Global Research

In her last book before she died, UK author Jennifer Diski wrote, “Under no circumstances is anyone to say that I lost a battle with cancer. … [I] will have nothing whatever to do with any notion of desert, punishment, fairness or unfairness, or any kind of moral causality.”

Two friends say they don’t like the “battle” because it makes winners and losers. They just got lucky, they say.

Of course, luck makes winners and losers. My own dislike is for how we win or lose. When I have no choice but to stare at the lights of an oncoming train, I’m a loser. When I again embrace the false belief in a guaranteed future, I win.

In truth, we are all on the train tracks, just as portrayed in Alex Colville’s famous painting. When cancer withdraws its threat, and my prognosis improves, annihilation is still speeding toward me.

Ah, but we mustn’t talk that way.

In Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain, Settembrini, the sunny liberal optimist, despises “the tie that binds [us] … to disease and death”. Yet Settembrini is dying. Lauding Progress and Science, and denying his own condition, he’s like “ancient Gauls who shot their arrows against Heaven”.

Part of Mann’s point to post-war Europe was that Liberalism was taking human beings out of nature, forgetting that we’re subject to laws of nature, like everything else in the universe. Indviduals have power to seize their destiny, the slogan went (and goes). Settembrini couldn’t seize his. More significant, he didn’t know it.

Sensitive thinkers say the art of dying and the art of living are the same. The reason is simple: All life, including human life, involves decay. Every moment involves change, which is loss. We live better, with less fear, if we see things as they are. Illusions create false expectations, which fail, causing misery.

We don’t teach such philosophers. They are usually Asian, Indigenous, African or Latin American. Philosophy departments across Canada teach only the wisdom of white, mostly English-speaking philosophers of North Atlantic descent and/or education. Every two or ten years, a course on African or First Nations philosophy is taught but as an elective, with little impact.

And so we shore up the battle imagery. Like Settembrini, we want no truck with nature’s “evil, irrational power”.

German playwright, Bertoldt Brecht , found in ancient Chinese theatre his lifelong strategy for hard times: the best resistance is no resistance. It doesn’t mean to cave. It means to go along with open eyes, finding unexpected opportunity. Brecht contrasted this idea with one common in European theatre: the individual “standing tall” against the storm, beating the wind, declaring it shouldn’t happen.

The problem with the “cancer battle” is that it obscures another struggle: that to come to terms with essential vulnerability and the ultimate unpredictability of existence, despite science. Acknowledging existential insecurity is an achievement because it is shared by all, cancer or no cancer.

It is shared by rich white southern Ontarians and the people of Attawapiskat. Activists following the Truth and Reconciliation Commission urge non-native Canadians not to “help” but to recognize our personal stake in the well-being of the country’s first citizens. This is hard to do if we see ourselves as “lucky” and “privileged” in self-satisfied ignorance of mutual dependence.

I don’t blame medical practitioners. I blame Humanities scholars paid to provide society’s conceptual tools. They’re shooting arrows at the Heavens, seduced by Liberalism’s false freedoms. We need a conception of health that looks squarely at the lights down the tracks and tells us how to live with that reality, freely and well.

It’d be a more durable victory, and more interesting.

Susan Babbitt is author (most recently) of Humanism and Embodiment (Bloomsbury 2014) and José Martí, Ernesto “Che” Guevara and Global Development Ethics (Palgrave Macmilan 2014).

Trump is considering him for the department’s number two position – perhaps an especially powerful one while Rex Tillerson transitions from Big Oil to diplomacy.

Trump transition advisor James Carafano believes Abrams is “pretty close to being named” – best known for his role in the 1980s Iran-Contra affair.

It involved covertly selling arms to Iran to fund Contra anti-Sandinista terrorists in Nicaragua. The Boland Amendment prohibited it.

For his role in the scheme, Abrams was indicted for lying to Congress, pled guilty to two lesser offenses of withholding information from Congress to avoid a trial, possible conviction and imprisonment.

On Christmas night 1992, GHW Bush pardoned him and other Iran-Contra defendants – their high crimes forgiven, not forgotten.

In 1998, Abrams and other PNAC members urged “decisive action” to replace Federal Republic of Yugoslavia President Slobodan Milosevic with pro-Western leadership. The nation’s 1999 rape followed, one of many Clinton administration high crimes.

The same year, Abrams was one of 18 PNAC signatories in a letter to Clinton, urging war on Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein, calling him a “hazard (to) a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil.”

In the GW Bush administration, he was one of its architects. He drafted a proposal for seizing Iraq’s oil fields. The US installed puppet regime maintained control.

During Reagan’s two terms, Abrams held three State Department positions, including Assistant secretary for Inter-American Affairs from July 17, 1985 – January 20, 1989.

He later served as GW Bush’s Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor, supervising White House Middle East policy.

He was instrumental in the aborted two-day coup attempt to replace Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez with puppet leadership serving US interests.

In 2007, he was part of a black operation to destabilize Iran, using disinformation and manipulation of its currency, aiming for regime change.

He was a Project for the New American Century (PNAC) signatory (now called the Foreign Policy Initiative), established in 1997, comprised of neocon extremists, dedicated to seeking US global dominance through endless wars of aggression.

He’s currently connected to the neocon American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Heritage Foundation, the Council on Foreign Relations, and various other hardline groups.

He’s a notorious Zionist zealot, opposed to sympathies toward Palestinians, fundamentally against Israeli concessions to achieve conflict resolution.

He’s interventionist, pro-endless wars of aggression, advocating nation-building, what Trump said he opposes.

If appointed State’s number two, will neocon foreign policy continue unabated? Will endless imperial wars rage?

Will confrontation with China and Iran follow, risking possible nuclear war? Will hope for improved relations with Russia be dashed? Will Congress prevent it anyway?

Will dirty business as usual remain unchanged, especially US imperial madness, or will Trump manage to go another way?

America needs more peacemakers, fewer warriors. It’s not the way things usually work out.

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.

In the past week, the press complained that the White House never published a detailed read out of the Jan. 28 Trump-Putin phone call, one of the first held by the new US president, because allegedly the staff had disabled recording equipment. Today, it was Reuters’ turn to be the latest to leak the full details of a Trump high level phone call (as reported yesterday, leaking within the Trump administration has become a major issue) this time, the highly anticipated if unrecorded call with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Reuters cited two unnamed U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.

The leak, while unconfirmed – in today’s press briefing Spicer refused to comment saying it was a private call – revealed several interesting facts, first that Trump denounced the START treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads “as a bad deal for the United States.”

More notable was the disclosure that “when Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.” During a debate in the 2016 presidential election, Trump said Russia had “outsmarted” the United States with the treaty, which he called “START-Up.” He asserted incorrectly then that it had allowed Russia to continue to produce nuclear warheads while the United States could not.

As Reuters adds”it has not been previously reported that Trump had conveyed his doubt about New START to Putin in the hour-long call.”

Under the terms of the New START the two countries have until February 2018 to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to no more than 1,550, the lowest level in decades. It also limits deployed land- and submarine-based missiles and nuclear-capable bombers.

Previously the new Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said he supported the treaty during his Senate confirmation hearings.

 During the hearings Tillerson said it was important for the United States to “stay engaged with Russia, hold them accountable to commitments made under the New START and also ensure our accountability as well.”

The latest leak will lead to concerns that Trump “is not adequately prepared for discussions with foreign leaders”, which may or may not be favorable in future negotiations, as it keeps foreign heads of state very much off balance.

Another unique aspect of this call: Trump did not receive a briefing from Russia experts with the NSC and intelligence agencies before the Putin call, Reuters’ two sources said.

Typically, before a telephone call with a foreign leader, a president receives a written in-depth briefing paper drafted by National Security Council staff after consultations with the relevant agencies, including the State Department, Pentagon and intelligence agencies, two former senior officials said.

Just before the call, the president also usually receives an oral “pre-briefing” from his national security adviser and top subject-matter aide, they said.

In the phone call, Reuters also reports that Putin raised the possibility of reviving talks on a range of disputes and suggested extending New START, the sources said.

 New START can be extended for another five years, beyond 2021, by mutual agreement. Unless they agree to do that or negotiate new cuts, the world’s two biggest nuclear powers would be freed from the treaty’s limits, potentially setting the stage for a new arms race.

New START was ratified by the U.S. Senate in December 2010 by a vote of 71 to 26. Thirteen Republican senators joined all of the Senate’s Democrats in voting for the treaty, although Republican opponents derided it as naive.

During a prior phone call with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, which infamously turned heated and led to Trump prematurely ending the call just 20 minutes in, the US president questioned an agreement reached by the Obama administration to accept 1,250 refugees now being held by Australia in offshore detention centers. It was one of many such conversations in which Trump turned to denounce deals negotiated by previous administrations on trade, acceptance of refugees and arms control.

In late January, Senate Republicans John McCain and Rob Portman strongly opposed lifting sanctions on Russia, McCain saying:

“I hope President Trump will put an end to this speculation and reject such a reckless course. If he does not, I will work with my colleagues to codify sanctions against Russia into law.”

Portman claimed lifting them would damage US leadership and credibility. After 24 years under the Clintons, Bush/Cheney and Obama, they’re damaged beyond repair.

US sanctions on Russia were illegally imposed for political reasons, no others – part of longstanding US Russia bashing, with strong bipartisan support.

On Wednesday, bipartisan Senate sanctions oversight legislation on Russia was introduced – sponsored by neocons Lindsey Graham (R. SC) and Ben Cardin (D. MD), co-sponsored by a rogue’s gallery of bipartisan senators, including GOP and Democrat leaders.

Called the “Russia Review Act,” it establishes a review process, giving congressional members oversight over whether to maintain or lift sanctions, preventing unilateral Trump action.

It requires the White House to submit a report, explaining why it seeks sanctions removal, a 120-day review period following, giving Congress final say on whether to maintain or ease sanctions in question.

The new measure follows earlier introduced legislation, titled “Countering Russian Hostilities Act of 2017,” introduced by McCain and Graham. If enacted, likely tough new sanctions on Russia will be imposed.

Perhaps other anti-Russia legislation will follow, whether veto-proof remains to be seen. Clearly, Congress is going all-out to obstruct any attempts by Trump to improve relations with Moscow.

If he ignores congressional action and acts unilaterally, an unlikely prospect, he could be impeached and removed from office – a first in US history if occurs. The closest example was Nixon’s resignation to avoid impeachment.

Separately, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded to Fox News host Bill O’Reilly calling Putin “a killer,” saying:

“We consider such words from the Fox TV company to be unacceptable and insulting, and honestly speaking, we would prefer to get an apology from such a respected TV company.”

O’Reilly responded dismissively, saying he’s “working on that apology, but it may take a little time. You might want to check with me around…2023.”

Putin is no “killer.” He’s a preeminent world leader, a peacemaker, polar opposite a long line of US warrior presidents, waging endless wars on humanity, responsible for millions of casualties.

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.

Professor Tim Anderson is a distinguished author and senior lecturer of political economy at the University of Sydney, Australia.  In an interview with Khamenei.ir, he answers questions about the Syrian crisis, the Astana peace talks as well as the role of Iran, Russia and Turkey in the peace process.

The following is the full text of the interview:

How would the “Astana Talks” help solve the crisis in Syria?

I believe the Astana talks provide another opportunity for the terrorist groups and their backers to give up their useless and destructive path. What has been most significant is that those armed groups which have chosen to attend must confront Syria, Russia, Iran and Turkey, with the USA, al Saud, Qatar, Britain and France excluded. That is a step closer to reality, as the latter group has only played a destructive role, up until now, while the former group is dominated by those in alliance with the Syrian alliance. Turkey alone at Astana represents the sponsors of the al Qaeda groups. Further, the NATO-GCC terrorists come as armed groups and not with the pretence of being a political ‘opposition’. If the armed groups (e.g. ‘Jaysh al Islam’) agree to put down their arms, that will leave the banned terrorist groups more isolated. If they do not agree, no-one can say they were not given an opportunity. What I call the Syrian Alliance (principally Syria, Hezbollah, Iran and Russia) will be seen to have made every effort to avoid bloodshed.

Has Turkish involvement been helpful in recent months?

A. The practical benefit of Turkey’s recent engagement was seen in the relatively orderly evacuation of east Aleppo. That helped a more rapid liberation of that part of the city, with the deportation of several thousand terrorists and their families to their temporary position in Idlib, and the freeing of around 90 thousand civilian hostages. Turkey’s role in that effective surrender was important, as the Turkish state had become the chief sponsor of the armed groups. On the other hand, it seems likely that Turkey’s leadership also backed subsequent attacks on Syria by DAESH (for example in Deir Ezzor) and the al Nusra-led groups (though they have been busy killing themselves in Idlib, as a result of recriminations over their defeat in Aleppo), in an attempt to strengthen Mr. Erdogan’s hand against Russia, Syria and Iran at the Astana talks. Turkey’s leadership has been forced to the diplomatic table, both by military defeats of its proxy armies on the ground and through the important strategic relationships Turkey maintains with Russia and Iran. The Syrian Government, at this stage, has no real relationship with Turkey’s Government; but some sort of relationship between these neighbors must be rebuilt. Unfortunately for the people of Turkey, the violent recriminations seen in Idlib (it is said that almost 2,000 have been killed by the sectarian infighting) seem likely to keep passing into Turkey, as the terror groups are driven out of Syria.

Click to order

Why do Syrian negotiators in “Astana Talks” want rebels to lay down their arms in exchange for an amnesty deal? Is it legitimate?

A. It is certainly true that many Syrian resent the amnesties given to former Syrian fighters, whom they regard as mercenaries and terrorists. We know that the [Persian] Gulf monarchies and some NATO states have paid them higher salaries than Syrian soldiers, with DAESH fighters on the highest salaries. Many Syrians regard these traitors as no better than their foreign terrorist partners. However the Syrian Government’s practice, at least since 2012, has been to remove as many Syrians as possible from the conflict through a ‘reconciliation’ process, recognizing that they must address a post-war legacy of bitterness. Many thousands have already taken advantage of this process. For the same ‘reconciliation’ reasons the Syrian Army has not ‘carpet bombed’ al Qaeda held areas such as Douma in rural east Damascus. The bloodshed must be minimized. The post war ‘reconciliation’ challenge that the government of President Bashar al Assad must face is similar to, but much greater than, the healing process attempted by his father after the Muslim Brotherhood’s failed insurrection in Hama, back in 1982.

A member of the rebel delegation in “Astana Talks” told AFP on Monday that the group would agree to have Russia serve as a guarantor of the current ceasefire but not Iran; why are they so hostile toward Iran?

A. This seems a combination of the recognition of simple power politics, combined with al Saud style sectarian ideology. The sectarian groups, with little skill in politics or diplomacy, must recognize the military power of Russia, while hoping that Russia will eventually withdraw. Iran, on the other hand, is seen as central to the region and is constantly demonized in pseudo-religious terms by al Saud’s Wahhabi clerics.

There is another factor. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, since 1978, has been implacable in its support of Syria and in the rejection of the destructive role of Washington in the region. The Government of Russia, on the other hand, while maintaining support for international law and the rejection of terrorism, has seemed more diplomatically flexible. Russia constantly refers to the USA – the chief architect of all the Middle East wars and the massive terrorism – as its ‘partner’, in an attempt to resolve wider issues of geo-politics. As part of this approach Moscow has paid perhaps exaggerated attention to armed groups which have very little support within Syria. The latest version of that effort includes the circulation of a text (apparently created with very little Syrian involvement) which appears to suggest some drastic changes to Syria’s constitution. While such ideas (removal of the Presidential system, federalization, removal of the ‘Arab’ status of the Republic) may come to nothing, if and when they subjected to a Syrian vote, the process does seem to be testing the limits of diplomacy. It is not clear to what extent the Syrian Government would accept any such proposals. At worst this might maintain unrealistic expectations on the part of the armed groups and their sponsors; at best it might encourage a face saving retreat, helping resolution of the conflict.

Professor Tim Anderson is a distinguished author and senior lecturer of political economy at the University of Sydney, Australia. 

Government propaganda and NGO misinformation have coloured the story of the war on Syria from its inception. Stepping in to set the record straight, Dr. Tim Anderson explores the real beginnings of the conflict, the players behind it, and their agenda in his new book, “The Dirty War on Syria: Washington, Regime Change and Resistance.”

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-8-4

Year: 2016

Pages: 240

List Price: $23.95

Special Price: $15.00 

Click to order

President Donald Trump suffered a legal blow on Thursday when a federal appeals court refused to reinstate a temporary travel ban he had ordered on people from seven Muslim-majority countries.

A three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the Trump administration failed to offer “any evidence” that national security concerns justified the ban he launched with an executive order on Jan. 27.

Shortly after the court issued its 29-page ruling, Trump tweeted: “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” He told reporters his administration ultimately would win the case and dismissed the ruling as “political.”

The Justice Department, which spoke for the government at oral argument on Tuesday, said it was reviewing the decision and considering its options.

The states of Washington and Minnesota challenged the order, which had sparked protests and chaos at US and overseas airports on the weekend after it was issued. The two states argued that Trump’s ban violated constitutional protections against religious discrimination.

The court declined to evaluate those specific claims at this point, but said the government had failed to show that any person from the seven countries had perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.

The 9th Circuit ruling, upholding the Feb. 3 decision of US District Judge James Robart, does not resolve the lawsuit, but related only to whether Trump’s order should be suspended while litigation proceeds. The ruling upholds the suspension.

Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order barred entry for citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days and imposed a 120-day halt on all refugees, except refugees from Syria who are barred indefinitely.

The three judges said the states had shown that even temporary reinstatement of the ban would cause harm.

In the ruling, they acknowledged the competing public interests of national security and free flow of travel but that the US government had not offered “any evidence” of national security concerns to justify banning the seven countries.

Curbing entry to the United States as a national security measure was a central premise of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, originally proposed as a temporary ban on all Muslims. He has voiced frustration at the legal challenge to his order.

US presidents have in the past claimed sweeping powers to fight terrorism, but individuals, states and civil rights groups challenging the ban said his administration had offered no evidence it answered a threat.

Two of the three 9th Circuit judges were appointees of former Democratic Presidents Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, and one was appointed by former President George W. Bush, a Republican like Trump.

The government could ask the 9th Circuit to have a larger panel of judges review the decision “en banc,” or appeal directly to the US Supreme Court, which will likely determine the case’s final outcome.

Ten-thousands, and soon hundred-thousands die in Yemen as result of zealotry, greed and bureaucratic infighting of foreign countries. The Wahhabi Saudis fight in Yemen against Iranian Shia that ain’t there. Under the eyes of the CIA they nurture local al-Qaeda forces to do their bidding. The UAE seeks new ports in Yemen thereby disturbing Saudi pipeline dreams.

The Pentagon tussles with the CIA over budgets of special operations.  The minor local Yemeni conflicts between the various tribes develop into a war due to foreign interference and financing. Bombing campaigns have replaced tribal mediation.

The executive branch of the United Nations is under pressure from the U.S.-Saudi coalition. It is not allowed to report on the real consequences of the devastating war on Yemen. The leads to rather comical assertions.

On August 31 2016 the UN coordinator on Yemen Jamie McGoldrick said that 10,000 people had died due to the war on Yemen:

Speaking from the capital Sanaa on Tuesday, Jamie McGoldrick, the UN humanitarian coordinator said the new figure was based on official information from medical facilities in Yemen.The number could rise further, McGoldrick said, as some areas had no medical facilities, and people were often buried without any official record being made.

“We know the numbers are much higher but we can’t tell you by how much,” McGoldrick told reporters

On January 17 2017 the UN coordinator on Yemen Jamie McGoldrick said that 10,000 people had died due to the war on Yemen:

“[T]he estimates are that over 10,000 people have been killed in this conflict and almost 40,000 people injured”, UN humanitarian co-ordinator for Yemen Jamie McGoldrick told reporters in the capital Sanaa on Monday.He did not provide a breakdown between civilians and combatants.

The UN numbers did not change from August 2016 to January 2017. Despite intense bombing and ravaging famine no one seems to have died. But those numbers are of course mere fantasies. The real death toll due to the war on Yemen is at least ten times higher. The numbers the UN envoy claims are political. He is not allowed to reveal the real ones.

In mid 2016 the Saudis pressured the then UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon to take it off a list of countries that are harming children:

Muslim allies of Saudi Arabia piled pressure on UN chief Ban Ki-moon over the blacklisting of a Saudi-led coalition for killing children in Yemen, with Riyadh threatening to cut Palestinian aid and funds to other UN programs, according to diplomatic sources.

A UN Secretary General with some backbone would not have relented but would have publicly shamed the Saudis and their allies at each possible occasion. Not so Ban Ki-moon:

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Thursday he temporarily removed the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen from a U.N. blacklist for violating child rights because its supporters threatened to stop funding many U.N. programs.Ban said he had to consider “the very real prospect” that millions of other children in the Palestinian territories, South Sudan, Syria, Yemen and many other places “would suffer grievously” if U.N. programs were defunded.

