President Mike Pence and U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis reassured European leaders this past weekend that the U.S. is as anti-Russian now as it was under Barack Obama, U.S. President Donald Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, had told European leaders “that he viewed the EU as a flawed construct and favoured conducting relations with Europe on a bilateral basis” — and that this fact supposedly raises a question regarding the Trump Administration, of “which axis is dominant: that of Trump/Bannon/Miller or Pence/Mattis/Haley.”

However, there is actually no such conflict: the Trump Administration, ever since at least February 14th’s White House press conference stating it firmly as President Trump’s policy, is and will remain anti-Russian. But this doesn’t deny that the Trump Administration also is going to be dealing not with the European Union as a government, but instead with the European nations individually. There is no contradiction between those two policies: America will be an enemy of Russia, and will support NATO in that regard, but America will not support the EU, but only its member-nations — to the extent that they increase their military spending (which is a decision that only each individual EU member-nation can make: there is no ‘EU’ market for weaponry, only 28 individual national markets there).

Donald Trump’s campaign statements that “NATO is obsolete” and that Russia and the U.S. “are not bound to be adversaries” were merely part of the candidate’s pitch to ‘anti-war’ voters, in a field of Presidential contenders who were ignoring them; but now that Trump is President, he is fully in line with the desires of America’s military-industrial complex, the owners of Lockheed Martin and other companies whose profits are heavily dependent upon selling nuclear missiles and other strategic weapons (in addition to the traditional weapons that those companies also want NATO member-nations to buy).

Thus far in his U.S. Presidency, Donald Trump has been serving not the American public but instead the American aristocracy, who loathed him and overwhelmingly preferred his Presidential-campaign competitor, Hillary Clinton. This fact — his serving the U.S. aristocracy instead of the public — is most starkly shown in Trump’s foreign policies, which might even be as strongly anti-Russian as hers were, even though he consistently throughout his campaign for the Presidency, promised that as President he would pursue a cooperative instead of a hostile U.S. relationship with Russia. In his policies toward Russia, thus far, he turns out to be far more Hillary Clinton than (the promised) Donald Trump. He might even be as likely to force World War III with Russia as she would have been as President.

Ever since Trump won the Presidency, the U.S. aristocracy (who control or outright own all of the U.S.-based international corporations whose sales-volumes depend upon increasing the nation’s and its’ allies’ ‘defense’ spending — and that requires restoring ‘the Cold War’) have been trying to abort his Presidency in any and every way they can. It’s a PR or marketing tactic. Above all, they have been trying to portray Trump as being secretly a Russian agent, a traitor. On February 14th, they clearly conquered him, and brought him fully into line (and not merely partially into line, as before, such as by his abolishing environmental and other regulations that reduce their profits). But did this happen because he is a coward, or instead because he is a fool? How did they conquer him? At the current time, this can be determined only by close examination of the way in which he capitulated. So, the February 14th event will be scrutinized here, in detail:

Trump made unequivocally clear, on February 14th, that the new Cold War between the U.S. and Russia will continue until Russia complies with two conditions that would not only be humiliating to Russia (and to the vast majority of its citizens), but that would also be profoundly immoral. One of these two conditions would actually be impossible, even if it weren’t, in addition, immoral. For Vladimir Putin to agree to either of these two conditions, would not only be a violation of his often-expressed basic viewpoint, but it would also cause the vast majority of Russians to despise him — because they respect him for his consistent advocacy of that very viewpoint. He has never wavered from it. The support of Russians for that viewpoint is virtually universal. (This article will explain the viewpoint.)