The United States and Britain actively supported Saudi Arabia in getting its way at the UN and within the UN Security Council.

But the UN giving in to blackmail did not save any children. UNICEF, somewhat independent from the General Secretary, reports much higher (though still incomplete) numbers that come nearer to the truth:

Yemen has lost a decade’s worth of gains in public health as a result of war and economic crisis, with an estimated 63,000 children dying last year of preventable causes often linked to malnutrition, the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF) said on Tuesday.
…
A decade has been lost in health gains,” she said, with 63 out of every 1,000 live births now dying before their fifth birthday, against 53 children in 2014.
…
Releno later told a news briefing that the rate of severe acute malnutrition had “tripled” between 2014 and 2016 to 460,000 children.”The under-5 mortality rate has increased to the point that we estimate that in 2016 at least 10,000 more children died of preventable diseases,” she said.

In medical statistic terms these are “excess death”. They would not have occurred without the war waged on the country. It is unlikely that these  UNICEF numbers are complete.

The mountainous north-west of Yemen is the core area of the Zaidi Shia population from which the Houthi militia fighting the Saudis and their proxies derive. It is now mostly cut off from communication and supply channels. Hospitals and schools in the area have been heavily bombed and its main northern city Sadah has been completely destroyed by Saudi air attacks. The Zaidi comprise about 45% of Yemen’s 24 million people and up to 1962 Zaidi caliph ruled the country for over 1,000 years. For the Saudi Wahhabi zealots the Zaidi are not real Muslims and deserve to die.

Many people in the north west have fled to Yemen’s capital Sanaa. But even there food is running out. Hungry children roam the streets begging for food.

The Yemenis, and especially the Zaidi, have always been independent minded. They will not give in to Saudi pressure. The Saudis can not defeat them. Together with their U.S. and British allies they have therefore decided on a follow a genocidal strategy. They cut off the country, which usually imports up to 90% of its basic food needs, from the outside world. Saudi ships patrol the coast and the land borders are mostly under Saudi control. Only smugglers and the few official UN convoys provide some relief. But this is obviously far from enough. The ten-thousands “excess death” are a direct consequence of the U.S.-Saudi blockade.

Besides the war on the Zaidi, geo-political conflicts are waged in Yemen. The Saudis accuse the Zaidi of being proxy forces of Iran. But there is no evidence for this. No Iranian weapons or Iranian advisor have been seen in Yemen. Iran had warned the Houthi not to expend their rule. Contacts between the Houthi and Iran are now few and superficial. The U.S. navy caught a few smuggling Dau on the way from maybe Iran to Somalia. It claims that the old and few weapons they carried were destined for Yemen which is already overflowing with weapons. No evidence for this claim has been provided.

The real geo-political fight is taking place within the U.S.-Saudi coalition. The United Arab Emirates is nominally part of the coalition. They have  provided forces and hired mercenaries to fight the Houthi in Yemen. But it is mainly interested in the southern ports of Aden (containers and general cargo) and Mukalla (oil and gas) and supports a southern independence movement. The UAE owned port management company DP World had its exclusive concessions for the ports canceled when the Houthi kicked out the former government. First the Houthi, then al-Qaeda took control over the ports. The UAE now occupies the port cities with the help of south-Yemeni mercenaries and again manages and controls the ports.

The Saudis have their own interest in those ports. They have plans for pipelines from their main oilfields up north to Mukalla. The pipelines would allow the Saudi oil exports to circumvent the vulnerable sea lane through the street of Hormuz. But for that they need a port on the Yemeni coast.

The Saudis have supported and allied themselves with radical Salafi groups in Yemen. One of these runs under the name al-Qaeda but it is not as tightly joined to the global al-Qaeda organization as it seems. The Saudi supported al-Qaeda groups, originally hired to fight the Houthi, “liberated” the southern ports. They were ordered out when UAE supported forces arrived but intermittently attacks the UAE occupied Aden and, as Yemeni sources claim, also attacks Mukalla under the label ISIS or Islamic State.

This murky conflict is again coming to the fore because UAE special forces took part in a recent U.S. raid on an alleged al-Qaeda camp in Yemen. It has been confirmed that 25 civilians, at least 9 of them children, were killed in the raid. The main U.S. target, an alleged al-Qaeda big wig, escaped. The Saudi proxy government in Yemen protested against the raid. It banned further U.S. ground operation in the country (later taken back). Its ambassador explained that al-Qaeda is part of its fight against the Houthi and not a priority enemy. He repeatedly said that the “highest levels” of the U.S. government were informed of this.

The raid in Yemen was carried out by the Pentagon, not by the CIA. The U.S. special forces were accompanied by UAE forces. After the raid al-Qaeda in Yemen retook three southern towns and is again threatening the UAE controlled port cities.

My recent discussions with Yemeni sources developed around the following speculative picture. In the war on Yemen the Pentagon is mainly allied with UAE and supports its plans for southern Yemen. The CIA is mainly allied with the Saudis, supports their plans and condones their alliance with al-Qaeda. The main target of the U.S. military raid was warned by the Saudis and escaped. The necessary information came from CIA channels.

A similar split between the CIA which supports Jihadis like al-Qaeda and the Pentagon which has to fight them occurred in Syria. The CIA provided weapons, paid by the Saudis, to various militant Islamist groups which the Pentagon knows it will later have to fight. The Pentagon tried to sabotage those CIA operations.

This conflict is between U.S. Budget Title 10 (the Pentagon) and U.S. Budget Title 50 (the Intelligence Services/the CIA) which has been waged for years. The responsibilities and authorities under these titles are disputed and discussed (pdf) over and over again. Has the CIA the lead in special operations or the Pentagon? Who will be able to claim the victories and who can be blamed for the losses?

The Yemeni children, dying of hunger, are the sorry victims of such idiotic fights. Bureaucracy infighting in the U.S. and pissing contests of Arab sheiks over transports routes around the Gulf are deciding their fates.

Yesterday the New York Times editors, again drunk on cool aid, revealed their self-delusions to the world:

At least in recent decades, American presidents who took military action have been driven by the desire to promote freedom and democracy, …

That lie will surely be solace for the relatives of the kids killed in the special force raid in Yemen which was planned and ordered by two U.S. presidents. It will nourish the millions of children who hunger and ten-thousands who die in Yemen due to lack of food. Freedom and democracy will be valued by those dying from U.S. bombs dropped from U.S. build planes by U.S. trained Saudi pilots with the help of U.S. intelligence. The new U.S. administration plans to double down on such support.

As so often in such conflicts the locals are mere pawns in games played by foreign countries. If the foreign powers stayed out, the local conflicts would be solved within weeks and the healing could begin. It would, in the end, be the best solution for all. At the end of the 30 year war in Europe that insight was enshrined in international law. But the valuable experience, paid with blood and devastation, has been discarded. How can it be regained?

The momentum to impeach President Trump is accelerating.

On Thursday, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) filed a “resolution of inquiry” that amounts to the first legislative step toward impeachment.

A new poll shows that registered voters are evenly split, at 46-to-46 percent, on whether they “support” or “oppose” impeaching Trump. Just two weeks ago, the pro-impeachment figure was 35 percent.

Since inauguration, more than 800,000 people have signed a petition in the first stage of the Impeach Donald Trump Campaign, which will soon involve grassroots organizing in congressional districts around the country.

Under the Trump presidency, defending a wide range of past gains is both necessary and insufficient. Fighting for impeachment is a way to go on the offensive, directly challenging the huge corruption that Trump has brought to the White House.

From the outset, President Trump has been violating two provisions of the U.S. Constitution — its foreign and domestic “emoluments” clauses. In a nutshell, both clauses forbid personally profiting from presidential service beyond receiving a government salary.

Some believe that the Republican-controlled Congress is incapable of impeaching Trump, but history tells us what’s possible when a president falls into wide disrepute. On July 27, 1974, seven GOP representatives on the 38-member House Judiciary Committee voted to impeach a fellow Republican, President Richard Nixon.

As for objections that impeaching and removing Trump from office would make Mike Pence the president, that concern is apt to bypass one set of key considerations after another. Along the way, in political terms, people need to think through the implications of the fact that Trump could only be removed from office with the help of many votes from Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Even if every Democrat in the House voted in unison to impeach Trump, impeachment would only be possible if at least two-dozen Republican members of the House voted in favor. Likewise, a vote in the Senate (requiring two-thirds) to remove Trump from the presidency would only be successful if at least 19 Republican senators voted for conviction. Such events would badly splinter and damage the Republican Party — causing divisive bitterness, putting GOP leaders back on their heels and hobbling a Pence presidency.

Arguably most important of all, democracy requires that no one be above the law — a principle that’s most crucially applied to the holder of the most powerful office in the U.S. government. Extreme abuse of power from the top of the government must be seen and treated as intolerable.

The Constitution that Trump continues to flagrantly violate is supposed to be “the supreme law of the land.” To give Trump a pass would be to wink at his merger of vast personal wealth and corporate holdings with vast governmental power.

From the grassroots, it’s crucial for constituents to push back with determination. As the Impeach Donald Trump Now campaign’s website documents in detail, Trump’s personal riches are entangled with countless policy options for his administration. That precedent must be resisted and defeated.

So far, the Democratic Party’s leadership in Congress has shown scant interest in impeaching Trump. With escalating pressure from constituents, that may soon change.

Congressman Nadler’s unusual resolution of inquiry will be able to avoid some of the standard roadblocks in the House. As his website explains,

“A Resolution of Inquiry is a legislative tool that has privileged parliamentary status, meaning it can be brought to the floor if the relevant Committee hasn’t reported it within 14 legislative days, even if the Majority leadership has not scheduled it for a vote.”

Nadler has just put a big toe in the impeachment water. Yet no members of the House have taken the plunge to introduce an actual resolution for impeachment. They will have to be pushed.

Norman Solomon is national coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org, which is co-sponsoring with Free Speech For People the grassroots impeachment campaign at ImpeachDonaldTrumpNow.org.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Wednesday said anyone questioning the success of a U.S. military raid in Yemen last month, which resulted in dozens of deaths, is doing “a disservice” to the American soldier who was killed in the operation.

Spicer’s comments came just after Yemen reportedly withdrew permission for the U.S. to conduct ground operations in the country in response to the botched raid.

Criticism of the operation has been widespread. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who chairs the Armed Services Committee, told NBC News, “When you lose a $75 million airplane and, more importantly, an American life is lost…I don’t believe you can call it a success.”

During Spicer’s daily briefing on Wednesday—where he has been known to make Orwellian comments on recent events—NBC News‘ White House correspondent Kristen Welker asked, “Yemen has withdrawn permission for the United States to run special operations and ground missions against suspected terrorists in the wake of the recent raid there that claimed so many civilian lives. Do you stand by your assessment that it is a success?”

“It’s absolutely a success, and I think anyone that would suggest it’s not a success does a disservice to the life of Chief Ryan Owens,” Spicer said.

“But even Senator John McCain—” Welker began.

“I understand that. I think my statement’s very clear on that, Kristen,” Spicer said. “I think anybody who undermines the success of that raid owes an apology and… [it’s] a disservice to the life of Chief Owens.”

Watch the exchange below:

The Intercept journalists Glenn Greenwald and Dan Froomkin described the comments as “despicable” and “the single most repulsive and dangerous thing this moron has ever said,” respectively.

“So you’re saying that Senator John McCain owes him an apology?” Welker continued.

“I’m answering the question, please let me finish. The raid, the action that was taken in Yemen was a huge success,” Spicer said.

“American lives will be saved because of it. Future attacks will be prevented. The life of Chief Ryan Owens was done in service to this country and we owe him and his family a great debt for the information that we received during that raid. I think any suggestion otherwise is a disservice to his courageous life and the actions he took, full stop.”

“Is that your message to Senator John McCain?” Welker said. “He’s called it a failure.”

“That’s my message to anybody who says that, anybody,” Spicer said. “I don’t know how much clearer I can be.”

On Thursday morning, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions was sworn in by Donald Trump as attorney general, marking the ascendance of an avowed opponent of democratic rights to the office ostensibly tasked with protecting them.

The US Senate confirmed Sessions on Wednesday in a 52-47 vote, with Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia joining Republicans to see the nomination through.

After being sworn in, Sessions said he would direct his offices to end immigrant “lawlessness,” counter “an increased threat from terrorism,” and beat back an alleged growth of violent crime. He described the latter as a “dangerous permanent trend,” though data on violent crime demonstrates that it is at its lowest level in decades.

This is code language for a major increase in US police powers to target the entire working class. Immediately after Sessions’ swearing-in ceremony, Trump signed three more executive orders directed at further increasing the role of police in US society. The first, Trump said, will “break the back of the criminal cartels that have spread across our nation.” The second creates a task force on violent crime in America. The third calls for the creation of “a plan to stop…violence against police.”

Sessions will have a major hand in executing these and the many other orders issued from the Trump White House. The attorney general heads the Department of Justice and is both the leading US law enforcement officer and the primary legal counsel to the US government.

These actions follow a speech by Trump before the Major Cities Police Chiefs Association on Wednesday, during which Trump denounced the courts for ruling against his anti-Muslim travel ban. Trump also told the assembled police chiefs that they have a “true friend in the White House.” Every year, police in the United States kill more than 1,000 people, many of them unarmed.

Sessions’ vacated Senate seat was taken Thursday by the attorney general of Alabama, Luther Strange, an appointment made by the state’s Republican governor, Robert Bentley. Two months ago, Strange intervened to block impeachment proceedings against Bentley. He then petitioned Bentley for Sessions’ senate seat. “The air of corruption is thick,” admitted another Alabama Republican politician, Ed Henry.

One of Sessions’ first tasks will be to defend Trump’s ban on immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries ravaged by US imperialism, including Iraq and Syria. Trump last week fired acting attorney general Sally Yates for refusing to defend the travel ban, which breaks up families and blocks students from attending college and workers from taking jobs.

On Thursday night, a US district court upheld a lower-court ruling blocking Trump’s order. Trump responded with a Tweet: “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”

As head of the Department of Justice, the US attorney general oversees a number of what are, in effect, national police agencies, among them the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the United States Marshalls Service; the Federal Bureau of Prisons; and the Drug Enforcement Administration. These agencies account for about 90,000 of the roughly 113,000 DOJ employees, and consume the lion’s share of its $27 billion budget.

In addition to these are offices that have occasionally been tasked with defending workers, minorities and the environment from federal law breaking carried out by corporations and state governments. The best known of these is the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division.

There is considerable historical irony in Session’s elevation to protect civil rights, a fact he seemed to acknowledge at his swearing-in. “It’s something I never expected would happen in my life,” he admitted.

Sessions is a longstanding advocate of so-called “states’ rights”—a historical euphemism for the “right” of southern state governments to trample the rights of oppressed sections of their population—first slaves, then sharecroppers, and now workers of all races. The Justice Department, meanwhile, has at times been tasked with defending the oppressed against such claims to “states’ rights.”

The Department of Justice was created in 1870, under President Ulysses S. Grant, with the express intent of protecting the civil rights of freed slaves and their white allies in the American South after the Civil War. Grant nominated as attorney general former Confederate officer Amos Akerman, who brought more than 3,000 indictments against members of the Ku Klux Klan within two years. Akerman’s removal later in the Grant administration contributed to the end of Reconstruction and the retrenchment of the old slaveholding oligarchy.

Nearly a century later, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, under the pressure of the mass Civil Rights movement, once again used the Justice Department to enforce federal civil rights legislation and Supreme Court rulings against the violent opposition of the southern ruling class. In response, leading segregationist politicians, led by Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, abandoned the Democratic Party and went over to the Republican Party. The young Jefferson Beauregard Sessions—who lived in Selma and Montgomery at the time of the civil rights struggles there—followed this exodus, joining the College Republicans at Huntington College around 1965.

Sessions represents a faction of the Southern ruling elite that has never reconciled itself to legal equality for African Americans. He used his career as US Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama from 1981 until 1994, in the words of the Coretta Scott King speech whose reading by Senator Elizabeth Warren was silenced by Senate Republicans, “to chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens.” That record helped defeat Sessions’ nomination to US District Court by Ronald Reagan in 1986.

Sessions has not changed in the intervening years. As Alabama Attorney General (1994-1996) and then US senator (1996-2017) he established a reputation that has consistently placed him on the right of the Republican Party. He has invariably advocated for war and militarism, greater police powers, and the untrammeled prerogative of corporations, and has opposed protections for basic democratic rights for workers, women, minorities, gays and lesbians, and, most vociferously, immigrants. It is this last category that appears to explain Sessions’ gravitation to Trump—the Alabama senator was among the first national Republicans to endorse the real estate tycoon in his bid for the presidency.

If Sessions has not changed, his ascension to attorney general can only be seen as the outcome of the shift rightward of the entire American political establishment, which prefigures still deeper attacks on democratic rights.

Sessions will inherit an office that has long since abandoned any active defense of democratic rights. It is especially notable that the DOJ under Barack Obama failed to bring federal civil rights charges against a single killer cop in eight years, a span during which numerous such murders were captured on video. And Attorney General Eric Holder, who served under Obama from 2009 until 2015, left behind for Sessions the pseudo-legal rationale for the arrogation to the president of the “right” to assassinate anyone, anywhere, without judicial review—a power that Donald Trump doubtless intends to frequently use.

The toolkit Holder leaves for Sessions also includes, as the WSWS previously noted,

“persecuting whistleblowers and journalists; targeting protesters and antiwar activists under antiterror laws; asserting unlimited executive powers; justifying government secrecy; deporting immigrants en masse; abetting the expansion of illegal domestic spying; slashing wages and benefits for workers; and infiltrating authoritarian and fascistic legal doctrines into American jurisprudence.”

Like opposition to Trump’s pick for education secretary, Betsy DeVos, Democratic handwringing against Sessions is aimed at dressing up the Democrats as an actual opposition party. In fact, every Trump nominee so far presented has passed through senate committees and chamber-wide votes, most of them with considerable Democratic support.

As for Warren, she did not defy the gag order imposed on her, and neither did any other Democratic senator. Instead, they immediately seized on it to portray the Massachusetts senator as a principled opponent of Trump’s policies.

She is no such thing. Repeatedly, Democratic Senators—Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders included—have stressed their readiness to “work with” the new administration on its central policy thrust—economic nationalism. Their main line of attack on Trump has been from the right—demanding a more warlike stance against Russia.

The New York Times, in its recent rebuff of comments President Donald Trump made about Russia, seems not to have evolved its understanding of US geopolitics past an 8th grade level. Trump had been asked by Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly (2/5/17) why he wouldn’t condemn Vladimir Putin, whom O’Reilly called a “killer.”

“You got a lot of killers,” Trump told O’Reilly. “What, you think our country’s so innocent?”

Naturally, this prompted a torrent of pearl-clutching from liberal patriots aghast that the president could equate the moral worth of the United States with that of the dastardly Russians. Most prominent among these was the New York Times, whose editorial board published a flag-waving scolding called “Blaming America First” (2/7/17):

Asserting the moral and political superiority of the United States over Russia has not traditionally been a difficult maneuver for American presidents. But rather than endorsing American exceptionalism, Mr. Trump seemed to appreciate Mr. Putin’s brutality—which includes bombing civilians in Syria and, his accusers allege, responsibility for a trail of dead political opponents and journalists at home—and suggested America acts the same way.

Oh my, the horror.

A rough look at the actions in question since Putin has been in office reveals this outrage to be, at best, misplaced. One tally by Airwars, a Western nonprofit, puts the total number of Syrian civilians killed by Russia since it entered the war in September 2015 at just over 4,000, or 0.8–0.4 percent of the 500,000 to 1 million civilians who died due to George W. Bush’s unilateral invasion of Iraq in 2003. Add to this the thousands of other civilians killed in other theaters of the “War on Terror” under the Bush and Obama administrations, including Afghanistan, Libya and Syria itself, and the idea of pointing to respect for civilian lives as something that elevates the United States above Russia seems a little absurd.

But the addition of stifling dissent and allegedly killing journalists takes Russia over the line into Bad Guy territory, the Times suggests—ignoring the US’s own harsh punishment for whistleblowers, infiltration of dissident groups and bombing of foreign journalists. Not to mention the US’s sprawling, unprecedented incarceration system, or its unmatched institutional racism–all human right abuses leveled at home.

The Times goes on to insist that “no American president has done what Mr. Putin has done,” including “invading Ukraine” and “interfering in the American election.” Of course, American presidents have invaded other countries and intervened in other elections, but for reasons unclear, the Times suggests that those two cases are the ones that indicate the US’s moral superiority over Russia.

The New York Times briefly mentions the Iraq War and torture, but whistles past these episodes by insisting they were “terrible mistakes.” The Times seems to be under the impression that Russia kills innocents for laughs, while the United States does so only with the best of intentions:

At least in recent decades, American presidents who took military action have been driven by the desire to promote freedom and democracy, sometimes with extraordinary results, as when Germany and Japan evolved after World War II from vanquished enemies into trusted, prosperous allies.

That US invasions “have been driven by the desire to promote freedom and democracy” is not argued, let alone proved; it’s presented as an article of faith. As the Times’ “recent decades” go back to World War II, the United States presumably killed an estimated 3.8 million in Vietnam “to promote freedom and democracy”—despite President Dwight Eisenhower admitting that given the chance, 80 percent of the Vietnamese people would have voted for Ho Chi Minh, the leader whose government the US opposed. Implicitly, the US’s use of covert terror to try to overthrow the elected government of Nicaragua, and US military support for death squad regimes elsewhere in Central America, were likewise motivated by a longing for freedom and democracy.

As FAIR (9/30/16) has noted, the most important function of major editorial boards is to be gatekeepers of national security orthodoxy. And there is no more axiomatic orthodoxy than American exceptionalism. One can handwring over “mistakes,” even occasionally do harsh reporting on American war crimes—so long as one arrives back at the position of American moral superiority. “Yes, America has made mistakes,” the good liberal insists, “but at least we don’t do this other bad thing that is, unaccountably, uniquely disqualifying.”

Clearly, Trump’s motives in questioning American innocence were anything but liberal or noble. He was evoking America’s own sins not to challenge them, but to apologize for those of the Russian president and, preemptively, his own. But the outrage over Trump’s comments from pundits and editorial boards did not seek to spotlight his cynicism and its dark implications, but rather to insist that the United States is, in fact, on a higher moral plane than Russia. This is a childish assertion that serves to flatter the ego of American readers while legitimizing their government’s crimes.

Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org. You can find him on Twitter at @AdamJohnsonNYC.

After Iran conducted a long-range ballistic missile test, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu wasted no time accusing Iran of “flagrant violation” of the UN Security Council resolution 2231. BBC news reported that “Benjamin Netanyahu said he would raise renewing sanctions when he meets US President Donald Trump in February.” BBC news did say that “It is not yet clear what type of missile was launched, or if it explicitly violated the UN resolution.” Netanyahu did not have to wait until February to discuss sanctions on Iran as the Trump administration’s NSA advisor ret. Lt Michael Flynn announced in a press conference that “Iran was on notice”, which constitutes a direct threat to Iran. The Trump administration wasted no time by immediately responding to Iran’s missile test by imposing new sanctions. ABC news reported what the latest sanctions entail:

The economic restrictions will target 13 individuals and 12 entities in what senior administration officials described today as a direct response to Iran’s missile test and its “provocative” behavior. Specifically, actions against these companies and individuals were made, officials said, based on “their support to Iran’s ballistic missile program or for their support to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (Quds Force).” Trump administration officials, who briefed reporters over the phone Friday, made specific mention of the IRGC’s support for Houthi rebels in Yemen, who recently attacked a Saudi frigate.

The new sanctions were also careful not to violate the 2015 international nuclear agreement with Iran, which Trump has called “terrible”

Trump tweeted “Iran is playing with fire – they don’t appreciate how “kind” President Obama was to them. Not me!” making it known that there would be consequences to Iran’s actions under his administration. Trump’s 2016 Speech at the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) made it clear on where he stood on Iran:

Iran is a problem in Iraq, a problem in Syria, a problem in Lebanon, a problem in Yemen and will be a very, very major problem for Saudi Arabia. Literally every day, Iran provides more and better weapons to support their puppet states. Hezbollah, Lebanon received — and I’ll tell you what, it has received sophisticated anti-ship weapons, anti-aircraft weapons and GPS systems and rockets like very few people anywhere in the world and certainly very few countries have. Now they’re in Syria trying to establish another front against Israel from the Syrian side of the Golan Heights

Trump even believes that Iran is a “major problem” for Saudi Arabia, one of the worst dictatorships in the world with a deplorable human rights record who happens to be a well-known state sponsor of terrorism. Trump’s policy in the war against terror without Saudi Arabia on the list contradicts his entire strategy. According to Trump’s military chief, General “Mad Dog” Mattis, Iran “is the single biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.” Flynn went on to say that Obama’s response to Iran’s actions was weak:

“he Obama Administration failed to respond adequately to Tehran’s malign actions—including weapons transfers, support for terrorism, and other violations of international norms. The Trump Administration condemns such actions by Iran that undermine security, prosperity, and stability throughout and beyond the Middle East and place American lives at risk

Netanyahu said that he “listened with appreciation to the remarks of General [Michael] Flynn on the need to counter Iran’s aggression” during a speech at the West Bank settlement of Ariel in memory of its founder and late mayor Ron Nachman according to The Times of Israel. Netanyahu is set to meet Trump in mid-February regarding a number of issues including Iran, Israeli settlements and possibly moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. One day after Trump’s inauguration speech, Netanyahu spoke on social media in regards to Iran’s threat to Israel as The Jerusalem Post reported:

I plan to speak soon with President Trump about how to counter the threat of the Iranian regime, which calls for Israel’s destruction,” Netanyahu said in the two-and-a-half minute video addressed directly to the Iranian people.

This ruthless regime continues to deny you your freedom,” Netanyahu said in the English video, accompanied by Farsi subtitles. “It prevents thousands of candidates form competing in elections, it steals money from your poor to fund a mass murderer like [Syrian President Bashar] Assad. By calling daily for Israel’s destruction, the regime hopes to instill hostility between us. This is wrong. We are your friend, not your enemy.”

As for Trump’s tweet claiming that Iran was “playing with fire” Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif responded with his own twitter message by saying that “Iran unmoved by threats as we derive security from our people. We’ll never initiate war, but we can only rely on our own means of defense.” Zarif also said “will never use our weapons against anyone, except in self-defense. Let us see if any of those who complain can make the same statement.” Iran says that the missile tests were not in violation of the nuclear deal reached on July 2015. At a joint news conference with French politician Jean-Marc Ayrault, Zarif told reporters that “The missile issue is not part of the nuclear deal. As all signatories to the nuclear deal have announced, the missile issue is not a part of nuclear deal.” Zarif pointed out the fact that according to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, it does not prohibit Iran from testing missiles or a “medium-range ballistic missile” which was used for the recent test. Zarif also said that the missiles were “not designed for the capability of carrying a nuclear warhead… Our ballistic missile was designed to carry a normal warhead in the field of legitimate defense.” Flynn also blamed an attempted missile attack on U.S. Navy destroyer parked off the coast of Yemen in mid-October of last year supposedly by the Houthi Rebels on Iran.

From Obama to Trump: Iran in the Crosshairs

In mid-September 2016, Reuters reported that Obama approved the largest military aid package in U.S. history to Israel as it headlined with ‘U.S., Israel sign $38 Billion Military Aid Package.’ The report said “The deal, whose details were reported by Reuters earlier, will allow Washington’s chief Middle East ally to upgrade most of its fighter aircraft, improve its ground forces’ mobility and strengthen its missile defense systems, a senior U.S. official said”

Netanyahu will push Trump to become more aggressive with Iran as Trump himself promised during his campaign. Will Trump lead the U.S. into a war with Iran? Will Trump’s proposal to reduce sanctions, boost economic trade and fight ISIS with Russia remain in place? Putin will proceed with caution when he meets with Trump in the near future. RT News reported in 2012 what Russia’s deputy prime minister and former envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin had said if Iran were attacked:

Iran is our close neighbor, just south of the Caucasus. Should anything happen to Iran, should Iran get drawn into any political or military hardships, this will be a direct threat to our national security

China would also not tolerate an attack against Iran as Rear Admiral Zhang Zhaozhong warned in 2011 that “China will not hesitate to protect Iran even with a Third World War.” When the Taiwanese President called Trump after he was elected, it sparked a diplomatic dispute between Beijing and Washington which did not help matters. The Trump administration also has spoken about China’s so-called “take over” of the South China Sea, a strategic trade route that accounts for more than $4.5 trillion in trade per year. Trump’s Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson claimed that China’s ‘Island-building’ in the South China Sea were “akin to Russia’s taking of Crimea” (another lie) during his confirmation hearings. China has warned Washington to “speak and act cautiously.” The South China Sea is an important transportation and trade route for China and historically speaking, the South China Sea has been China’s for over 2,000 years as the China news source ‘Xinhuanet.com’ stated:

However, the truth is China’s activities in the South China Sea date back to over 2,000 years ago, The People’s Daily article said. China has been the first to discover, name and develop the group of islands in the South China Sea, which have been known as the Nanhai Islands in China. For centuries, the Chinese government had been the administrator of the islands by putting them under the administration of local governments, conducting military patrols and providing rescue services.

The Nansha and Xisha Islands, occupied by Japan during World War II, were returned to China as part of the territories stolen from China. This has been clearly set out in international documents such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation. China sent government and military officials to recover the islands and deployed troops there

Tensions in the South China Sea will continue under the Trump administration. It is most likely that Russia and China will back Iran against any form of aggression by Washington or Tel Aviv.

From Obama’s $38 Billion Aid to Israel to Trump’s Saber-Rattling in the Middle East

The $38 Billion aid package for Israel’s security was signed off just in time for the Trump administration. The aid package allows Israel to prepare for a full-scale war against Iran and other adversaries in the region as Trump continues to ignite tensions in the Middle East on Israel’s behalf and of course for its natural resources. How can we forget what Trump said during his campaign on September 7, 2016 “We go in, we spend $3tn, we lose thousands and thousands of lives, and then … what happens is we get nothing. You know, it used to be to the victor belong the spoils.” He went on to say that “One of the benefits we would have had if we took the oil is Isis would not have been able to take oil and use that oil to fuel themselves.” That is true. But here is where Trump complicates matters as in an interview with the Wall Street Journal in 2011 with reporter Kelly Evans when he said “You heard me, I would take the oil,” he said. “I would not leave Iraq and let Iran take the oil”. And he insisted to ABC News that this did not amount to national theft. “You’re not stealing anything,” Trump said. “We’re reimbursing ourselves … at a minimum, and I say more. We’re taking back $1.5tn to reimburse ourselves.” Trump also suggested that if the U.S. gets involved in Libya it was only to “take the oil.” Trump is in-line with big oil corporations. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, a former Exxon Mobil executive will also make matters worse for oil-producing countries in the Middle East and to an extent Venezuela.

To Israel’s benefit, Trump has filled his administration with people who are pro-Israel (and in some cases are Zionists themselves) supporters. In regards to the Palestinians, Trump recently stated that his administration will take “severe punitive measures” if the Palestine Authority goes to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to petition the court to halt Israel’s settlement expansion. The Trump administration would cut the financial aid to the Palestinians, close down the offices of the PLO and reinstate them to terrorist group status along with Al Qaeda, an appeasement to the Israelis. Trump recently warned the Israeli government that building new settlements “may not be helpful” to Israel-Palestinian peace efforts although he made it clear that his administration “has not taken an official position on settlement activity” according to The Chicago Tribune. Trump’s senior advisor and son-in law, Jared Kushner whose family has donated “tens of thousands of dollars” to Bet El, an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank is a direct conflict of interest in the peace process. Reuter’s article clarifies Kushner’s role in the settlement activity ‘For hardline West Bank settlers, Jared Kushner’s their man’ which states:

For many in the Israeli settlement of Bet El, deep in the occupied West Bank, Donald Trump’s choice of Jared Kushner as his senior adviser on the Middle East is a sign of politics shifting in their favor.

They regard Kushner, whose family’s charitable foundation has donated tens of thousands of dollars to their settlement, as part of a diplomatic rebalancing after what they view as eight years of anti-Israel bias under the U.S. administration of Barack Obama

Trump cannot and will not be able to broker an honest peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians with his threats and pro-Israel cabinet members within his administration. Trump’s policies towards Iran and the Palestinians shows that he will follow the same agenda of previous administrations of creating chaos and war in the Middle East as Israel continues to expand its territories by building illegal settlements on Palestinian territory. So far, it looks like a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians will be unlikely. Trump’s suggestion that the U.S. embassy be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would also anger not only the Palestinians but the majority of the Muslim world. Any deal by the Trump administration will favor the Israelis, not the Palestinians.

Will the U.S. Declare War on Iran in March?

Iran’s plan to ditch the U.S. dollar this coming March is not only due to Trump’s Muslim ban, but the difficulty in dealing with continued sanctions and threats by Washington. Will Iran’s proposal to stop using the U.S. dollar push the Trump administration to declare war on the Islamic Republic? Congressional approval from both Republicans and Democrats (both parties are in the pockets of Israel) will give Trump the green light. The Financial Tribune based in Tehran (www.financialtribune.com), an economic daily news source confirmed that the Central Bank of Iran will stop using the US Dollar:

Iran will stop using the US dollar as its currency of choice in its financial and foreign exchange reports from the new fiscal year that begins in March, announced the governor of the Central Bank of Iran late Saturday.

Iran’s difficulties [in dealing] with the dollar were in place from the time of the primary sanctions and this trend is continuing, but we face no limitations regarding other currencies,” Valiollah Seif also said in a televised interview as reported by CBI’s official news website

Iran is an obstacle to the U.S. and Israeli supremacy in the Middle East since Iraq and Syria have been systematically destroyed by war and Western-sponsored sanctions. Iran is the prize for Israel, if they destroy Iran; Israel will be the dominant nation with a military financed by the U.S. government with an undeclared nuclear weapons arsenal at their disposal. Israel would be considered a Zionist Empire or what Netanyahu would call the “Jewish State” supported by the Anglo-American establishment. Trump’s actions thus far prove that he will be Israel’s president, Netanyahu knows it, Iran knows it, and the Palestinians, Russia and China know it.

Russia, China and the rest of the world must stop the U.S. and Israel’s war rhetoric against Iran and establish a peaceful solution to this developing crisis. The outcome of this foreseeable war will lead the world into a perilous path of uncertainty unless Trump makes a deal where all parties including Iran, Israel, the Palestinians and the Saudis can come to an agreement and peace can become a reality. Will Trump surprise us and make a peace deal happen? With Trump’s hard-line approach to Iran and the Palestinians before and after he was elected, peace will remain unlikely.

It should be evident to all objective observers by now that “America First” doesn’t equate to international isolationism or peace. Rather, just as the author predicted in his Sputnik analysis on Trump’s foreign policy right after his election, the 45^th President is taking a firm stand against Iran and China, and even making overtures to Turkey in seeking to tempt it away from the Tripartite of Great Powers that it’s presently a part of together with Moscow and Tehran.

It’s this second element of geopolitical grand strategy which occupies the focus of the present article, and it’ll be revealed that Trump not only has a few cards up his sleeve, but that he’s already playing his opening hand quite well in advancing his country’s interests.

Without getting too deep into the background behind it (which is explained in the above hyperlinked article about the Tripartite), Turkey decisively pivoted away from the West midway through 2016 and started to embrace its Eurasian neighbors. This dramatically culminated not only in the Moscow Declaration of late-December and subsequent Astana gathering the month afterwards, but even in the first-ever joint anti-terrorist mission between Russia and a NATO country. The US clearly realized that it’s on the verge of “losing Turkey”, to use “deep state” parlance, and that something urgently had to be done to rein in its rogue “ally”. The Obama Administration’s policies towards Turkey – the failed Gezi Park Color Revolution, supporting the PYD-YPG Kurds despite Ankara’s objections that they’re PKK-linked terrorists, and the failed pro-American coup attempt – were so disastrous that they seriously risked making the country an American adversary in the near future.

Erdogan is much too wily to burn bridges with the US despite all that it’s done in undermining his rule and his country, which is why he has yet to seriously contemplate the “nuclear option” of opting out of NATO and openly disowning his former long-held dream of joining the EU. Ankara has indeed stalled on the latter and was behaving as an ‘independent’ ‘Gaullist’ member of the former over the past half a year, but it never did anything to publicly break with either of them, at least not yet. Still, the situation is dire, at least according to the American perspective, which is why Trump’s team knew they had to move quickly in trying to win back Turkey. Luckily for them, the US’ cyclical change of administrations (especially between rivaling parties this time) gave them the plausible grounds needed for justifying their volte face towards Ankara, and thus far, it appears to be very promising.

Before proceeding, it’s important to review the most important points of geopolitical disagreement and potential problems between the US and Turkey. In any given order, they are:

* The US’ hosting of Gulen and patronage of his terrorist network;

* The US backing the PYD-YPG Kurds in Syria despite Ankara viewing them as PKK-linked terrorists;

* The unresolved territorial dispute in Cyprus;

* and Turkey temporarily hosting millions of immigrants per the now-fraying deal which it earlier reached with Brussels.

In response to these four pressures, each of which are driving Turkey’s Eurasianist reorientation, the Trump Administration decided to act quickly in making the following moves:

* Paying lip service to Erdogan by promising to “take Turkey’s request to extradite Gulen very seriously”;

* Officially denying reports (whether in sincerity or as a Machiavellian lie) that the US sent armored vehicles to the PYD-YPG Kurds, clarifying that they were given to the Arab members of the Kurd-dominated “Syrian Democratic Forces” (SDF);

* Pursuant to the above, scrapping the SDF-dependent “Race For Raqqa” from the Obama Era and inviting Turkey to partake in joint operations on Al-Bab and Raqqa;

* Jumpstarting Cypriot reunification talks which aim to achieve the favorable pro-Turkish solution of “federalization”;

* and seriously discussing the prospect of “safe zones” in Syria, which would essentially internationalize Turkey’s hoped-for “buffer zone” in the north and create a ‘dumping space’ for the millions of immigrants that it’s hosting.

The quickness with which the Trump Administration has sought to win back Turkey seems to have come as a surprise for Russia, which is now all of a sudden reminding the public that – in spite of Moscow officially acknowledging that “Russia is coordinating both Syria’s and Turkey’s efforts in Aleppo province, heading off any provocations and clashes between the sides” – the two sides “still have many differences”. This last statement was issued after all of the abovementioned American moves were made and it became obvious what Washington was up to. Even so, Russian strategists and decision makers don’t usually resort to overreactions, which is why the reminder of differences was almost immediately followed up by a separate statement emphasizing that Moscow doesn’t believe that Ankara is creating a “buffer zone” in northern Syria.

The whole point behind this “good cop, bad cop” approach is to signal to Turkey that Russia understands what games the US is up to, but is trustingly giving Ankara the benefit of the doubt and not rushing to render judgement on its leadership solely based on the obvious ulterior motives of the American administration. This explains the reminder that both sides have differences (“bad cop”, pointing to Russia’s acknowledgement that the US is trying to woo back Turkey), but that Turkey isn’t setting up a “buffer zone” (“good cop”, demonstrating that Ankara and Moscow still trust each other). What’s interesting, however, is that the Russian statement denying Turkey’s intentions to create a “buffer zone” was followed by the caveat that “Ankara, just as us, speaks in favor of preserving the territorial integrity of the country and inadmissibility of its partition.” This suggests that Russia is equating a “buffer zone” with separatism or annexation, though such a Turkish-desired end could still theoretically and inadvertently be achieved by the de-facto “federalization” contained within the unamended Russian-written “draft constitution” for Syria.

Although the Russian-Turkish Strategic Partnership is getting stronger by the day, the historic gains of the past six months shouldn’t be taken for granted by Moscow. The US is noticeably trying to drive wedges between the two sides in a classic display of divide and conquer, this time declaring that it’ll back Turkey in its anti-terrorist operations around Al-Bab while knowing full well that this could possibly set the ground for Washington-Ankara vs Moscow-Damascus if Russian diplomacy isn’t successful in preempting this scenario. Moscow needs to be careful that it’s not perceived (whether rightly or wrongly) as making ‘concessions’ to Turkey in northern Syria in order to keep Ankara on its side and away from Washington, as this might fuel speculation that Russia is exploiting Syria’s sovereignty as a bargaining chip in gambling for geopolitical gains in the New Cold War.

Whether such a policy would be a masterstroke or a mishap is a separate matter of debate, but the point is that Russia might ultimately be compelled to show ‘flexibility’ towards some limited Turkish interests in northern Syria if it’s to simultaneously protect its rapprochement with Ankara, deflect American advances in trying to turn Turkey away from Eurasia, and promote pragmatic steps in furthering the desire for joint anti-terrorist operations with the US. The strategic situation is therefore extremely complicated and moving at a rapid pace, and the decisions undertaken in the coming months will be pivotal in shaping the end game to the War on Syria. As Moscow continues to make its chess moves all across the Mideast and tries to bring American strategy there into a checkmate, it would do well to keep an extra cautious eye on Ankara amidst Washington’s renewed efforts to woo it back to the unipolar camp, and Russia might even have to countenance throwing Erdogan a few symbolic bones in order to maintain Turkey’s loyalty.

Andrew Korybko is the American political analyst currently residing in Moscow, writing for ORIENTAL REVIEW in his private capacity.

On January 30, 600,000 gallons (14,285 barrels) of oil spewed out of Enbridge’s Seaway Pipeline in Blue Ridge, Texas, the second spill since the pipeline opened for business in mid-2016.