TRUMP’S DEMAND #1: “RETURN CRIMEA”

In order to understand the Russian perspective on the first of these two issues (which any American must understand who wants to understand the astounding stupidity of Mr. Trump’s position on this matter), which is the issue of Crimea (which had for hundreds of years been part of Russia, but was then suddenly and arbitrarily transferred to Ukraine in 1954 by the Soviet dictator — and the U.S. now demands that his dictat regarding Crimea must be restored), two videos are essential for anyone to see, and here they are:

The first video (click here to see it) (and no one should read any further here who hasn’t seen that video or at least the first twelve minutes of it, because it’s crucial) shows the U.S.-engineered coup that violently overthrew the democratically elected President of Ukraine in February 2014, under the cover of ‘a democratic revolution’, which was actually nothing of the sort, and which had instead started being planned in the U.S. State Department by no later than 2011, and started being organized inside the U.S. Embassy in Kiev by no later than 1 March 2013. The head of the ‘private CIA’ firm Stratfor, has rightly called it “the most blatant coup in history”.

The second video (click here to see it) shows the massacre of Crimeans who were escaping from Kiev during the Ukrainian coup, on 20 February 2014, and which massacre came to be known quickly in Crimea, as “the Pogrom of Korsun,” which was the town where the fascists whom the Obama regime had hired were able to trap the escapees and kill many of them. That’s the incident which — occurring during the coup in Ukraine — stirred enormous fear by Crimeans of the rabid hatred toward them by the U.S.-installed regime.

Finally on the issue of Crimea, all of the Western-sponsored polls that were taken of Crimeans both before and after the plebiscite on 16 March 2014 (which was just weeks after Obama overthrew the Ukrainian President for whom 75% of Crimeans had voted) showed over 90% support by Crimeans for Crimea’s return to being again a part of Russia. Everyone agrees that there was far more than 50% support for that, among the Crimeans. Furthermore, even Barack Obama accepted the basic universal principle of the right of self-determination of peoples when it pertained to Catalans in Spain, and Scots in UK, and neither he nor anyone else has ever been able to make any credible case for applying it there and generally, but not in Crimea — especially under these circumstances.

So, on the first issue, Trump’s demand that Putin force the residents of Crimea to become subjects of the coup-regime that Obama had just established in Ukraine, it won’t be fulfilled — and it shouldn’t be fulfilled. Obama instituted the sanctions against Russia on the basis of what he called Putin’s “conquest of land” (referring to Crimea), but Russians see it instead as Russia’s standing steadfast for, and protecting, in what was historically and culturally a part of Russia not a part of Ukraine, the right of self-determination of peoples — especially after the country of which their land had been a part for the immediately prior 60 years (Ukraine), had been conquered three weeks earlier, via a bloody coup by a foreign power, and, moreover, this was a foreign power whom Crimeans loathed. Putin will not accept Trump’s demand. Nor should he.

TRUMP’S DEMAND #2: RUSSIA END THE UKRAINE-v.-DONBASS WAR

The way that this demand was stated on February 14th was that Russia must “deescalate violence in the Ukraine,” referring to Ukraine’s invasions of its own former Donbass region, which broke away from the Obama-installed Ukrainian regime shortly after Crimea did, but which Putin (after having already suffered so much — sanctions, etc. — from allowing the Crimeans to become Russians again) refused to allow into the Russian Federation, and only offered military and humanitarian assistance to protect themselves so that not all of the roughly five million residents there would flee across the border into Russia.

Donbass had voted 90% for the Ukrainian President that Obama illegally replaced in his coup.

Francois Hollande, Angela Merkel, and Vladimir Putin, had established the Minsk negotiations and agreements, to end the hottest phase of the (Obama-caused) war between Ukraine and Donbass; and a crucial part of the Minsk-2 agreement was that Ukraine would allow the residents of Donbass a certain minimal degree of autonomy within Ukraine, as part of a new Ukrainian Federation, but Ukraine’s Rada or parliament refuses to do that, refuses to allow it, and the United States and its allies blame the residents of Donbass for that refusal by their enemies, and blame the Donbassers for the continued war, or, as Trump’s press secretary referred to it on February 14th, “violence in the Ukraine.”