Seaway is half owned by Enbridge and serves as the final leg of a pipeline system DeSmog has called the “Keystone XLClone,” which carries mostly tar sands extracted from Alberta, Canada, across the U.S. at a rate of 400,000 barrels per day down to the Gulf of Mexico.

Enbridge is an equity co-owner of the Dakota Access pipeline, which received its final permit needed from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on February 7 to construct the pipeline across the Missouri River and construction has resumed.

Screenshot from KXII News Fox 12

The alignment of Native American tribes, environmentalists, and others involved in the fight against Dakota Access have called themselves “water protectors,” rather than “activists,” out of concern that a pipeline spill could contaminate their drinking water source, the Missouri River.

“Just Spewing”

Brittany Clayton, who works at a nearby gas station in Blue Ridge, which is 50 miles from Dallas, Texas, was close to the scene of the spill when it occurred.

“You could just smell this oil smell. A customer walks in and says ‘nobody smoke.’ You could see it just spewing,” Clayton told KDFW-TV, the local Fox News affiliate in the area. “It was just super huge. It was like a big cloud. The fire marshal said, ‘This is like a danger zone. You guys have to evacuate immediately.’ I was totally freaked out. I kept texting the boss man.”

Enbridge and co-owner Enterprise Products Partners said in press release that the spill had been contained and it resumed service on February 5.

“The incident … resulted in no fire or injuries and the pipeline has been shut down and isolated,” the companies said. “Seaway has mobilized personnel and equipment to the site and is working closely with emergency responders, law enforcement and regulatory authorities to conduct clean-up operations and develop a plan to resume operations as quickly and safely as possible.”

Government Reaction

According to KDFW, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intend to do water and environmental testing in the coming days. TxDOT also told the local National Public Radio affiliate, KETR-FM, that it would take “several weeks” to complete a full cleanup.

“It remains too early in the investigation to know where final blame lies for the accident,” wrote KETR, also noting that “it is also too early to tell how much the cleanup and loss of product will cost.”

TxDOT referred DeSmog to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for details on the spill, cleanup, and related issues. We have reached out to TCEQ and will update the article as details come in and have also filed open records requests to learn more about the spill.

Chris Havey, Lieutenant Sheriff for the Collin County Sheriff’s Office, confirmed with DeSmog that a spill investigation is ongoing under the umbrella of the EPA and the Texas Railroad Commission, which is the state’s oil and gas regulatory agency.

“The Sheriff’s office is not conducting any parallel investigation,” said Havey. “As to whether or not the line has been shut off/capped, it’s my understanding that within an hour after the line ruptured it was successfully shut off.”

Neither the EPA Region 6 Office nor the Texas Railroad Commission responded to a request for comment. EPA, though, has been ordered not to speak to media by President Donald Trump‘s White House until the agency has a new administrator, likely nominee Scott Pruitt, and senior-level staff in place.

As momentum and tensions alike mount surrounding oil and gas pipeline projects around the country, this oil spill is a reminder of the risks and consequences that come with them.

Image Credit: Screenshot from KXII News Fox 12

Cuando pensamos en los grandes causantes del cambio climático, con frecuencia pensamos en automóviles y transporte aéreo. Pero los cambios producidos durante el siglo pasado en el modo en que son producidos y consumidos  los alimentos, ha resultado en emisiones de gases con efecto de invernadero mayores que las procedentes del transporte. ¿El principal culpable? La producción industrial de carne y lácteos.

La estimación oficial citada con más frecuencia sostiene que el sistema alimentario es responsable de hasta un 30 por ciento de todas las emisiones de gases con efecto de invernadero.[1] Algunas de estas emisiones se deben al aumento de los alimentos empacados y congelados, a las mayores distancias que los alimentos deben ser transportados y al aumento de los desechos alimentarios. Pero la fuente más importante de emisiones de gases con efecto de invernadero relacionadas con los sistemas de producción alimentaria es el aumento del consumo de carnes y lácteos —ocurrido por la expansión de la ganadería industrial y de cultivos para alimentación animal con uso intensivo de agroquímicos. La Organización para la Alimentación y la Agricultura de Las Naciones Unidas (FAO) señala que sólo la producción de carne genera  mayor emisión de gases con efecto de invernadero que todo el transporte mundial combinado.[2]

No es posible continuar por este camino sin rebasar el objetivo establecido por los gobiernos en París en 2015, de dos grados Celsius para el año 2050.[3] Reducir el consumo de carnes y lácteos es un imperativo, especialmente en EUA, Europa y otras naciones ricas que llevan décadas subsidiando la producción industrial de carnes y lácteos. Las leyes en estos países han generado ganancias astronómicas para las corporaciones erosionando la salud de sus poblaciones mientras dañaron as condiciones climáticas el planeta.

Figura 1. Mapa: ¿Cuánta carne comen las personas en todo el  mundo?

Adaptada de: Skye Gould/Business Insider, “How much meat people eat around the world” (infographic), 29 de septiembre, 2016, http://www.businessinsider.com/where-do-people-eat-the-most-meat-2016-10

Disminuir este consumo requiere primero entender qué sistemas de producción de carne y lácteos son los que provocan los mayores daños y los mecanismos y políticas que los impulsaron. Los pequeños ganaderos en los países pobres y los campesinos que ejercen una agricultura diversificada, no son el problema. El verdadero crimen climático es la producción industrial en agro-factorías —promovida por el presión ejercida por las corporaciones de la carne, los subsidios que reciben y los acuerdos de libre comercio.

 ¿Reducir el consumo de carne realmente frenaría el cambio climático?

La respuesta es, muy simple: sí. Disminuir el consumo de carnes y lácteos, especialmente en Norteamérica y Europa, tendría un impacto significativo. Al igual que el consumo de combustibles fósiles, el consumo de carne no sustentable sobre todo es promovido por los países ricos. Países como Estados Unidos y Australia son los mayores consumidores de carne a nivel mundial con unos 90 kilos por persona anuales, seguido de cerca por algunos países de América Latina y la Unión Europea, Canadá y Rusia. En India son apenas 3 kilos (ver figura uno).[8] Para aumentar la disparidad, está el hecho de que una gran tajada del consumo de carne estadounidense y europeo contiene más carne de res, que emite más gases con efecto de invernadero que el puerco y los pollos. Norteamérica, la Unión Europea y Brasil juntos dan cuenta de la mitad de toda la res consumida en el mundo.[9]

Las emisiones procedentes de la carne también aumentan en China (hoy el consumo de carne es 58.2 kg por persona por año), en Vietnam y otros países donde los restaurantes de comida rápida, las importaciones de carne y las agro factorías se están expandiendo rápidamente. Si esta tendencia continúa, el consumo de carne mundial aumentará  76 por ciento hacia 2050, mientras que las emisiones procedentes de los lácteos, otra gran fuente de emisiones del sector productor de alimentos, aumentará en 65 por ciento.[10]

Figura 2. Aumento proyectado en el consumo de carne por región* (kilos per capita)

*Incluye carne de vacunos, porcinos, aves y ovinos. Adaptada de: IFPRI, “How many kilograms per person”, Insights, Vol. 2, Issue 3, 2012, p. 23, http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/127219

Un estudio reciente señala: “si las personas mantuvieran el consumo de carne según recomendaciones de la Organización Mundial de la Salud, el mundo reduciría un 40 por ciento de todas las emisiones de gases con efecto de invernadero actuales.[11]

Los beneficios se harían sentir bastante rápido. El metano, el principal gas de invernadero, procedente de la ganadería, permanece en la atmósfera durante diez años solamente, mientras que el dióxido de carbono dura 200 años. El metano captura  28 veces más calor que el CO2. En consecuencia, disminuir la producción de metano puede tener un efecto relativamente rápido. Además, reducir el desecho de alimentos —especialmente carne— puede tener un impacto importante. Un tercio de los alimentos que producimos es desechado, generando alrededor de 4.4 giga toneladas de emisiones de gases con efecto de invernadero anuales. La carne da cuenta de menos de un 4 por ciento del desecho alimentario según el peso, pero provoca 20 por ciento de la huella de carbono del desperdicio alimentario.[12]

Vacas tradicionales pastando a la orilla de un camino en Ruanda. Doscientos millones de pastores y ganaderos en el mundo pastan sus animales en áreas donde los cultivos frecuentemente no pueden plantarse. (Foto: Adam Cohn)

Las agrofactorías son el problema, no los pequeños agricultores y ganaderos

Los pequeños agricultores y ganaderos no tienen nada que perder ante una disminución del consumo global de carne y lácteos. En la mayor parte del Sur Global —donde el consumo de carne y lácteos tiene un nivel sustentable – el ganado o crían 630 millones de campesinos con prácticas de emisión baja, como la agricultura mixta, más 200 millones de pastores y pequeños ganaderos  que frecuentemente dejan pastar a sus animales en áreas donde los cultivos no pueden desarrollarse.[13] Estos sistemas de producción y consumo no sólo contribuyen muy poco al cambio climático, sino que la diversidad de sus sistemas crea relaciones positivas entre los cultivos y el ganado (como el reciclaje del deshecho animal y los residuos de los cultivos) y un uso “multifuncional” de su ganado (para tracción, energía, trabajo, cueros y obtención de dinero efectivo). La producción ganadera en pequeña escala mejora la nutrición familiar, permitiendo que las personas accedan a alimentos de origen animal y vegetal. En estos sistemas, el ganado es una parte esencial del sustento familiar, de la seguridad alimentaria y la salud, y es parte integral de las tradiciones culturales y religiosas.

La producción industrial de carne y lácteos se ubica al otro extremo del espectro. Se basa en la producción altamente concentrada de carne a bajo costo y de excedentes de leche en polvo, los cuales son transados como materias primas. Este excedente de producción sostiene el crecimiento no sustentable del consumo global —y el espectacular aumento de las emisiones de gases con efecto de invernadero.

Las granjas industriales o agrofactorías son el segmento de más rápido crecimiento de la producción de carne y lácteos. Constituyen  el 80 por ciento del crecimiento de la producción de carnes y lácteos a nivel global en los años recientes.[14] La producción industrial de ganado ha crecido a una tasa anual igual al doble de la velocidad de crecimiento de los sistemas de agricultura tradicional y agricultura mixta, y seis veces más rápido  que la producción basada en pastoreo. Esto es el caso de los cerdos y las aves:  hoy las agrofactorías dan cuenta de 74 por ciento del total mundial de la producción avícola, 40 por ciento de la carne de cerdo y 68 por ciento de los huevos.[15]

Una gran parte de las emisiones generadas por la ganadería industrial ocurre indirectamente, a través de la producción de alimento para animales. En 2010, cerca de un tercio de los cereales producidos se destinaron a alimento animal y FAO predice que estas cifras se elevará a 50% para 2050.[16] Más alimentos para animales significa más tierra cultivada. Unos 56 millones de hectáreas de tierra adicionales fueron cultivadas con soja y maíz para alimento animal en los primeros diez años del siglo XXI, resultando en la liberación de abundantes cantidades de dióxido de carbono por los cambios de uso de la tierra y la deforestación.[17] Los cultivos para alimento animal son producidos usualmente con fertilizantes químicos, otra poderosa fuente de emisiones de gases con efecto de invernadero. Debido a la expansión de las agrofactorías, la producción y procesamiento de alimento para animales actualmente da cuenta de casi la mitad de las emisiones de gases de invernadero procedentes de la ganadería, y se supone que esto aumente.[18]

Otra importante fuente de emisiones de gases de invernadero procedente de las agrofactorías es el estiércol. La industrialización de la ganadería significa concentración: menos agricultores y más animales por finca. La gran escala de las operaciones convierte el estiércol, valioso fertilizante natural, en un problema tóxico. En EUA, donde el proceso está muy avanzado, a comienzos de los años 90 menos de una décima parte de las vacas lecheras estaba en planteles de más de mil vacas. Hacia 2007, esta cifra había aumentado a un tercio. El mismo año,  los planteles de engorda para carne de más de 16 mil cabezas manejaban 60 por ciento del mercado del ganado alimentado en establos estadounidenses.[19] Lo mismo, o peor, está ocurriendo con los sectores de cerdos y aves.

Según la FAO, el almacenamiento y procesado de estiércol es responsable de 10 por ciento de todas las emisiones de gases con efecto de invernadero relacionadas con la ganadería mundial.[20] Gran parte de eso proviene de las operaciones de alimentación de grandes rebaños de animales estabulados. El estiércol depositado por animales en las praderas produce de seis a nueve veces menos amonio volatilizado que el estiércol aplicado al suelo proveniente de los grandes planteles alimentados en establos.[21] Alex Turner, investigador de la Universidad de Harvard que investiga las lagunas  de estiércol (sistema de manejo de residuos utilizado en las agrofactorías), encontró que emiten unas 35 veces más metano que el estiércol aplicado en campo. [22] Por el tremendo crecimiento de las agrofactorías y las lagunas de desechos en EUA, el total de las emisiones de metano del estiércol crecieron en más de dos tercios entre 1990 y 2012.[23]

Un factor muy importante que afecta al clima, pero que se ignora con frecuencia, es la dependencia del ganado de los combustibles fósiles. Según la FAO, 20 por ciento de las emisiones generadas para producir carnes y lácteos proviene de combustibles fósiles[24] La mayor parte viene de las agrofactorías, por su necesidad de alimento para animales y de los fertilizantes usados para producirlo. También son los sistemas de distribución y venta al público, de los cuales depende la agricultura industrial, que demanda electricidad, calefacción, transporte y refrigeración.

El cabildeo por la carne socava la acción en favor del clima

La producción agropecuaria industrial y nuestro apetito por la carne y los lácteos no sólo son mortales para el clima de la tierra; también crea un amplio espectro de trastornos ambientales y sociales. Los científicos no dejan de advertirnos de este problema por lo menos de diez años a la fecha. Pero los esfuerzos por atacar el problema invariablemente chocan con una agresiva resistencia de parte de las productoras de carne y lácteos, que son las que más pueden perder de las acciones que reduzcan el consumo y frenen la agricultura industrial.

“Me han golpeado en la cabeza innumerables veces por sugerir que las personas consuman menos carne”, señala Rajendra Pachauri, presidente de el Panel Intergubernamental sobre Cambio Climático entre 2002 y 2015. “Fui  blanco de varios intentos por desacreditarme”.[25]

Un niño pastor ordeña una vaca en Etiopía. Los pastores contribuyen un mínimo al cambio climático y sus animales proporcionan muchos usos y beneficios (Foto: Dietmar Temps)

FAO fue criticada por la industria de la carne tras publicar un informe en 2006 señalando que la ganadería participa con 18 por ciento de las emisiones globales de gases con efecto de invernadero. “Ustedes no creerían cuánto nos atacaron”, señala Samuel Jutzi, director de la división de producción y salud animal de FAO.[26] Pronto FAO cedió ante la presión y acordó establecer una asociación con los principales grupos de cabildeo de la industria de la carne para, en conjunto, volver a calcular las emisiones de la ganadería.[27] Tanto el Comité Directivo como los Grupos Asesores Técnicos de la asociación están dominados por los representantes de las compañías productoras de carne, sus grupos de cabildeo y los científicos financiados por las compañías de la carne y lácteos.

Como resultado de la asociación de FAO con la industria,  FAO cambió su enfoque y hoy hace evaluaciones más estrechas sobre la “intensidad de emisión”, y estas emisiones de gases con efecto de invernadero son analizadas con base a unidades de producción (por kilo de carne, litro de leche o unidad de proteína). Midiendo así, los animales criados de manera intensiva para una máxima producción de carne y leche —por unos cuantos millones de agricultores, de EUA, Europa, Brasil, Nueva Zelandia y otros pocos países ricos— tienen una menor “intensidad de emisiones” que los animales de los campesinos, criados para muchos más usos y sin acceso a la alimentación de alto contenido proteico, ni antibióticos, estimuladores de crecimiento y hormonas usadas por la industria ganadera intensiva. De esta manera se dice que los pequeños agricultores  sufren de una “brecha en intensidad de emisión” y deben migrar hacia lo que es conocido por “intensificación sustentable” o, de manera más amplia, “agricultura climáticamente inteligente”.[28]

Cuando se trata de ganado vacuno, el sesgo hacia la industrialización es peor, pues es frecuente que los científicos y los encargados de diseñar políticas no tomen en cuenta en sus cálculos la capacidad de almacenamiento de carbono de las praderas naturales.

En su informe de 2013 sobre ganado y clima, FAO admite que no puede calcular los cambios en el volumen del carbono en el suelo en praderas permanentes “debido a la falta de bases de datos y modelos globales”.[29] Más aún, se subestima el hecho de que la capacidad de absorber carbono del aire en las praderas bien manejadas puede ser significativa, sobre todo en los trópicos donde las praderas permanentes son comunes y la fijación del carbono es alta.

Hoy las praderas cubren un cuarto de la superficie de la Tierra y dan cuenta de dos tercios de nuestra tierra agrícola, así que las consecuencias son enormes en especial si uno considera las consecuencias climáticas y ecológicas de ararlas para desarrollar cultivos para alimento animal para la ganadería industrial. Entre 2009 y 2015, 21 millones de hectáreas de praderas, solamente en los EUA, fueron convertidas a la producción de cultivos y muchas de ellas se destinaron a alimentar la ganadería industrial —liberando suficiente carbono hacia la atmósfera, como para equiparar ¡670 millones adicionales de autos en las autopistas![30]

El problema mayor es que el modelo de cálculo de “intensidad de emisiones”, que ahora es incentivado por las compañías productoras de carne y lácteos como base para las políticas nacionales,  deja completamente de lado la conexión entre los sistema de producción y los niveles de consumo, así como los numerosos beneficios ambientales, sociales, de salud y bienestar de los animales de la agricultura mixta y la ganadería a pequeña escala (ver Figura 4. Vaca buena, vaca mala). Es un modelo que favorece solamente la realización de retoques técnicos al status quo, más que el cambio mayor requerido urgentemente para alejarse de la producción industrial de carne y lácteos. Finalmente, coloca de manera injusta la carga de la reducción de las emisiones sobre los pequeños propietarios de ganado de los países pobres que no tienen responsabilidad en la crisis climática.

¡Ya es hora de entrar en acción!

Si queremos tener un impacto significativo sobre el cambio climático, tenemos que estar claros que la carne y los lácteos industriales son el verdadero problema. Mientras que es importante y bienvenido el apoyo a los productores y ganaderos a pequeña escala para que adopten métodos más sustentables donde se requiera, el crecimiento de los sistemas de producción industrial de carne y lácteos, es lo primero y más importante que hay que revertir. El esfuerzo por reducir el consumo de carne y lácteos debe dirigirse contra los grandes responsables: Norteamérica y Europa, más unos cuantos países en América Latina, como Brasil. Algunos gobiernos en estas regiones comienzan a tomar medidas y dan pasos por conseguir que la gente coma menos carne, como en China, el país con el crecimiento más acelerado en el consumo de carne (ver Recuadro 2. ¿Qué están haciendo ya los países?).

La producción industrial de carne no sólo contribuye al cambio climático, también es altamente vulnerable a eventos climáticos extremos. (Foto: Rick Dove, Waterkeeper Alliance)

Otros gobiernos estudian un rango de medidas fiscales para aumentar el precio de la carne y los lácteos en una manera responsable, y que esto disminuya el consumo, así como se hace ahora con el azúcar, las grasas, las bebidas gaseosas y el tabaco. Una medida es eliminar el bajo impuesto al valor agregado que muchos países aplican a la carne, para mantenerla artificialmente barata. Otra es imponer un impuesto a la carne, en especial la de vacuno. Esto es discutible, ya que algunos se preocupan de que podría afectar de manera desproporcionada a los hogares de más bajos ingresos. Otro riesgo es que podría hacer que las personas consuman cerdos y aves industriales en lugar de carne de vacuno, lo que podría aminorar los efectos climáticos pero podría llevar a otros problemas ambientales y de salud.

Por ello hay personas que están buscando cómo establecer un impuesto socialmente positivo, un impuesto diferenciado, sobre la carne industrial o un impuesto que esté unido a los subsidios u otras medidas de redistribución del ingreso, para lograr carne producida localmente y de manera sustentable y alternativas no cárneas disponibles y baratas, en particular donde las comunidades son de bajos ingresos. Los difíciles debates en torno a los impuestos al carbono demuestran que se requiere que estas discusiones sean participativas, para que sea equitativo y efectivo.

Pequeña granja con animales en Ceará, Brasil. La producción de ganado a pequeña escala mejora la nutrición y la seguridad alimentaria familiar. (Foto: [email protected])

De hecho, casi dos tercios de todos los subsidios agrícolas de Estados Unidos van a la carne y los lácteos, gran parte a través de la producción de alimento animal.[41] En lugar de impulsar los agronegocios, el apoyo debería darse a los agricultores para reducir sus rebaños  y reconvertirse a métodos de producción agroecológica de ganado, como parte de un cambio más amplio en las finanzas públicas y las políticas alimentarias.

Por el lado de los negocios y la comercialización, con urgencia necesitamos revertir la imposición de las “cadenas de valor” globales de carne y lácteos, como lo consagran en los grandes acuerdos comerciales, entre los principales bloques comerciales (ver Recuadro 4. Cómo impulsan los acuerdos comerciales la expansión de la producción industrial de carne y lácteos).

Estos acuerdos promueven artificialmente la producción y el consumo, al promover la exportación subsidiada de carne y lácteos baratos, hacia las economías de países de bajos recursos. Esto no sólo significa aniquilar los modos de subsistencia locales, también implica destruir nuestro clima. Necesitamos reconocerlo y redirigir  la inversión y las políticas hacia el apoyo de los mercados locales, nacionales y regionales para el ganado producido de manera sustentable.

Podremos resolver la crisis climática sólo si damos pasos significativos que conduzcan hacia la agroecología y la soberanía alimentaria. Esto no sólo ayudaría a estabilizar nuestro clima de manera significativa,  sino que alimentaría de mejor manera a las personas, produciría alimentos más saludables y permitiría tratar a los animales de una manera más humana.

Cambiarse del modo de producción industrial a la agroecología, permitirá a los agricultores, pastores y ganaderos volver a retener el carbono en los maltratados suelos y mejorar la producción de alimentos en el largo plazo. También ayudará a los pastores a adaptarse al cambio climático. Para lograrlo, necesitamos cambios audaces que desincentiven la producción y el consumo de carne y lácteos industriales. Necesitamos detener los acuerdos comerciales que impulsan el comercio internacional masivo de productos cárneos y lácteos. Debe ser apoyada la producción y comercialización de carnes y lácteos en pequeña escala.

En este proceso, la ganadería volverá a estar integrada a los sistemas de producción agrícola diversificados, a la vez que la carne y los lácteos volverán a ocupar un lugar adecuado  en la dieta de las personas. Éste es un enfoque necesario para mantener al mundo habitable para las futuras generaciones. La tarea es inmensa, pero nunca ha sido tanto lo que está en juego.

Grain

Grain: Pequeña organización internacional que trabaja apoyando a campesinos y a movimientos sociales en sus luchas por lograr sistemas alimentarios basados en la biodiversidad y controlados comunitariamente.

Notas:

Frente a cada uno de los atentados en occidente: Estados Unidos, España, Reino Unido, Francia, Bélgica o Alemania, la gente  ha podido expresar su solidaridad de manera contundente, o bien asistiendo a los múltiples homenajes o bien llevando un flor al lugar del hecho, encendiendo una vela en su ventana o mínimamente expresando su dolor y su repudio en las redes sociales. Hemos visto miles de fotografías de las víctimas, entonces vitales con sus familias, sus mascotas o que atestiguan un logro: un título, una jubilación, un casamiento, una vacación. Miles de esas fotografías tan iguales y tan próximas a las que cada uno de nosotros hoy puede atesorar en un cajón del armario o en la memoria de su celular.

Sin duda en sociedades habituadas al confort extremo, no están preparadas para que un par de fanáticos entre a la redacción de una revista y limpie el honor de su Profeta, a disparos de Kaláshnikov, o les rieguen de bombas una línea de metro o le lancen encima un camión mientras se festeja algo.

El dolor, la ofensa, el odio, las preguntas de ¿por qué? estallan en la conciencia de cada uno que se sabe potencial víctima, porque que no estuvo allí por casualidad. Esos lugares cotidianos que se convirtieron repentinamente en cámaras de muerte, de la que un hijo se fue un rato antes o a la que su hermano llegó un rato después.

La sociedad europea parece haber olvidado que fue capaz de generar, ya no poco más de 70 años, una formidable maquinaria de muerte que se había instalado, justamente, a la vuelta de la esquina, ni se reclamó nunca por tolerar los genocidios balcánicos apenas antes de ayer.

Pablo Neruda decía “no hay espacio más ancho que el dolor, no hay universo como aquel que sangra” ese dolor no se explica, se conoce, porque todos en algún momento fuimos y volveremos a ser sus víctimas.

Pero todas esas palabras, todas esas imágenes son propiedad de occidente, a nadie por ejemplo en Sudán del Sur, se le ocurriría encender una vela, colocar una flor, o un cartel que diga “Je suis John Gatluak”, porque no habría ni flores, ni velas, ni crayones para homenajear a tantas víctimas, tan inocentes como las de Atocha, para recordar sus nombres. Esos muertos, son cadáveres, que pronto deben desaparecer, o a fuego o en fosas comunes, claro esos montones de muertos y los calores podrían disparar epidemias y responsabilidades. Hay que deshacerse de las víctimas, sin flores, sin velas sin homenajes. Son demasiados y no hay mucho tiempo para ocultar a los culpables.

Sudán del Sur, la última nación que obtuvo el derecho a considerarse tal en 2011, desde diciembre del 2013, se encuentra en un virtual estado de Guerra Civil, cuando el presidente Salva Kiir, de la etnia dinka, pretendió quitarse de encima al vicepresidente Riek Machar de la etnia nuer, lo que dio lugar a algunos para llamar burdamente a estar guerra “étnica” cuando se sabe que es claramente un conflicto de interés de potencias y empresas occidentales, que se están disputando no solo el petróleo, sino también el uranio, de uno de los pueblos más pobres del mundo, que han tenido la “torpeza” de estacionarse sobre un mar de importantes y ricos yacimientos.

Al independizarse Sudán del Sur, se quedó con el 75% de las reservas totales del antiguo Sudán, aunque la mayoría de los oleoductos para exportar el petróleo y las refinerías se ubican en Sudán. Lo que implica una interdependencia entre ambas naciones que esta generado cada vez más tensiones.

Sudán del Sur cuenta con la tercera reserva petrolera más importante de África Subsahariana, el 90% de sus ingresos provenía de la explotación petrolera, hasta el inicio de la guerra. Desde entonces los yacimientos en producción, han sido bloqueados por los combates entre los bandos rivales y sumar más tensión con su vecino del norte Sudán, de quien se independizó después de décadas de espasmódicas guerras, que tiene la función de llevar el petróleo hasta los puertos del mar Rojo, por lo que recibe importantes comisiones.

La crisis económica, producto de la guerra ha generado una escalada en los precios, con una inflación 900%, que ha terminado dejando a la población al borde de la hambruna, lo que la obliga también a constantes desplazamientos empujada por los combates y las matanzas étnicas, que no han podido impedir las permanentes y vulneradas treguas.

El aumento del combustible ha obligado a que las pocas industrias del país, detengan su actividad, entre ellas una tan clave como la embotelladora de agua.

Las donaciones internacionales para construir fuente potabilizadora han desaparecido, sin que nadie pueda dar razón de su destino. Lo que está obligando a la población a utilizar o agua contaminada, o a asaltar los pocos hoteles para extranjeros que todavía funcionan y robar el agua en baldes y bidones, de las piscinas. Los hospitales carecen de todos los insumos para seguir funcionando, mientras que el estado solo sigue invirtiendo en armamento.

Los combates más importantes se producen justamente en los estados petrolíferos del norte del país Alto Nilo y de Unidad, aunque últimamente la guerra se ha extendido al sur hacia llegando a la frontera con Kenia Uganda y el Congo.

Los desplazados ya suman más de 2.5 millones de personas. Poniendo a medio millón en un estado de vulnerabilidad absoluta, lo que implica que de manera urgente la asistencia sanitaria y alimenticia, se ponga en marcha.

Crónica de  un genocidio anunciado

El presidente Salva Kiir, acaba de habilitar a varias empresas libanesas para establecer una planta de fabricación de proyectiles en Juba, la capital del país, además de haber incrementado de manera exponencial la compra de armamento.

Tras el fin de la temporada de lluvias, al tiempo que los caminos se hacen más transitables y el suministro de armas a los distintos destacamentos es más fluido, como ya ha pasado en años anteriores se prevén nuevas y grandes matanzas. Esta situación ha hecho  que el Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas, denunciara la posibilidad de que se produzca un genocidio que rememoré el ocurrido en Ruanda en 1994, que dejó un millón de muertos en tal solo tres meses.

Por su parte los grandes productores de armamento han presionado a las autoridades internacionales para evitar que se declarara algún tipo de embargo a ambos bandos, para la adquisición de sus productos.

Como para preparar el terreno para el genocidio y su posterior ocultamiento el Servicio de Seguridad Nacional, bajo las órdenes directas del presidente Kiir, ha iniciado  una operación para expulsar y deportar, tanto a periodistas, como personal de las diferentes ongs. En el caso de los periodistas locales, la suerte es muy diferente, desde 2012 ya son doce los hombres de prensa asesinados por sicarios de Kiir. Como lo marca el secuestro de  Joseph Abandi, desaparecido en marzo de 2016, cuyo cuerpo fue encontrado tiempo después en un cementerio con incontrastables signos de torturas.

El 11 de julio del años pasado en Juba, después de un combate que dejó más de 300 muertos entre los bandos, unos 100 hombres del presidente Kiir, tomaron el hotel Terrain y además de violar a durante horas a cinco colaboradoras extranjeras de una ong, algunas relataron que fueron abusadas por más de quince hombres, la violación es de hecho moneda de pago del gobierno a su tropa.

La tropa también torturó y asesinó a docenas de personas, en las propias instalaciones del Terrain, entre  ellos el periodista radial John Gatluak, para después lanzarse a saquear todo lo que se pudo.

Por su parte Unicef ha denunciado que desde el inicio del conflicto se han  reclutado unos 17 mil niños, 1600 durante 2016, para las diferentes facciones en pugna. Según la denuncia: “En algunas escuelas, los soldados del Gobierno han sacado a grupos de 50 niños de clase para ponerlos a combatir de forma inmediata”. La mayoría de los menores son secuestrados al ser sorprendidos fuera de sus casas o convencidos por comida, algo de ropa,  ya que enrolarse en alguna fuerza es la única posibilidad de sobrevivir a la pobreza. También existen denuncias acerca del asesinato de menores, con el solo efecto de evitar venganzas posteriores

La guerra que ya ha provocado más de 50 mil muertos mal contados, arrasa aldeas y ciudades, sus habitantes al igual que sus propiedades son incinerados, la sofisticación del odio espeluzna, muchos son obligados a tomar la sangre y a comer los cuerpos de sus familiares o miembros de la misma etnia.

Un solo saqueo a un depósito del Programa Mundial de Alimentos, significó la pérdida de 23 millones de euros en provisiones, además de vehículos y distintos materiales, sin reparar en los ciento de miles de personas al borde de morir de hambre.

Quizás la próxima vez que suceda un ataque en occidente, porque todo está dado para que ello suceda, entre tanta ingeniosa pancarta quizás a alguien se le ocurra levantar una que diga: “Je suis, Sudán del Sur”.

Guadi Calvo 

Guadi Calvo: Escritor y periodista argentino, analista Internacional especializado en África, Medio Oriente y Asia Central. 

El presidente Donald Trump ha dejado claro que su presidencia tendrá una posición sobre todo y en todas partes. También dejó claro que él solo tomará la decisión final sobre las políticas que seguirá su gobierno. Él ha escogido dos áreas prioritarias para implementar sus políticas: México y Siria/Irak, que es la zona de fuerza del Califato o Estado Islámico (EI). Podríamos llamar a estas dos áreas puntos álgidos (hotspots), donde el magnate está actuando en su modo más provocador.

En su surgimiento, el modelo neoliberal traía promesas atrayentes. Antes de todo, contener los gastos excesivos del Estado, diagnosticado como la fuente de la inflación. Por otra parte, imponer a la economía el dinamismo centrado en las empresas privadas y en el mercado. Por el discurso liberal que lo acompañaba, se fortalecerían la sociedad civil y la ciudadanía, libres de las trabas y de la opresión del Estado.

No fue lo que pasó, pero por lo menos en algunos casos, y por algún tiempo, hubo control de la inflación, aunque multiplicando la deuda pública. Cuando sus efectos positivos se habían agotado, vino el discurso de que, si no era el mejor modelo, era el único posible en la era de la globalización.

Hoy, cuando la crisis recesiva se perpetúa en Europa ya desde 2008, mientras ese efecto se extiende por toda la economía internacional, ya no se ven rasgos positivos y tampoco es obligatorio mantener el modelo neoliberal, eje de la crisis a escalas nacional e internacional. Los partidos tradicionales, conservadores y socialdemócratas, que han asumido la política de austeridad –la forma que asume el neoliberalismo en ese continente–, se ven castigados por los electores y cada elección se vuelve una desesperación para ellos.

En ningún lado la aplicación de los duros ajustes fiscales –eje de los modelos neoliberales– cumplió sus promesas. Ni control de las cuentas públicas ni de la inflación, menos aún retomar el desarrollo económico. Su desempeño es globalmente considerado un fracaso, causante de la perpetuación de la recesión en la economía mundial.

En América Latina eso es igualmente evidente. Comparecen las economías de Argentina y de Brasil en los gobiernos antineoliberales y en el retorno del modelo neoliberal, y el resultado es escandalosamente claro en favor de los primeros. Mírese todo lo que han mejorado países como Ecuador, Bolivia y Brasil en comparación con la situación de México y Perú.

Es evidente que el escenario internacional está sufriendo transformaciones que obligan a las regiones y a los países a repensar y ajustar sus estrategias en casi todos los campos. La pregunta consiguiente para nosotros sería:  ¿está Latinoamérica preparada o tiene la suficiente identidad para generar una acción de conjunto, frente a una coyuntura que por lo menos podemos definir como desafiante?

La misma pregunta se podría formular de otro modo:  ¿puede Latinoamérica a pesar de su heterogeneidad, asimetrías y complejidades, desarrollar una iniciativa como comunidad política, de valores e intereses compartidos?

La respuesta nos remite, a la necesidad de poner en valor y dinamizar una construcción política-institucional, que acumula muchísimos años y que si bien ha atravesado ciclos de avances y retrocesos, de ilusión y desencanto, mantiene capacidades muy útiles  para colaborar con una propuesta que ayude a darle visibilidad, cohesión y presencia a América Latina, tanto en el plano interno como región, como en el internacional, como actor global.

La ALADI  (Asociación Latinoamericana de Integración) podría jugar un importante rol para viabilizar una alternativa válida y eficaz como es la profundización de la integración regional.

En este camino, sería necesario  comenzar a diseñar un Acuerdo Económico Comercial Integral; es decir un tratado  de nueva generación que ayude a fortalecer el mercado ampliado, permita aumentar el comercio intrarregional, potencie las complementariedades productivas y sectoriales e incorpore todos los avances que se han llevado adelante en los organismos subregionales (MERCOSUR – Alianza del Pacífico, ALBA, Comunidad Andina, SICA, etc.) en términos políticos, económicos, comerciales, sociales y culturales.

Un Acuerdo Latinoamericano de este tipo nos ayudaría a disminuir nuestras vulnerabilidades como región, promover un mayor nivel de inversiones, asociar empresas, mejorar la competitividad de los países, ganar más autonomía relativa y posicionarnos mejor en el marco de las negociaciones multilaterales.

Se trata de avanzar en dos grandes objetivos que recorren la trayectoria de la región. El primero, que viene desde los años 60 del siglo pasado, es la necesidad de construir un entramado más fuerte en lo económico, comercial y productivo que incorpore valor a nuestras producciones y nos permita achicar la brecha que nos separa con el mundo desarrollado. Es decir, conformar un mercado latinoamericano que refuerce y complemente las enormes potencialidades de la región que aisladas en cada país ya se demostraron históricamente insuficientes para garantizar un desarrollo sostenible y sustentable en el tiempo, tanto a la región como en cada uno de los países.

El segundo objetivo es dotar a América Latina de un mayor protagonismo político global, lo que significa que alguna vez  Latinoamérica pueda hablar con una sola voz. Este propósito solo puede alcanzarse desde una voluntad política compartida, paciencia estratégica, construcción de confianzas, pragmatismo, flexibilidad y decisión de que solo desde la diversidad, el respeto y el pluralismo se puede ir articulando una mirada común sobre los grandes temas de la agenda global.

Estamos convencidos que si no emerge, por parte de algunos países, una decisión política en la dirección apuntada, América Latina seguirá siendo una región solo para las estadísticas, la geografía, los diagnósticos y estudios generalistas o las retóricas emancipatorias sobre el pasado pero seguiremos muy lejos de parecernos a una comunidad que no solo comparte la historia sino el presente y más aún el amenazante devenir.

Carlos Chacho Álvarez

Carlos Chacho Álvarez: Secretario General de la ALADI (Asociación Latinoamericana de Integración).

Dos puntos de partida. Uno, los cambios de fondo nunca se procesan en períodos de calma chicha sino en medio de tempestades que ponen todo patas arriba. Es en esos momentos cuando las fuerzas antisistémicas, forjadas en largos períodos en los sótanos de las sociedades, pueden aprovechar la debilidad y la crueldad del capital para mostrar a las mayorías que hay otros caminos más allá de la subordinación al sistema. 

Dos, que uno de los más importantes problemas que enfrenta hoy lucha emancipatoria es la subordinación de los movimientos antisistémicos al capital financiero y a los estados, como lo señala Nancy Fraser en el memorable artículo “Trump o el fin de neoliberalismo progresista” (Rebelion, 23 de enero de 2017).

El aturdidor cacareo de los más poderosos medios del sistema, encabezado por The New York Times y seguido dócilmente por la inmensa mayoría de los medios del mundo, tiene un objetivo muy claro: reforzar la alianza Wall Street-Sillicon Valley-Hollywood con los nuevos movimientos sociales (feminismo, antirracismo, multiculturalismo y LGBTQ), como señala Fraser.

Esta alianza es un cortafuegos levantado por Bill Clinton en 1992, lo que la feminista estadunidense denomina “neoliberalismo progresista”, como forma de aislar a la clase obrera –vapuleada por el capital financiero y la globalización- de los movimientos sociales. Donde hubo exitosas luchas contra el neoliberalismo, fue donde se tejieron alianzas de hecho entre ambos sectores. El Argentinazo de diciembre de 2001 fue la convergencia de “piquete y cacerola”, o sea los obreros desocupados y las clases medias empobrecidas, algo que los de arriba buscan evitar de cualquier modo.

Ese neoliberalismo progresista es el que ha gobernado buena parte de Sudamérica en la última década. Salvando las distancias, hay también entre nosotros la intención de cooptar a los nuevos movimientos, de un modo que Fraser describe de modo sencillo y potente: “Al identificar progreso con meritocracia, en lugar de igualdad, se equiparaba la emancipación con el ascenso de una pequeña elite de mujeres, minorías y gays “con talento” en la jerarquía empresarial basada en la noción de “quien gana se queda con todo” (validando la jerarquía en lugar de abolirla)”.

Estas minorías juegan el mismo papel que tuvieron las direcciones sindicales y de la socialdemocracia europea durante la primera guerra mundial, frenando las aspiraciones revolucionarias de una parte importante del proletariado. En casos extremos como en Alemania en 1919, esa socialdemocracia llegó a asesinar a dirigentes como Rosa Luxemburg, mostrando así la verdadera cara de su proyecto de sostener el sistema capitalista enfrentando a la izquierda rebelde.

Dicho de otro modo, sin el apoyo de ese sector el sistema estaría tambaleándose. Al comienzo de la globalización, conscientes de que afectaría a la clase obrera industrial, las elites del mundo tejieron una amplia alianza con los nuevos movimientos, que Fraser describe como “alianza entre emancipación y financierización”. La rabia de Wall Street y de los medios del sistema es que la victoria de Trump deja dicha alianza en estado de máxima debilidad, por eso su empeño en movilizar a los jóvenes para evitar fracturas.

Apenas dos ejemplos. El muro de Trump ya existe y fue levantado por diversas administraciones, “programado por Bill Clinton y construido en su tercera parte por Baby Bush”, según Alfredo Jalife-Rahme (La Jornada, 3 de febrero de 2017). Sin embargo, presentan el muro como una novedad, ignominiosa por cierto, cuando deberían decir que Trump se propone terminar el muro que comenzaron los neoliberales republicanos y demócratas.

Lo segundo es la vergonzosa propaganda en defensa de los derechos humanos y de los musulmanes. Paul Craig Roberts critica con dureza el oportunismo de la representante de la ONG Human Rights First, quien atacó las medidas contra los musulmanes: “¿Dónde estaba Human Rights First cuando el régimen Bush/Cheney/Obama mataba, mutilaba y desplazaba a millones de musulmanes en siete países en el transcurso de cuatro presidencias?” (paulcraigroberts.org, 3 de febrero de 2017).

El doble rasero de los lobbistas de los movimientos no hace más que enlodar los derechos humanos, el feminismo, las causas antirracista y LGBTQ, mientras guarda silencio sobre criminales de guerra como Hillary Clinton, responsable directa de la invasión de Libia y de la masacre de la Primavera Árabe.