He’s demanding that Donbass stop the war, when Donbass is being constantly attacked by a Ukrainian regime that refuses even to fulfill a fundamental provision of the peace agreement that Hollande, Merkel, and Putin, had arranged, and that both Ukraine and Donbass signed. (Note: even Hollande and Merkel weren’t able to get the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Obama, to so much as participate in this effort for peace.)

A demand like that — for the victim to stop the fight — is impossible to fulfill. It’s like, in World War II, blaming the United States, Soviet Union, and UK, for their war against Germany, Italy, and Japan. It is a cockeyed demand, which requires only cockeyed credulous believers, in order for it to be taken seriously.

The way that Sean Spicer, President Trump’s press spokesperson, put this demand in his February 14th press conference, was:

 President Trump has made it very clear that he expects the Russian government to deescalate violence in the Ukraine and return Crimea.  At the same time, he fully expects to and wants to be able to get along with Russia.

To some people, that combination sounds idiotic. In any event, it’s not merely unrealistic; it is downright impossible. It’s not seeking peace with Russia; it is instead reasserting war against Russia.

Spicer said, with evident pride: “The President has been incredibly tough on Russia.”

A reporter at the press conference challenged that statement: “To me it seems, and I think to a lot of Americans it seems that this President has not been tough on Russia.” Spicer answered by referring to the statement that America’s new U.N. Representative, Nikki Haley, had made. She said at the U.N. on February 2nd:

I must condemn the aggressive actions of Russia. … The United States stands with the people of Ukraine, who have suffered for nearly three years under Russian occupation and military intervention. Until Russia and the separatists it supports respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, this crisis will continue. … The United States continues to condemn and call for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over the peninsula to Ukraine.

So, Spicer said that,

with respect to Russia, I think the comments that Ambassador Haley made at the U.N. were extremely forceful and very clear that until — Q    That was an announcement from Haley, not the President.MR. SPICER:  She speaks for the President.  I speak for the President.  All of us in this administration.  And so all of the actions and all of the words in this administration are on behalf and at the direction of this President.  So I don’t think we could be any clearer on the President’s commitment.

Trump is continuing Obama’s war against Russia, although he had not given America’s voters to expect anything of the kind. Some voters (this writer is one) had voted for him because Trump alleged that he strongly disagreed with his opponent Hillary Clinton about that — he outright lied to the voters, on the most important thing of all. He applied mental coercion — deceit — in order to win. But as it turns out, he’s not really opposed at all to Obama’s coup in Ukraine. Perhaps he is so stupid that he’s not even aware that it was a coup, instead of a ‘democratic revolution’ (the cover-story). Maybe he’s so stupid, that he believes Obama’s lies.

At least Hillary Clinton was honest enough to make clear that she was going to continue Obama’s policies (only worse). But she was so stupid that she couldn’t even beat Donald Trump.

Anyway, all of that is water over the damn, now.

Initially, it had seemed that the only way in which Trump was aiming to satisfy the U.S. aristocracy (owners of the military-industrial complex, among other things) about increasing the ‘defense’ budget, was going to be a buildup against Iran; but, now, that war might end up playing second fiddle.

The war with Russia can only escalate, unless or until President Trump reverses course and states publicly, and provides to the American people and the world, the clear evidence of, his predecessor’s perfidy, both in Ukraine, and in Syria. Unless and until he comes clean, and admits that the problem between the U.S. and Russia isn’t Putin, but instead Obama, it will continue escalating, right up to World War III; and here is why:

When it escalates to a traditional hot war, either in Ukraine or in Syria, the side that’s losing that traditional war will have only one way to avoid defeat: a sudden unannounced nuclear all-out blitz attack against the other side. A nuclear war will last less than 30 minutes. The side that attacks first will suffer the less damage, because it will have knocked out some of the other side’s retaliatory missiles and bombs. The military would score that as a ‘win’ (victory, even if nuclear winter results). The global public would score it as hell (regardless of which side ‘wins’). If Donald Trump were intelligent, then one could assume that he knows this. He’s not, so he doesn’t. He plods on, toward mutual nuclear annihilation. Perhaps, like Hillary Clinton, he believes that the U.S. has ‘Nuclear Primacy’ and so will ‘win’.