Es evidente que el gobierno de Trump será muy agresivo y violento contra los sectores populares de todo el mundo, y sus efectos ya se hacen sentir en países como México y en breve en toda la región latinoamericana. Sin embargo, no son pocos los que aseguran que se llegará al mundo nuevo a través de procesos serenos y calmos, cuando sabemos que la estabilidad es el mejor caldo de cultivo para la reproducción del sistema. Quienes necesitan la estabilidad son precisamente las elites de los movimientos, incrustadas en el poder, desde donde pretenden evitar que la opresión las afecte en un camino de salvación individualista.

Para los de abajo, la llegada del energúmeno Trump al gobierno de la mayor potencia del mundo, es síntoma de descomposición del sistema que nos afecta como los latigazos de una tormenta. Es en medio del caos sistémico como nos empeñamos en construir lo nuevo, con todos los riesgos que eso implica, pero con la voluntad intacta.

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.

Desde que Donald Trump asumió la presidencia de Estados Unidos el 20 de enero último, el gobierno de China insistió en despejar la incertidumbre sobre las relaciones entre las dos mayores economías del mundo.

Los nexos constructivos entre Estados Unidos y China se mantendrán fuertes y florecerán en el largo plazo, pese a que Trump, uno de los mandatarios estadounidenses con menos experiencia en cargos públicos, necesita tiempo para familiarizarse con los asuntos de política exterior incluso conocer más del gigante asiático, según indican expertos.

Sin embargo, encuestas dan a conocer que las relaciones entre Washington y Beijing son de vital importancia e influencia no sólo para ellas mismas, sino para el mundo en general como lo ha reiterado el presidente chino, Xi Jinping.

Este jueves, China agradeció una carta de felicitación enviada por el presidente norteamericano a Xi, con motivo del próximo Festival de las Linternas.

En rueda de prensa, el portavoz del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores Lu Kang, confirmó que Trump había remitido un mensaje a Xi deseándole a él y a todo el pueblo chino un feliz Festival de las Linternas, que se celebra mañana y es una de las fiestas más importantes en este milenario territorio.

En el escrito también expresaba su interés de trabajar con China para desarrollar una relación constructiva.

Concedemos una gran importancia al desarrollo de los nexos con Estados Unidos, manifestó el vocero.

China está preparada para trabajar con la parte estadounidense a fin de ampliar la cooperación y gestionar cualquier diferencia guiándose por los principios de apoyar el no conflicto y la no confrontación, el respeto mutuo y la colaboración de beneficio mutuo, de forma que los lazos bilaterales se desarrollen de una manera sana y estable, afirmó Lu.

Recordó que como ha dicho el presidente Xi, China y Estados Unidos tienen ambos la responsabilidad de salvaguardar la paz y la estabilidad mundiales, así como promover el desarrollo y la prosperidad globales.

Acentuó que la cooperación es la única elección correcta para Beijing y Washington.

Tanto analistas chinos como extranjeros coinciden en criterios sobre las tan necesitadas relaciones de respeto entre las dos grandes potencias.

Ezra Feivel Vogel, profesor emérito de ciencias sociales de la Universidad de Harvard, opinó que Trump tiene que elegir la cooperación con China en temas relevantes de importancia nacional y global como el comercio, la inversión y la lucha contra el terrorismo, por solo mencionar unos cuantos.

Por su parte el ex secretario de Estado de Estados Unidos, Henry Kissinger, no podría estar más de acuerdo al decir: ‘Soy optimista en cuanto a que prevalecerá el camino de la cooperación. Tengan en cuenta que si China y Estados Unidos están en conflicto, todo el mundo será dividido’.

Igualmente la adhesión a la política de Una Sola China es crucial y en ese sentido reconocidos especialistas en temas chinos se ha unido a la oposición sobre el cuestionamiento de Trump a la referida estrategia, asumida por Washington antes que el actual mandatario llegara a la presidencia.

Innumerables son los ejemplos de que hoy, las relaciones entre Estados Unidos y China se encuentran en una encrucijada que deben solucionar las dos potencias mundiales.

No obstante, es válido resaltar que China reitera y apuesta por la solución cualquier disputa sobre la base del diálogo, el entendimiento y la no confrontación.

También es de destacar que la inversión directa china acumulada en la economía estadounidense desde el 2000 supera los 100 mil millones de dólares, y que los intercambios entre pueblos entre las dos naciones han seguido fortaleciéndose por lo que sobran razones para apostar por una relación bilateral constructiva.

Prensa Latina

Today in the US and a growing number of other countries, the official policy is that any scientific study, regardless of its methodology, quality, author credentials, and peer-reviewed process is summarily dismissed as incomplete, irrelevant or unsupported if it finds a connection between any vaccine or combination of vaccines and autism spectrum disorder. Even when the CDC’s own immunologist, Dr. William Thompson, whistle-blows and provides thousands of pages of scientific data and research proving a vaccine-autism connection, the matter is rapidly shoved under the table.

In the case of Dr. Thompson’s release of confidential documents to a Congressional subcommittee, the CDC intentionally concealed their evidence that African American boys under 36 months had a higher risk of autism after receiving the MMR vaccine.  The documents also proved the CDC has know for a long time that neurological tics, indicating brain disturbances, were associated with thimerosal-containing vaccines, such as the influenza vaccine.

We have also known for over fifteen years, thanks to a Freedom of Information Act filing, that CDC officials, vaccine scientists on the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel, the WHO and private pharmaceutical executives met secretly for two days at the Simpsonwood retreat center near Atlanta to deliberate on the Verstraeten research’s findings proving thimerosal’s role in the rise of autism. The meeting was held for the specific purpose to find ways to prevent the findings from reaching the public, and spin and manipulate the data to disprove a vaccine-autism connection.

More recently a private medical consultant, Barry Rumack MD, was hired by the FDA to review that status of mercury levels in children with an emphasis on childhood vaccines. According to his findings, “at no point from birth to 16-18 months of age that infants were mercury levels below the EPA guidelines for allowable mercury exposure…. In fact, according to the models, blood and body burden levels of mercury peaked at six months of age at a shocking high level of 120 ng/L. To put this in perspective, the CDC classifies mercury poisoning as blood levels of mercury greater than 10 ng/L.”  Dr. Rumack notes that the FDA chose to hide this finding from the public and higher health officials.[1]

Another damning case of government-industry knowledge about a vaccine-autism connection is a leaked December 16, 2011 document from GlaxoSmithKline, one of the world’s largest vaccine manufacturers. The text admits the corporation has been aware of the autistic risks associated with its Infanrix vaccine, which combines diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, hepatitis B, inactivated polio and haemophilus influenza viruses. The report details adverse effects associated with autism, including encephalitis, developmental delays, altered states of consciousness, speech delays and other adverse reactions.[2]

While these events might be considered criminal activities that directly threaten public health, they have had little effect on changing national policy over vaccine safety. Rather, the official denial of any possible association between vaccines and autism has hardened into an absolute dogma. And to date, there is not a single gold standard publication to refute with certainty a vaccine-autism connection.

Unfortunately, the American media has accepted the federal denial as absolute too. Never do we hear the media questioning the veracity and scientific legitimacy of the official doctrine. In fact, the media goes even further, embracing the principles of fake news, to attack scientists, physicians and parents who provide evidence to the contrary. Therefore, what follows is for readers’ discretion to review and reflect upon the proof being presented to show an unequivocal relationship between vaccination and autistic disorders.

Unlike the US, the UK and Australia, the majority of the governmental health ministries in the modern industrialized world do not take an official national stance on the vaccine-autism controversy and other serious vaccine-related injuries. Only nineteen countries, including the US, have no-fault policies to the pharmaceutical industry for vaccine injury compensation programs. This is partially due to the American and British health agencies being heavily compromised by private vaccine business interests. The revolving doors and conflict of interests between these federal agencies and the pharmaceutical industry have been well documented.

In the US, the CDC’s vaccine advisory community are in the deep pockets of pharmaceutical firms. This is not the case for most nations where independent and scientific integrity in ruling compensation for vaccine adverse events remain the norm. In 2014, French authorities ruled there was a direct relationship between the Hepatitis B vaccine and a sudden rise in multiple sclerosis.[3] In 2012, after a long investigative trial, an Italian court ruled that the MMR vaccine caused brain injury leading to autism in the case of Valentino Bocca.[4]

This ruling was intentionally blacked out by the American media. The Japanese government halted the MMR in 1993 due to rising autism rates.

To date, the US vaccine injury compensation court has paid out approximately $3.1 billion to families of vaccine-victimized children. The actual number of awarded cases nevertheless is very small compared to the large number of claims filed and subsequently denied. Among these are cases related to autism, such as Hannah Poling, Bailey Banks, Ryan Mojabi, Emily Moller, and several others. Many more compensations have been awarded to cases of vaccine-induced encephalitis or brain inflammation, a common event associated with regressive autism. Therefore, within the legal record, contrary to the adamant denials of the CDC and pro-vaxxers such as Paul Offit, vaccines can cause autism.

Thimerosal, the ethylmercury preservative commonly found in vaccines, is perhaps the ingredient with the longest history of controversy. The pharmaceutical company Eli Lily tested thimerosal back in 1930, giving it a clean record of safety even though its own trials had shown it caused serious neurological damage and even death in both animals and humans.  During that decade, a competitor vaccine maker, Pittman-Moore, had also conducted toxicological studies with dogs and concluded the preservative was “unsatisfactory as a serum intended for use on dogs.”

During the Second World War, vaccines with thimerosal were required to be labeled as “poison,” and later in 1972, Eli Lily itself discovered that thimerosal in doses a hundred times weaker than in a typical vaccine at that time, was “toxic to tissue cells.”  Nevertheless, the drug maker continued to promote the illusion that thimerosal was safe and highly suitable as a vaccine preservative.  Government health officials and vaccine manufacturers to this day have known of the long history of research confirming thimerosal as a toxic poison unsuitable for human delivery. A former leading vaccine developer for Merck had once warned his firm of the dangers of administering mercury-laced vaccines to newborns and infants and declared that the industry knows very well there are “nontoxic alternatives” that were equally effective and could be used to replace thimerosal.

The scientific literature relied upon to discredit thimerosal risks contain serious flaws in trial design and the quality of science. When the father of the modern pro-vaccine ideology, Dr. Paul Offit, goes on the attack to condemn anyone who would suggest a thimerosal-autism association, it is difficult for a rational, objective person to take him seriously. None of the most commonly cited twenty-plus primary flagship studies referenced to discredit thimerosal risks is a biological study.  Instead each is either an ecologic or cohort report.

Most of these studies have been independently reviewed and trashed for gross bias, serious design flaws and scientific negligence. The chief author of the ever-popular Danish thimerosal-autism survey is under criminal investigation for embezzling vast funds from the CDC to finance the study. A review of the Danish study’s collection methods reveals immediately it was a complete sham. Since these studies are only statistical analyses using a variety of massaged parameters to compare select populations or sub groups within a population, they are highly predisposed to intentional design defects and data manipulation in order to reach a desired result. For this reason ecologic and cohort studies are politically desirable within the vaccine industry and the CDC. Data can be massaged in numerous ways to reach a chosen conclusion.

However, in the real world of hard science, such observational, non-biological studies lack the methodological rigor to establish trustworthy scientific assumptions. In fact, the only conclusion we can draw from the arsenal of studies cited incessantly by the deniers of thimerosal’s neurotoxicty is that more comprehensive and rigorous research is demanded.

This is not to say that all ecologic and cohort studies are worthless. There are also many important cohort studies showing a vaccine-autism relationship. Some of these also suffer from poor design. Nevertheless, population studies are inconclusive and should never be used as substantial proof nor the final word to posit nor negate biomolecular activity and adverse effects of any toxic chemical or substance. Only double-blind, placebo controlled biologic research can determine a probable medical certainty.  In the case of thimerosal and other vaccine ingredients this requires accurate detection and measurement of toxic activity and its consequences at the cellular level. This is accomplished by observing neurotoxic effects in either of two methods. One is by in vivo studies, which observe the entire living organism. For example, in vivo studies conducted at the University of Pittsburgh report that when macaque monkey infants were injected with thimerosal-containing vaccines equivalent to a human infant’s vaccine schedule, they exhibited neurotoxic disorders characteristic of autism. For the first time, an animal model examined behavioral and neuromorpometric consequences of the CDC’s childhood vaccination schedule and primates mimicking autistic abnormalities.

The Pittsburgh studied was attacked viciously by the vaccination community. Consequently it never got past peer-review for publication in a leading medical journal. Every manner of attempt was made to discredit the findings by alleging flaws in the research. Yet, even if there are flaws in the study’s design or execution, a biologic trial should have alerted federal health authorities that further investigation and funding is essential to convincingly duplicate Pittsburgh’s results or negate them. Instead the study has been denied outright and no efforts have been by the CDC or through NIH grants to launch a more thorough biologic primate study to bring greater clarity to the vaccine-autism debate.

The second method is in vitro studies that investigate a substance’s toxicity to cells or tissue in an artificial environment, such as a cultured medium, which are factually known to be related to a serious health or neurological. One critically important in vitro study observed thimerosal’s direct association with the deterioration of mitochondria in human brain cells.

In a 2012 issue of the Journal of Toxicology, neuroscientists at the prestigious Methodist Hospital Medical Center in Houston published their investigation into thimerosal’s toxicological effects upon mitochondria in human astrocyte cells. Astrocytes are the most abundant cells found in the human brain and are critical for maintaining normal, healthy blood-brain barrier function.  The researchers observed that vaccine ethylmercury, which is more lipophilic (able to cross the blood-brain barrier) than methylmercury, is readily taken up by the astrocyte’s mitochondria, thereby disrupting the cell’s respiratory functions and eventually leading to cell death. The researchers observed that astrocytes, when exposed to thimerosal, exhibited extreme signs of oxidation and “highly damaged mitochondrial DNA.”[5] This study seems to provide biological evidence to support claims that thimerosal is very likely associated with some incidences of autism.

The influenza vaccine, which continues to use a high mercury level, and the MMR are the two most cited vaccines associated with autism. Yet studies point to other vaccines as well.  Doctors at Stony Brook University’s Medical Center determined that male infants vaccinated with the Hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 have a three-fold higher autism rather. The risk was greater among non-white boys. During the first four year period of the study—between 1997 and 2000—thimerosal was stilled used as a preservative in the Hepatitis vaccine.[6]

Although significant attention is being placed upon the presence of thimerosal in vaccines, most vaccines no longer contain the mercury preservative.  By 2001, except for the influenza vaccine, mercury has been either completely removed or present only in trace amounts for all other vaccines given to children under the age 6 months. One would therefore expect that autism rates would noticeably decrease; however, the opposite has been the case. Since 2001, autism continues to steadily rise annually.

The CDC argues that this proves thimerosal is not the culprit. It ignores a 2012 Australian study published in the journal Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry that there is a direct maternal transfer of ethylmercury from pregnant mothers to the embryo/fetus.[7] It remains American federal health policy for pregnant women to receive the flu shot that contains 25 mg of mercury.  But vaccinations’ association with neurodegenerative conditions was never solely about thimerosal. Another culpable ingredient now conventionally used in most childhood vaccinations, and also associated with adverse neurological effects is the adjuvant aluminum.  Since 2000, as thimerosal was being phased out, the aluminum adjuvant burden has increased.[8]

Similar to thimerosal, aluminum is a heavy metal that contributes to oxidative stress leading to neuroinflammation and microgliosis, an intense adverse reaction of the central nervous system microglia that leads to a pathogenic results characteristic in some ASD conditions.[9] The National Library of Medicine lists over 2,000 references about aluminum’s toxicity to human biochemistry.  Aluminum’s dangers, often found as alum or aluminum hydroxide in vaccines and food preparations, have been known since 1912, when the first director of the FDA, Dr. Harvey Wiley, later resigned in disgust over its commercial use in food canning; he was also among the first government officials to ever warn about tobacco’s cancer risks back in 1927.[10]

A common argument against vaccine opponents who blame aluminum for a variety of health conditions, including autism, is that the metal is the third most prevalent element found on earth.  What they fail to acknowledge is our gastric-intestinal system is rather impervious to aluminum absorption.  About 2% of orally consumed aluminum from the environment is actually absorbed and much of this is later expelled from the body by other means.  However, injectable and intravenous aluminum compounds directly entering the bloodstream are a completely different matter. And this is why the use of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines carries a high neurodegenerative and autism risk.  Aluminum neurotoxicity in preterm infants after intravenous feeding, which then contained alum, was observed back in 1997 and reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.[11] Thirty-nine percent of infants receiving aluminum-containing solutions developed learning problems upon entering schools compared to those receiving aluminum-free solutions.

Drs. Christopher Shaw and Lucjia Tomljenovic at the Neural Dynamics group at the University of British Columbia have conducted the most extensive research to date in order to determine the neurotoxicological effects of vaccine aluminum, and its correlation with the rise of autism spectrum disorders. There is already a strong correlation between children in countries with the highest autism rates and the amount of vaccine aluminum exposure. The maximum amount of aluminum permitted in a single vaccine dose is 850 mg. However the FDA established this measurement based upon the amount necessary to trigger the vaccine’s antigenicity rather than toxic concerns about safety. In an earlier study published in the journal of Neuromolecular Medicine, Dr. Shaw and his team demonstrated that the extreme toxicity of aluminum adjuvant contributed to motor neuron death associated with Gulf War illness.[12]

Another recent 2012 study carried out at MIT and published in the journal Entropy that requires serious further investigation is potentially a combination of aluminum adjuvant and acetaminophen, or tylenol, and the onset of autism. This was noted especially in children receiving the MMR and Hepatitis B vaccines. Both of these vaccines have high incidence of spiking high fevers following administration.  It is common practice for parents to administer children’s Tylenol to counter vaccine-induced fevers. Although this study was not biologic, rather a review and analysis of vaccine injury data from the CDC’s VAERS database. Remaining inconclusive, the study does identify raise an important observation that may explain why autism rates show no sign of decline.[13]

Some of the research to discover aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines toxic levels and their adverse effects have found the following:

• Aluminum inflicts strong neurotoxicity on primary neurons.[14]
• Aluminum-laced vaccines increase the aluminum levels in murine brain tissue leading to neurotoxicity.[15]
• Aluminum hydroxide, the most common form of adjuvant used in vaccines deposits mostly in the kidney, liver and brain.[16]
• Long term exposure to vaccine-derived aluminum hydroxide (which is today an ingredient in almost all vaccines) results in macrophagic myofastitis lesions.[17]

Vaccine opponents for a long time have focused upon non viral ingredients in vaccines. This has led to a sizeable faction within this community claiming to be pro-vaccine but demanding safer vaccines. According to this argument, simply removing the toxic ingredients such as thimerosal, aluminum, polysorbate 80, formaldehyde and others will make vaccination safe. However this denies other vaccine risks.  Significant contamination of vaccine formulas during the manufacturing process is one serious threat that the vaccine industry has no solution to prevent. Today, the fact that a vaccine is likely contaminated with foreign DNA and genetic fragments is a given.  The biomolecular and neuronal risks from genetic contamination remains a no-man’s land and federal officials have barely begun to tackle this problem.

In addition, since 2000, advancements in virology are now identifying serious risks to the viruses and viral components in the vaccines themselves. Other factors increasing vaccination risk include abnormal immunological reactions in response to vaccination.  In 2002, researchers at Utah State University conducted a serological study of elevated measles antibodies and myelin basic protein (MBP) autoantibodies from 125 autistic children and 92 children in a normal control group. MBP has been identified as playing a significant  role in the onset of autism. Ninety percent of the MMR antibody positive autistic children were also positive for MBP autoantibodies. The researchers concluded that “an inappropriate antibody response to MMR, specifically the measles component thereof, might be related to the pathogenesis of autism.[18] It is well known that in addition to metals such as mercury and aluminum, viral infections also cause oxidative stress that decreases methylation capacity common in autism.[19]

Although not an extended longitudinal study and with a limited number of participants, Dr. J Bradstreet el al detected genomic RNA from the vaccine’s measles virus in the cerebrospinal fluid of children with regressive autism or autistic encephalopathy (AE). In addition each child had concomitant gastrointestinal symptoms previously observed by Dr. Andrew Wakefield at the Royal Hospital London in the 1990s.[20]

According to the World Health Organization, the US ranks 39^th in the overall health of its population. A large proportion of this ranking is contributed to the failing health American children, with autistic and neuro-developmental disorders soon reaching 1 in 50.

The public needs to demand a national debate between those who advocate for mandatory vaccination and those who challenge them. More than ever before it is imperative to have this dialogue as privately controlled interests infiltrate the halls of state legislators to lobby for state-wide mandates. It is highly predictable that autism rates will escalate as more vaccines come to market and states mandate the CDC’s vaccination schedule. The public needs to be educated about the science and ultimately decide for themselves. In a real democracy, an informed patient should have the freedom of choice in making his or her own health decisions. Today, there is no honest debate, no informed consent, no real science, no transparency of vaccine research, and no accurate statistics. Instead, we have federal health agencies, such as the CDC, on its own website, making false claims, advocating fake news. Finally, it is worse that the powers of federal and state governments are being used to mandate the enforcement of vaccination in a totalitarian manner upon its citizens. This is not democracy, this is medical tyranny.

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries. Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on nutrition and natural health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including Autism: Made in the USA, War on Health: The FDA’s Cult of Tyranny and Silent Epidemic: The Untold Story of Vaccination.

Notes

[1] http://cdc.news/2017-02-02-americas-taxpayer-funded-bureaucracies-lie-about-vaccine-safety.html

[2] https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-jYsdHZuRhCVXZUbFFlUzdfNGM/edit?pli=1

[3] https://healthimpactnews.com/2014/new-study-hepatitis-b-vaccination-in-france-sparked-a-wave-of-new-cases-of-ms/

[4] https://www.undergroundhealth.com/courts-quietly-confirm-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism/

[5] Sharpe MA, Livingston AD, Baskin DS. Thimerosal-derived ethylmercury is a mitochondrial toxin in human astrocytes: possible role of Fenton chemistry in the oxidation and breakage of mtDNA. Jounral of Toxicology vol. 2012, (2012)

[6] J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2010;73(24):1665-77. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2010.519317.

[7] Gallagher CM, Goodman MS. Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002.Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry. Volume 94, Issue 8, 2012

[8] Brown IA, Austin DW. Maternal transfer of mercury to the developing embryo/fetus: is there a safe level?

[9] Seneff S, Davidson RM, Liu JJ. Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure. September 24, 2012

[10] http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/whatwedo/history/centennialoffda/harveyw.wiley/default.html

[11] Bishop NJ, Morley R, Day JP, Lucas A. Aluminum neurotoxicity in preterm infants receiving intravenous-feeding solutions. New England Journal Medicine. May 29, 1997 336(22):1557-61

[12] Shaw C. Aluminum adjuvant linked to gulf war illness induces motor neuron death in mice. Neuromolecular Medicine, 2007

[13] Seneff S, Davidson RM, Liu JJ. Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure. September 24, 2012

[14] Kawahara M et al. Effects of aluminum on the neurotoxicity of primary cultured neurons and on the aggregation of betamyloid protein. Brain Res. Bull. 2001, 55, 211-217

[15] Redhead K et al. Aluminum adjuvanted vaccines transiently increase aluminum levels in murine brain tissue.Pharacol. Toxico. 1992, 70, 278-280

[16] Sahin G et al. Determination of aluminum levels in the kidney, liver and brain of mice treated with aluminum hydroxide.Biol. Trace. Elem Res. 1994. 1194 Apr-May;41 (1-2): 129-35

[17] Gherardi M et al. Macrophagaic myofastitis lesions assess long-term. Brain. 2001. Vol. 124, No. 9, 1821-1831

[18] Singh VK, Lin SX, Newell E, Nelson C. Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autrism. J. Biomed Science. 2002 Jul-Aug;9(4):359-64.[19]James J, Culter P, Melnyk S, Jernigan S, Janak L, Gaylor DW. Metabolic biomarkers of increased oxidative stress and impaired methylation capacity in children with autism. Am J Clin Nutr December 2004 vol. 80 no. 6 1611-1617

[20] http://www.jpands.org/vol9no2/bradstreet.pdf

On November 21st, California secessionists calling themselves “Yes California” filed papers with the California Secretary of State proposing a November 2018 ballot measure that would ask registered voters whether California should secede from the US and become its own nation. If passed, the measure would strike language from California’s constitution that says the state is “an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.”

It would also require a special election in March 2019 for the sole purpose of asking voters whether they’re really sure they want to secede. The measure has been dubbed Calexit after Brexit, which is shorthand for Britain’s vote to withdraw from the European Union. Its author answers a long list of questions about how California’s institutions might adapt on their website yescalifornia.org. I spoke to David Swanson, Executive Director of World Beyond War and one of the first writer-activists to come out in favor of Calexit.

Ann Garrison: David, you saw the Calexit coming back on March 17th when you wrote the essay “Secession, Trump, and the Avoidability of Civil War” after California Governor Jerry Brown joked about building a wall around California if Trump were elected. Similar movements emerged, most visibly in California and Vermont, after George Bush’s second election, but both quickly faded from media attention. Do you think this is a historical moment in which they might have more staying power?

David Swanson: Well, I hope so and that’s all this is – a desire and a hope and advocacy on my part. I wasn’t making any accurate or inaccurate prediction that a secession movement would happen. I’m just encouraging that there be one and that it grow and that it be supported by those of us in the rest of the United States. It need not be a step toward chaos and balkanization; it could instead be a step toward actual integration with the rest of the world. As it is, the United States is a rogue state violating international law in many, many ways that California wouldn’t have to if it seceded and became a nation.

AG: Yes California, the campaign, needs 600,000 signatures or a two-thirds vote by the state legislature to put its California constitutional amendment on the ballot. The two-thirds vote in the state legislature is all but unimaginable, so that means it needs an almost equally unimaginable volunteer effort or somewhere between 5 and 10 million dollars to pay signature gatherers. Then, if it did get on the ballot and pass, two-thirds of Congress would have to vote to let California go. None of this is taking clear shape on the horizon yet, so why do you think it’s worth talking about?

DS: Well, I think almost everything important that’s ever happened was unimaginable shortly before it happened. Good things and bad things: ending slavery, ending child labor, women voting, etc. I think the election of Donald Trump, if you want to call it an election, was unimaginable to most people, which is part of how it happened. I think the current state of US foreign policy with seven simultaneous wars, and the President going through a list of men, women, and children every Tuesday and picking who to murder with drones, was unimaginable. It still is unimaginable to most people even as it happens.

Climate change is so unimaginable that most Americans deny it’s happening, so I think we have to work for the unimaginable and push for a referendum, an initiative, and passage of it. California, like anywhere else on Earth, should have the right to secede whether the United States likes it or not. The preferences of the other 49 states and Washington DC is not relevant. That was the position of the United States government on Yugoslavia and other places around the world but not on Ukraine. However, morality and the law as I understand it are that any people should have the right to leave, just as explained in the initial words of the US Declaration of Independence.

AG: You’re an out-of-state supporter doing your writing and organizing work in Charlottesville, Virginia. If California were to secede, do you imagine that the rest of the United States might then break up into smaller, less violent, and more democratic states?

DS: I’m not that good at predictions, but I think that the status quo is not acceptable. It’s absolute, guaranteed disaster for the climate and for war and peace. This, however, has a decent chance of succeeding and is therefore worth trying. It has to be done carefully, but breaking the United States up into a number of pieces could be very good for the integration of those new nations with the rest of the world and the international law whose primary enemy is now the United States government. I think that it would be very good for democracy, for people to be within some hundreds of miles of their nation’s capital, as they are in many other countries, so that they didn’t have to travel thousands of miles to protest, to exercise their First Amendment rights, but that is the current state of affairs in this overly large, imperial nation.

AG: Do you think the Pentagon would be particularly resistant to secession, which would, of course, reduce the tax base and recruiting pool for its seven aerial bombing wars, its 800 military bases, and all its covert operations?

DS: Well, I think the Pentagon would love to fight a war over it, just as the United States government fought a war over it in the 1860s, but the Pentagon is supposed to be under civilian control and it ought to be up to the people of the United States, not the profiteers. However, many militarists would like to see California’s votes vanish from the national electoral system, which would then become more Republican, so I can’t predict.

AG: Okay, let’s talk about the downsides. In this essay you published on November 11th, ‘Calexit Yes,’ you note that the arguments against secession are Jim Crow and Arizona apartheid. Black citizens in a reborn confederacy, which would be about 55% of Black citizens of the USA as it is now, might face a President Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, not just an Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III.  Citizens of Arizona might face a President Joe Arpaio, and both would have lost the protection of the US Constitution. What’s your answer to that?

DS: Well, anything can become worse. The United States has been becoming worse year after year after year for decades, and it’s guaranteed to continue down that path if we don’t change something. I’m not convinced that the people of Arizona as a nation couldn’t do better to protect equal rights for all than the people of Arizona as part of the United States, which is actually not helping them much.

California as a nation or part of a larger West Coast nation, should other states join with California, would be a good influence on the rest of the United States. It could be a model, especially if it chose to go the route that I’m proposing which is to actually become a signer of the convention on the rights of the child, a member of the International Criminal Court, and on and on through the dozens of treaties and international standards that I go through in the article. I think that would be a good influence on the rest of the United States, and I think we would see immigration from one of these new nations to others based on which was more enlightened and progressive than the others.

AG: Okay, one of the most controversial aspects of your first essay is your argument that slavery might have ended sooner if the north had simply let the south go without the devastating Civil War. Wouldn’t that have simply created two competing powers on the frontier, one slave and one free, probably leading to war just as inevitably?

DS: Well, that’s essentially what did happen. There was no argument over the existing states before the Civil War was over. There was universal agreement to expand westward and disagreement over which new states to make slave and which to make free. The southern states, in fact, insisted that the Constitution required the return of so-called fugitive slaves, and they wanted to deny the states’ rights to the northern states that had chosen not to return people escaped from slavery. Over that issue, the government of the northern states, the federal government, chose to say, “We will not let you leave, we will fight a war for the Union.” That later became a war for freedom of those enslaved, but it didn’t succeed. Slavery remained in the Deep South by other names – in prison programs with charges over nothing and eternal debt that threatened every African-American in the South right up through World War II.  And that was after killing three-quarters of a million people, destroying cities, and creating hostility that exists to this day over the the Confederate flag and the racism it symbolizes, all brewing out of bitterness over a war that didn’t have to happen.

I can’t say with certainty that slavery would have ended more quickly and more completely if the South had been allowed to leave and escaped former slaves had been allowed to remain free, and the North and the rest of the world had been a positive influence on the South.  However, it’s certainly a possibility that it would have ended sooner if the southern slave owners had agreed to a system of compensated emancipation and freed the slaves without a war and without secession, as most nations that ended slavery did. That absolutely would have been preferable to the Civil War as it happened. No other nation killed people the way the United States did to end slavery.

AG: Isn’t there at least one exception – Haiti – which killed people to end slavery?

DS: Well, there was an uprising of primarily enslaved people on Haiti and that happened in Jamaica and numerous other places, but nations didn’t split and have a civil war and kill three-quarters of a million people and then pass the legislation that they should have passed on day one to end slavery. That was not the norm. Most nations continued to exist as the same nation that had slavery and abolished it without a war.

AG: Okay, in both of your two essays on this, you say that it’s anything but an easy moral question whether four million people should be left enslaved another moment, or whether a nation should launch a war that might benefit them. However, with the US military might and its greenhouse gasses threatening the future of life on Earth, is secession still a difficult moral choice?

DS: Well, we have to do something. If we think that we can somehow gain control of the US government, bring it under popular, enlightened progressive control, preserve a habitable climate, and rein in the dangers of nuclear and other warfare, then we should. However, if we think it’s more likely that we can achieve those goals by secession, then we should go down that path. There’s no question. It’s an absolute moral imperative.

I think it’s more likely that we can make positive changes happen on environment and military issues if states begin to secede. I don’t think it’s question of personal lifestyle preference or some sort of parochial identification with your state. I think it’s an absolute moral demand that something be done to create a government with some power that can be controlled by the residents of its territory. That was supposedly the idea in creating the United States, but it doesn’t exist now and we have to make it exist even if it’s piece by piece, part of the United States at a time.

David Swanson, is the Founder of World Beyond War and the author of War Is a Lie and War Is Never Just. He can be reached at davidswanson.org or worldbeyondwar.org.

Despite certain economic and social setbacks, the Western Empire is doing remarkably well. That is, if we measure success by the ability to control the world, to condition the brains of human beings on all continents, and to crush almost all substantial dissent, at home and abroad.

What has almost entirely disappeared from life, at least in such places as New York, London or Paris, is that simple human joy, which is so obvious and evident when it exists. Paradoxically, in the very centers of power, most people seem to be living anxious, unfulfilled, almost frightened lives.

It all somehow doesn’t feel right. Shouldn’t citizens of the conquering part of the world, of the victorious regime, be at least confident and optimistic?

Of course there are many reasons why they are not, and some of my comrades have already outlined in detail and in colorful language at least the main causes of depression and dissatisfaction with life, which are literally devouring alive those hundreds of millions of European and North American citizens.

The situation is mostly analyzed from a socioeconomic angle. However, I think that the most important causes for the present state of things are much simpler: the West and its colonies almost entirely destroyed the most essential human instincts: people’s ability to dream, to feel passionate about things, to rebel and to ‘get involved’.

Single-mindedness, optimism, naiveté are almost entirely gone. But those are exactly the qualities that used to move our human race forward!

*

Despite what is now commonly perceived in the West, it is not ‘knowledge’ and definitely not ‘science’ that were behind the greatest leaps forward achieved by civilization.

It has always been a deep and instinctive humanism, accompanied by faith (and here I’m not talking about some religious faith) and by tremendous dedication and loyalty to the cause. Without naïveté, without innocence, nothing great could have ever been attained.

Science was always there, and it was important for improving many practical aspects of human life, but it was never the main engine propelling a nation towards some just, balanced, and ‘livable’ society. When employed by an enlightened system, science has played an important role in building a much better world, but it was never the other way around.

Progress was always triggered and fueled by human emotions, by seemingly irrational and unachievable dreams, by poetry and wide scale burning of passions. The finest concepts for improvement of civilization were frequently not even logical; they were simply born out of some beautiful human instincts, intuitions and desires (logic was applied later, when practical details had to be nailed down).

Now ‘knowledge’, rationality and ‘logic’, at least in the West, are forcing human feelings into a corner. ‘Logic’ is now even replacing traditional religions. Obsession with ‘facts’, with ‘understanding’ everything, is actually becoming absurdly extreme, dogmatic, even fundamentalist.

All this fanatical fact collecting often feels unreal, ‘metallic’, cold and to many of those who are coming from ‘the outside’ (geographically or intellectually), extremely unnatural.

Let’s not forget that ‘facts’ consumed by the masses and even by the relatively educated Westerners, are generally coming from identical sources.  The same type of logic is being used, and several undistinguishable tools of analyses applied. Consuming excessive amount of news, ‘facts’ and ‘analyses’ usually doesn’t lead to understanding anything in depth, or to truly critical thoughts, quite the contrary – it very effectively murders one’s ability to consider totally new concepts, and especially to rebel against the intellectual clichés and stereotypes. No wonder that the European and North American middle classes are among the most conformist people on earth!

Collecting mountains of data and ‘information’ in most cases leads absolutely nowhere. For millions, it is becoming just a hobby, like any other one, including videogames and PlayStation. It keeps a person ‘on top of things’, so he or she can impress acquaintances, or it simply satisfies that neurotic need to constantly consume news.

To make things worse, most Westerners are incessantly locked in a complex ‘information’ and perceptions web with their families, friends and co-workers. There is constant pressure to conform while extremely little space and almost no rewards for true intellectual courage or originality.

*

Regimes have managed to a great extent to standardize ‘knowledge’, mainly by utilizing pop culture and indoctrinating people through its ‘educational’ institutions.

People are actually voluntarily locking themselves for years in schools and universities, wasting their time, paying their own money, even getting into debt, just in order to make it easier for the regime to indoctrinate them and turn them into good and obedient subjects of the Empire!

Already for decades the system has been successfully producing entire generations of emotionally dead and confused individuals.

These people are so damaged that they cannot fight for anything, anymore (except, sometimes, for their own personal and selfish interests); they cannot take sides, and cannot even identify their own goals and desires. They constantly try (and fail) to ‘find something meaningful’ and ‘fulfilling’ they could do in life. It is always about them finding something, not about joining meaningful struggles or inventing something thoroughly new for the sake of humanity! They keep going ‘back to school’, they keep crying for ‘lost opportunities’ because they ‘didn’t study what they think they really should have’ (no matter what they actually study or do in life, they mostly feel dissatisfied, anyway).

They are constantly scared of being rejected, they are petrified that their ignorance and inability to do anything truly meaningful would be discovered and ridiculed (many of them actually sense how empty their lives are).

They are unhappy, some thoroughly miserable, and even suicidal. Yet their desperation does not propel them into action. Most of them never rebel; never truly confront the regime, never challenge their immediate milieu.

These hundreds of millions of broken and idle people (some of them actually not stupid at all) are a tremendous loss to the world. Instead of erecting barricades, writing outraged novels or openly ridiculing this entire Western charade, they are mostly suffering in silence.

If the opportunity to thoroughly change their lives really arrives, they cannot identify it, anymore; cannot grasp it. It is because they cannot fight; they were ‘pacified’ since an early age, since school.

That is exactly where the regime wants to have its citizens. It’s where it got them!

Shockingly, almost no one calls this entire nightmare by its real name – a monstrous crime!

*

People buy books in order to make sense of it all, but they hardly manage to read them to the end. They are too preoccupied; they are lacking concentration and determination. And a great majority of books available in the stores are giving no meaningful answers, anyway.

Still, many are trying: they are analyzing and analyzing, aimlessly. They ‘don’t understand and want to know’. They don’t realize that this path of constantly thinking, while applying certain prescribed tools of the analyses, is one huge trap.

There is really nothing much to understand. People were actually robbed of life, robbed of natural human feelings, of warmth, of passion, even of love itself (what they call ‘love’ is often a surrogate, and nothing more).

All this is never pronounced not even in fiction books anymore, unless you read in Russian or Spanish. The success of the Empire to produce obedient, scared and unimaginative beings is now complete!

Big corporations are thriving; elites are collecting enormous booty, while a great majority of people in the West are gradually losing their ability to dream and to feel. Without those preconditions, no rebellion is possible. Lack of imagination, accompanied by emotional numbness, is the most effective formula for stagnation, even regression.

This is why the West is finished.

*

The grotesque obsession with science, with medical practices, and with ‘facts’, is helping to divert attention from real and horrific issues.

Constant debates, analyses, and ‘looking at things from different angles’, leads to nothing but passivity. But taking action is too scary, and people are not used to making dramatic decisions, anymore, or even gestures.

This also leads to the fact that almost no one in the West is now ready to gather under any ideological banner, or to embrace full heartedly what is called derogatorily ‘labels’.

For millennia, people flocked intuitively into various movements, political parties and groups. No significant change was ever achieved by one single individual (although a strong leader at the head of a movement, party or even government could definitely achieve a lot).

To be part of something important and revolutionary was symbolizing often a true meaning of life. People were (and in many parts of the world still are) fully committed, dedicated to important and heroic struggles. Trying to build a better world, fighting for a better world, even dying for it: that was often considered the most glorious thing that a human being could achieve in his or her lifetime.

In the West, such an approach is dead, thoroughly destroyed. There, cynicism reigns. You have to challenge everything, trust nothing, and commit to nothing.

You are expected to mistrust any government. You should ridicule everyone who believes in something, especially if that something is pure and noble. You simply have to drag through filth any grandiose attempt to improve the world, whether it is happening in Ecuador, Philippines, China, Russia or South Africa.

To show strong feeling for some leader, for a political party or government in a country that is still capable of some fire and passion, is met with mocking sarcasm in places like London or New York. “We are all thieves, and all human beings and therefore governments, are similar”, goes the deadly and toxic ‘wisdom’.

How lovely, really! What a way forward.

Yes, of course: if hours and hours are spent analyzing some fiery leader or movement, for instance in Latin America, at least some ‘dirt’ would always emerge, as no place and no group of people are perfect. This gives Westerners a great alibi for not getting involved in anything. That’s how it is designed. ‘Give up on the hope for a perfect world, say that you simply cannot believe in anything anymore’. Then, go back to school or get yourself some meaningless job.

It is actually much easier than to work extremely hard to save the world or your country! It is much easier than to risk your life and to fight for justice. It is easier than trying to really think, to attempt to invent something thoroughly new, for this beloved and scarred planet of ours!

*

An old Russian ballad says: “It is so hard to love… But it is so easy to leave…”

And with the revolution, with the movements, struggles, even governments that one full heartedly supports, it is, to a great extent, very similar to love.

Love can never be fully scrutinized, fully analyzed, or it is not really love. There is nothing, and should be nothing logical or rational about it. Only when it is dying one begins analyzing, while looking for excuses to slam the door.

But while it is there, while it exists, alive, warm and pulsating, to apply ‘objectivity’ regarding the other person would be brutal, disrespectful; in a way it would be a betrayal.

Only “new Westerners” can commit such travesty, by analyzing love, by writing ‘guides’ about how to deal with human feelings, how to maximize profits from their emotional investments!

How could a man who loves a woman just sit on a sofa and analyze: “I love her but maybe I should think twice, because her nose is too big, and her behind is too large?” That’s absolute nonsense! A woman who is loved, truly loved, is the most beautiful being on earth.

And so is the struggle!

Otherwise, without true dedication and single-mindedness, nothing will ever change; never improve.

But let’s not forget – the Empire doesn’t want anything to improve. That’s why it is spreading limitless cynicism and nihilism. That’s why it is smearing everything pure and natural, while implanting bizarre ‘perfection models’, so the people always compare, always judge, always have doubts, never feel satisfied, and as a result, abstain from all serious involvements.