It’s all so stupid. But, even worse, it’s evil. And I’m not talking about Russia or Putin here. The real problem — on this ultimate issue, of avoiding a nuclear winter — is my own country: the United States of America. To call this a ‘democracy’ is not merely a lie; it is a bad joke. The American public are not to blame for this evil. The American aristocracy are. It’s an oligarchy gone mad.

Trump was never a principled person. He never really resisted, at all. He caved after only three weeks on the job. Clearly, then, he’s not only a psychopath; he is a fool.

Trump promised to ‘drain the swamp’. Instead, he’s feeding the alligators. He’s serving the higher powers, even though they despise and would like to destroy him. He’s obsequious for their support; he has decided that they control the public even more than the President of the U.S. can. He threw in the towel within his first three weeks on the job. Perhaps he’s just trying to avoid being overthrown. He never even tried the “bully pulpit.” The con is over, and he doesn’t know anything else than that tactic. He never really cared about the truth, nor about the public. Only the con. And it’s been failing.

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

 

On Monday, on the eve of his 65th birthday, Russia’s UN envoy died – cause of death so far not announced, perhaps a heart attack, though given US hostility toward Russia, foul play remains a possibility unless forensic analysis rules it out.

Family, friends, colleagues and admirers like myself mourn his tragic loss. Vladimir Putin “express(ed) condolences to (his) family and friends, and to the entire Foreign Ministry following” his death. “The head of state highly valued Churkin’s professionalism and diplomatic talent,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov explained.

Deputy Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov called him “a rock against which attempts of our enemies to undermine all that makes the glory of Russia break.”

It will be impossible, very difficult to replace him as a symbol of Russia’s foreign policy and Russia’s voice on a key international platform in the Security Council.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakhavova said he was “admired not only by those who loved him. His opponents also admired him.”

A Foreign Ministry statement said he he “died suddenly in New York on February 20…The outstanding Russian diplomat died in harness.”

In early February, he said diplomatic positions are “much more hectic” than they used to be, very “stressful” because of instability worldwide.

On April 8, 2006, he was appointed Russia’s UN envoy, serving in this capacity honorably and effectively with distinction until his tragic death.

In 1981, he earned a doctorate in history from Soviet Russia’s Diplomatic Academy. After graduating from Moscow State Institute of International Relations in 1974, he joined Soviet Russia’s Foreign Ministry as a translator.

From 1974 – 1979, he was a USSR Strategic Arms Limitation Talks staff member. From 1979 – 1982, he served as Foreign Ministry US desk third secretary.

From 1982 – 1987, he was USSR’s Washington embassy second, then first secretary. From 1987 – 1990, he served as Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) International Department staff member, then special advisor and press secretary to Foreign Affairs Minister Eduard Shevandnadze.

From 1990 – 1991, he was Foreign Ministry Information Department director. From 1992 – 1994, he served as Russian Federation deputy foreign minister, and special representative of Russia’s president to talks on the former Yugoslavia.

From 1994 – 1998, he was Russia’s ambassador to Belgium, then liaison ambassador to NATO and the Western European Union (WEU).

From 1998 – 2003, he served as ambassador to Canada. From 2003 – 2006, he was ambassador at large, along with other diplomatic responsibilities before his appointment as permanent representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations.

In February 2012, then President Dmitry Medvedev awarded him the Order of Merit to the Fatherland 4th class – Russia’s highest civilian honor.

Admired by allies and adversaries alike, he’s survived by his two children, Anastasia and Maksim.

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.

 

A (criminal war propaganda[1]) article dated February 19, 2017, and published by TheWeeklyNews.ca, entitled “Canadian military planes flying over Syria”, speaks volumes through omission.

Brig.-Gen. Shane Brennan reportedly disclosed that Canadian aircraft have flown between 20 and 30 missions over Syria in recent months.  He said “We have done work in Syria,” and that “(t)here’s lots of work to do in Iraq. We are looking at all of the areas.”

The article omitted a few important “details”.  The seemingly casual reference to doing “work in Syria” indicates Canada’s on-going support for the criminal U.S/NATO strategy – as outlined by Defense Intelligence Agency document 14-L-0552/DIA/287-293[2] – to use terrorists, including ISIS, to destroy the sovereign country of Syria and topple its legal government.

They used it all over Syria where these battles have been, but they also armed terrorists with depleted uranium weaponry.  The whole country now, where the battles have been whether on battlefields or in urban regions, are all contaminated. And that has to be cleaned up before they rebuild the cities, parts of Damascus, almost all of Aleppo, and villages too[3].

The West also used depleted uranium ordnances in Iraq, so its willful use in Syria, is even more heinous. British Radiation expert Dr. Chris Busby, Fellow of the University of Liverpool in the Faculty of Medicine and UK representative on the European Committee on Radiation Risk, claims that, “by illegally using hundreds of tons of depleted uranium (DU) against Iraq, Britain and America have gravely endangered not only the Iraqis but the whole world,” and that these weapons have released deadly, carcinogenic and mutagenic, radioactive particles in such abundance that-whipped up by sandstorms and carried on trade winds – there is no corner of the globe they cannot penetrate-including Britain.

For the wind has no boundaries and time is on their side: the radioactivity persists for over 4,500,000,000 years and can cause cancer, leukemia, brain damage, kidney failure, and extreme birth defects – killing millions of every age for centuries to come. A crime against humanity which may, in the eyes of historians, rank with the worst atrocities of all time.[4]

So, Canada’s willful engagement in the pre-planned, criminal invasion of Syria – including the criminal sanctions — appears to be ramping up. And the fake MSM media, guilty on all counts of committing war propaganda, continues to aid and abet these crimes against Syria, these crimes against international law, and these crimes against humanity.

Former high school teacher Mark Taliano is an author and independent investigative reporter who recently returned from a trip to Syria with the Third International Tour of Peace to Syria. In this book, he combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes mainstream media narratives about the dirty war on Syria.

**New Book: Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order

Notes

The Syrian Air Force has inflicted major damage to Jund al-Aqsa linked to the ISIS terrorist group in the Idlib-Hama countryside. Syrian warplanes destroyed a Jund al-Aqsa gathering near Khan Sheikhoun and a convoy belonging to the terrorist group near Morek, destroying at least 30 militants and 16 units of military equipment including battle tanks.

Khan Sheikhoun and Morek was captured by Jund al-Aqsa earlier this month after a series of firefights with Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) and other “moderate opposition” members. However, now Jund al Aqsa has reportedly made a peace deal with Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, a Jabhat Fatah al-Sham-led coalition of various terrorists, to withdraw to the province of Raqqah after crossing the Ithriya-Khanasser highway.

 

Clashes between the Syrian army and Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham were reported in Dayyat Al-Assad and Souq al-Jibs west of the city of Aleppo. Government troops had allegedly attempted to seize the al-Soura checkpoint in Dayyat Al-Assad. The situation remains tense.

200 militants have surrendered and withdrawn from the town of Serghaya near Damascus. As soon as the militant evacuation is done, the town will be under a full control of the army.

The so-called “Syrian Democratic Forces” (SDF, in other words rebranded fighters of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units), supported by the US Air Power and the US Special Forces, have seized the villages of al-Ferar, Kassar, Terfawiyah and Sabah al-Khayr from ISIS terrorists in the countryside of Raqqah. SDF units also attacked the ISIS-held areas of Mokha and Tell Shair.

Four Russian military servicemen were killed and two others were wounded in a car blast in Syria, the Russian Defense Ministry reported on February 20. The blast targeted a column of the Syrian troops en route from the Tiyas military airbase towards Homs, according to the statement.

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