The empire wants people to think, but think in a way it programs them to do. It wants them to analyze, but only by using its methods. And it wants people to discard, even reject their natural instincts and emotions.

The results are clear: grotesque individualism and self-centrism, confused, broken societies, collapsed relationships between people, and total spite for higher aspirations.

It is not only about the Marxist or revolutionary political parties, about the rebellions or internationalist, anti-imperialist struggles.

Have you noticed how shallow, how unstable most inter-human relationships in the West have become? Nobody wants to get truly ‘involved’. People are testing each other. They constantly think, hardly feel. Powerful passions are looked down on (emotional outbursts are considered ‘indecent’, even shameful): now it is suddenly all about one’s ‘feeling good’, always ‘calm’, but paradoxically, almost no one is actually feeling good or calm in this “new West”, anymore.

It all, of course, mutated into the exact opposite of what love, or a true revolutionary work (political, or artistic) used to be, and just to remind you, it used to be the most beautiful, the most insane turmoil, a total departure from dismal normalcy.

In the West, almost no one could even write great poetry, anymore. No haunting melodies, no powerful lyrics are created there.

Life has become suddenly shallow, predictable and programmed.

Without the ability to love passionately, without the capacity to give, to sacrifice everything unconditionally, one cannot expect to become a great revolutionary.

Of course in the passionless West, obsessed with a type of knowledge that somehow keeps failing to enlighten, with the applied sciences and deeply rooted egocentricity, there is no fertile ground for powerful passions left, and therefore no chance for true revolution.

“I rebel: therefore we exist”, declared Albert Camus, correctly.

Collective rebellion culminates into revolution. Without a revolution, or without constant aspiration for it, there is no life.

The West has lost the ability to love and to rebel.

And that is why it is finished!

*

There is a good saying: “You can never understand Russia with your brain. You can only believe in it”. The same goes for China, Japan and so many other places.

To come to Asia or Russia and begin the journey by trying to ‘understand’ these places is nothing short of insanity. There is no reason for it, and no chance that it could be achieved in a few months, even years.

The neurotic and thoroughly Western approach of constantly trying to ‘understand’ everything with one’s brain, can actually ruin all irreversibly and right from the beginning. The best way to start to truly comprehend Asia is by absorbing, by being gently guided by others, by seeing, feeling, discarding all preconceptions and clichés. Understanding doesn’t come necessarily with logic. Actually, it almost never does. It involves senses and emotions, and it usually arrives suddenly, unexpectedly.

The revolution, in fact the most sacred and honorable struggles – they also brew for a long time, and they also come unexpectedly, and straight from the heart.

Whenever I come to New York but especially to London or Paris, and whenever I encounter those ‘theoretical leftists’, I have to smile bitterly when I follow their pointless but long discussions about some theory, which is totally separated from reality. And it is almost exclusively about them: are they Trotskyists and why? Or perhaps they are anarcho-syndicalists? Or Maoists? Whatever they are, they always begin on the couch or a bar stool, and that’s where they end up, late in the evening.

In case you are just coming from Venezuela or Bolivia, where people are fighting true battles for the survival of their revolutions, it is quite a shocking experience! Most of them, in Altiplano, have never even heard about Lev Trotsky, or anarcho-syndicalism. What they know is that they are at war, they are fighting for all of us, for a much better world, and they need immediate and concrete support for their struggle: petitions, demonstrations, money, and cadres. All they get is words. They get nothing from the West: almost nothing at all, and they never will.

It is because they are not good enough for the Brits and French. They are too ‘real’, not ‘pure enough’. They make mistakes. They are too human, not sterile, and not ‘well-behaved’. They ‘violate some rights here or there’. They are too emotional. They are this or that, but definitely ‘one could not fully throw his or her weight fully behind them’.

‘Scientifically’, they are wrong. If one spends ten hours in the pub or living room, discussing them, there would definitely arise enough arguments for withdrawing all support. The same applies for the revolutionaries and for the revolutionary changes in the Philippines, and in so many other places.

The West cannot connect to this way of thinking. It doesn’t see absurdity in its own behavior and attitudes. It lost its spirit; it lost its heart, its feelings, from the right and now even from the left. In exchange for what, brain? But there is nothing significant that comes from that area either!

And that is why it is finished!

People are now unwilling to get themselves behind anything real; behind any true revolution, any movement, any government, unless they are like those plastic and toxic looking women from glossy fashion magazines: perfect for men who lost all their imagination and individuality, but thoroughly boring and mass-produced for the rest of us.

*

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are revolutionary novel “Aurora” and two bestselling works of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and  “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. View his other books here. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Al-Mayadeen. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo. After having lived in Latin America, Africa and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter.

This article analyses the role of Amnesty International in the disinformation campaign on Syria, and suggests that this recent fake-news endeavour by Amnesty may aim to influence political decision-making in Washington on behalf of the faction supporting the activities of ‘moderate terrorists’ combating the Syrian government. These pro NATO-interventionists have intended to pursue the Hillary Clinton doctrine in the region, aimed to replace secular, independent governments, for fundamentalist rulers willing to comply with their ‘global’ economic and military strategy, the new face of imperialism. They vividly oppose the project of a common effort from the part of the US and Russia to fight the jihadist terrorism in Syria and the region.

The political context

President Donald Trump has announced in several occasions that he would cooperate with Russia to fight the jihadist-terrorist enclaves in the Middle East. [1] These terrorist strongholds foremost include those operating in Syria.

In his executive orders issued during the last weeks, Trump has been implementing – one after one – his campaign promises to the voters that elected him. Hence, it would be natural to anticipate that a decision regarding the anti-jihadist war is due to occur soon. What exactly this decision would be is nevertheless difficult to assess in view of recent developments in the White House foreign policy, for instance regarding Iran.

Corollary, during this same lapse, the anti-Syria faction operating in Washington corridors of power activates its pressures on the White House and the Pentagon. This is a faction integrated by known Republican politicians [2] (e.g. Senator McCain), Wall Street oligarchs and their stream media, and representatives of the Arab tyrannies that earlier served the Obama-Clinton doctrine of opposing secular governments in the Middle East –for financial reasons. Needles to say, this faction rides on the powerful pro-Israel lobby, which also entails the anti-Iran stance.

These forces vividly oppose cooperation with Russia in the terrorist campaign, at the same time that they advocate for stauncher stances against Iran, which is also an ally in the anti-terrorist fight in Syria.

In this line, a variety of PSYOP have been undertaken, among other by Amnesty International, to discredit the role of Syria and Russia in the important combat against jihadist terrorism. Now has Amnesty published a new fabricated report – presenting no evidence whatsoever – around ‘mass executions’ that would have taken place in a Syrian prison named as ‘Saydnaya’, and whose fictional physical features are depicted in an 3-D artistic creation made-up in an UK visual laboratory. [3]

This is not the first time that Amnesty International faces international contempt for its biased position, respectively its groundless statements on the Syrian Conflict. Commenting the Amnesty report of December 23, 2015, “Syria: Russia’s shameful failure to acknowledge civilian killings”, the then United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon concluded specifically regarding the verifiability issue in the said Amnesty report:

The Secretary‑General notes with concern Amnesty International’s report on alleged violations of international humanitarian law resulting from the Russian airstrikes in Syria.  The UN cannot independently confirm the cases presented in the report.[4]

The PSYOP routine

The “Fake News” phenomenon is not new, but an inherent phase of the PSYOP endeavour routinely implemented by governmental or corporate agencies, among these the mainstream media. If it seems a phenomenon particularly ascribed to these political times, it’s only because a public debate – initiated in social media – about the meaning and uses of ‘fake news’ has been revived in the last months. The new debate had its start point around fake publications by pro-Clinton stream media targeting the campaign of Donald Trump, which were cabled and reproduced in the rest of Western media. A leading actor in denouncing such fake news was the organization WikiLeaks.

The mainstream media rapidly tried to reverse the paradigm, and subsequently accused either ‘hostile’ government’s agencies in the ‘East’, or alternative media in the ‘West’, of being ‘trolls serving the Kremlin’. To illustrate a modus operandis first used by the MSM for this disinformation purposes, it will be sufficient to recall the Washington Post classical episode of November 2016, namely the promoting of a mccarthyite blacklist sourced in the anonymous site ‘PropOrNot’. [5]

The widespread criticism [6] that Washington Post received for such spurious publication motivated a kind of retraction by the newspaper. The lesson was learnt and the psy op routine changed.

The new fashion is seemingly the sourcing of the fake news in a) flawed institutional decisions (decisions taken by an institution after been object of serious manipulation, such as the case of a Sweden-funded institution that bestowed the alternative Nobel Peace Prize to the ‘White Helmets”) [7], or b) so a called “non governmental organization” (NGO) and under the false assumption that such organization would be independent of governmental policies. This is the case of using “Amnesty International’s reports” as source for disinformation about for instance the Ukraine conflict, or more recently, on the war in Syria.

An illustration of this new fake news modality is given by CNN, whose article’s headline of February 8, 2017, reads: “13,000 people hanged in secret at Syrian prison, Amnesty says.” [8]

Apart of the necessary analysis of such report’s biases, inaccuracies, or plain fabrications, other essential issues to examine are the general political/ideological agenda pursued by Amnesty, the aspect of who is financing the report, and the possible participation of government Intel or Security Police officers in such reports or statements produced by Amnesty (as it was the case of the statement by Amnesty International, Swedish Section, on the Assange case. See here, and here). [9] [10]

“Amnesty reports” and Syria

Examining Amnesty International own statements on the situation in Syria, it emerges a biased, pro “moderate terrorists”, general stance. I state this based on Amnesty International’s own document “Annual Report. Syria 2015/2016”. [11]

In the Introduction text of this document, the organization uses the text to predominantly indulge in a harsh criticism on the government of Syria and its forces, without any reference to supporting evidence. The text reads, “Government forces carried out indiscriminate attacks and attacks that directly targeted civilians, including bombardment of civilian residential areas and medical facilities with artillery, mortars, barrel bombs and, reportedly, chemical agents, unlawfully killing civilians. Government forces also enforced lengthy sieges, trapping civilians and depriving them of food, medical care and other necessities. Security forces arbitrarily arrested and continued to detain thousands, including peaceful activists, human rights defenders, media and humanitarian workers, and children. Some were subjected to enforced disappearance and others to prolonged detention or unfair trials. Security forces systematically tortured and otherwise ill-treated detainees with impunity; thousands of detainees died as a result of torture and other ill-treatment between 2011 and 2015.” Etc.

Furthermore, the Amnesty report mentions, ensuing the description ascribed to regular Syrian armed forces, “Non-state armed groups that controlled some areas and contested others indiscriminately shelled and besieged predominantly civilian areas.”

Finally, no mention whatsoever is done in the Amnesty Report’s Introduction on the groups funded, armed and trained by the governments and interests that that Amnesty International serves.

Also, the referred text refers only some lines to ISIS, but here no mention is done about ISIS being a terrorist organization, or a jihadist-fundamentalist organization, its brutal executions, etc. It refers instead to “The armed group Islamic State (IS)”.

The Amnesty Report “ Saydnaya Prison, Syria”

With regard to biases and inaccuracies of the Amnesty report on Syria “Syria: Human Slaughterhouse: Mass Hangings and Extermination at Saydnaya Prison, Syria,” [12] I first refer to an analysis provided in Global Research by Tony Cartalucci.  [13] The author put in evidence that “Amnesty International had no access whatsoever to the prison, nor did any of the witnesses it allegedly interview provide relevant evidence taken from or near the prison.” Catalucci refers to Amnesty’s own text, as it is given in the section “Methodology”:

Despite repeated requests by Amnesty International for access to Syria, and specifically for access to detention facilities operated by the Syrian authorities, Amnesty International has been barred by the Syrian authorities from carrying out research in the country and consequently has not had access to areas controlled by the Syrian government since the crisis began in 2011. Other independent human rights monitoring groups have faced similar obstacles.

Cartalucci also mentions that the Amnesty international report on Syria was fabricated in the United Kingdom “using a process they call ‘forensic architecture,’ in which the lack of actual, physical, photographic, and video evidence, is replaced by 3D animations and sound effects created by designers hired by Amnesty International.” [13]

The above observations by Cartalucci led me to further investigate the firm providing the service, namely, Eyal Weizman’s “Forensic Architecture”.

In the website of “Forensic Architecture” (the Amnesty International contractor), section Cases / Saydnaya, [14] we find the following admission:

As there are no images of Saydnaya the researchers were dependent on the memories of survivors to recreate what is happening inside.

Here the ‘investigators’ refer to five anonymous individuals they say had interviewed in Istanbul:

In April 2016, Amnesty International and Forensic Architecture travelled to Istanbul to meet five survivors from Saydnaya Prison.

And most demonstrative, the fabricators at “Forensic Architecture” declare in the same page: [14] “The Saydnaya project is part of a wider campaign led by Amnesty International”. [My cursives]

A Wikipedia bio article of Eyal Weizman, the director of “Forensic Architecture”, states: “Eyal Weizman (born 1970 in Haifa) is an Israeli intellectual and architect. He is Professor of Spatial and Visual Cultures at Goldsmiths, University of London and Director of the Centre for Research Architecture – a “laboratory for critical spatial practices.” [15] The article also states that Weizman directs  “Forensic Architecture”, being this a project funded by the European Research Council, adds the article.[15] Now, as read in its Wikipedia article, the European Research Council (the entity funding Weizman’s project), is an organization ”within” the European Union (EU) and “a part of the European Union’s budget.” [16]

Now, if we compare the stances of the European Union, respectively Amnesty International (also processed by the same European-Union funded ‘Forensic Architecture’), we find those stances identical in its essence:

EU’s statement on Syria: ”The Quint nations and the European Union High Representative called ”halting the indiscriminate bombing by the Syrian regime of its own people, which has continually and egregiously undermined efforts to end this war.” [17]

Amnesty’s statement on Syria: ”Government forces carried out indiscriminate attacks and attacks that directly targeted civilians, including bombardment of civilian residential areas”. [18]

Finally, “following the money”, we find that Amnesty International receives direct funding by states within the European Union. At least this is the case of the Swedish Section of Amnesty International, which receives funding from governmental agencies. Proof of these donations, and name of the providing institutions, is found referred in the article, “Swedish Doctors for Human Rights rebuts statement by Amnesty Sweden on Assange case“. [19]

The repercussions of the above in the political bias in the statements produced by Amnesty Sweden are unequivocal. Amnesty Sweden has sided  with the Swedish government in every vital geopolitical issue, and in some instances further to the right than the government’s stances.

Furthermore, while SWEDHR and other human rights organization were condemning the torture of Palestinian children by Israeli forces, Amnesty-International Sweden rejected initiatives to take such crimes to the International Court of Justice. [20] In the same fashion, the Swedish Section of Amnesty International voted in an Annual conference to reject human-right actions on the Assange, Snowden and tortured Palestinian children cases; and at that time Amnesty Sweden also had refused to recognize Chelsea Manning as prisoner of conscience in the U.S. [20]

Amnesty-International Sweden has no credibility at all, it can not be truly regarded as “NGO”, and its international fate is gradually following by other governmental Swedish institutions at the same pace they are selling the sovereignty of this nation to NATO’s interests.

Notes

[1] Reuters, “Donald Trump Would Consider Alliance With Russia’s Vladimir Putin Against ISIS“. Newsweek, 26 Jul 2016.

[2] “Republican senators urge Trump to get tough on Russia”. Gant News / CNN, 9 Dec 2017.

[3] Amnesty International, “Syria: Human Slaughterhouse: Mass Hangings and Extermination at Saydnaya Prison, Syria”. 7 Feb 2017.

[4] Daily Press Briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General. UN, 23 Dec 2015.

[5] Ben Norton & Glenn Greenwald, “Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group“. The Intercept, 26 Nov 2016.

[6] 21st Century Wire, “Mainstream Media Blames Russia for “Fake News” While Pushing Neo-McCarthyism“. Global Research, 26 Nov 2016.

[7] M Ferrada de Noli, “Why Is Sweden Giving the “Alternative Nobel Prize” to Syria’s ‘White Helmets’?” The Indicter, 25 Nov 2016.

[8] “13,000 people hanged in secret at Syrian prison, Amnesty says.” CNN, 8 Feb 2017.

[9] M Ferrada de Noli, “Former paid agent of Swedish Security Police dictated Amnesty Sweden’s stance against Assange“, 6 Mar 2016.

[10] M Ferrada de Noli, “Swedish Doctors for Human Rights rebuts statement by Amnesty Sweden on Assange case“. The Indicter, 15 Mar 2016.

[11] Amnesty International, “Annual Report. Syria 2015/2016”. Retrieved 9 Feb 2017.

[12] Amnesty International, “Syria: Human Slaughterhouse: Mass Hangings and Extermination at Saydnaya Prison, Syria.” 7 Feb 2017.

[11] M Ferrada de Noli, “Swedish Section of Amnesty International voted to reject human-right actions on cases Assange, Snowden and tortured Palestinian children.” The Professors’ Blogg, 11 May 2014.

[13] Tony Cartalucci, “Fake News” and Crimes against Humanity: Amnesty International Admits Syrian “Saydnaya” Report Fabricated Entirely in UK.” Global Research, 9 February 2017.

[14] Retrieved 9 Feb 2017.

[15] Wikipedia article on Eyal Weizman. Retrieved 9 Feb 2017.

[16] Wikipedia article on the European Research Council. Retrieved 9 Feb 2017.

[17] EU, “Joint Statement on Syria by the Foreign Ministers of France, Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States [Obama administration. Editor’s Note], and the High Representative of the European Union”, October 2016.

[18] Amnesty International, “Annual Report. Syria 2015/2016”.

[19] The references in the cited article corresponding to the governmental funding of the Swedish Section of Amnesty International are:

[a] Ett ljus som har brunnit i 50 år. Amnesty Press, 1 June 2011

[b] Anna Widestam. Amnestyfonden. Amnesty Historia – fondens historia.

[c] Ulf B Andersson, Amnesty i Sverige : Är krisen i Amnesty över? Amnesty Press, 2 March 2013.

[20] M Ferrada de Noli, “In the record of anti-Amnesty Sweden: Guantanamo prisoners, detained Palestinian Children, Assange, Manning, Snowden…” Followed by an interview with Dr Lif Elinder. The Indicter, 22 Mar 2016.

Introduction

President Trump is deeply embedded in the politics of the deep state structure of American imperialism.  Contrary to occasional references to non-intervention in overseas wars, Trump has followed in the footsteps of his predecessors.

While neoconservatives and liberals have raised a hue and cry about Trump’s ties to Russia, his ‘heresies’ over NATO and his overtures to peace in the Middle East, in practice, he has discarded his market humanitarian’ imperialism and engaged in the same bellicose policies of his Democratic Party presidential rival, Hillary Clinton.

Because he lacks the slick ‘demagogy’ of former-President Obama, and does not slather his actions with cheap appeals to ‘identity’ politics, Trump’s crude, abrasive pronouncements drive young demonstrators into the streets in mass actions. These demonstrations are not-so-discretely supported by Trump’s major opponents among the Wall Street bankers, speculators and mass media moguls.  In other words, President Trump is an icon-embracer and follower, not a ‘revolutionary’ or even ‘change agent’.

Prof James Petras (right)

We will proceed by discussing the historical trajectory, which gave birth to the Trump regime.  We will identify ongoing policies and commitments determining the present and future direction of his administration.

We will conclude by identifying how current reaction can produce future transformations.  We will challenge the current ‘catastrophic’ and apocalyptic delirium and offer reasons for an optimistic perspective for the future.  In brief:  This essay will point out how current negatives can become realistic positives.

Historical Sequences

Over the past two decades US presidents have squandered the financial and military resources of the country in multiple unending, losing wars, as well as in trillion dollar trade debts and fiscal imbalances.  US leaders have run amok provoking major global financial crises, bankrupting the largest banks, destroying small mortgage holders, devastating manufacturers and creating massive unemployment followed by low-paid unstable jobs leading to collapse in living standards for the working and lower middle classes.

Imperial wars, trillion dollar bail-outs for the billionaires and unopposed flight of multinational Ccorporations abroad, have vastly deepened class inequalities and given rise to trade agreements favoring China , Germany and Mexico .  Within the US , the major beneficiaries of these crises have been the bankers, high-tech billionaires, commercial importers and agro-business exporters.

Faced with systemic crises, the ruling regimes have responded by deepening and expanding US Presidential powers in the form of presidential decrees.  To cover-up the decades-long series of debacles, patriotic ‘whistle-blowers’ have been jailed and police-state style surveillance has infiltrated every sector of the citizenry.

Presidents Bush, Clinton and Obama defined the trajectory of imperial wars and Wall Street plunder.  State police, military and financial institutions are firmly embedded in the matrix of power.  Financial centers, like Goldman Sachs, have repeatedly set the agenda and controlled the US Department of Treasury and the agencies regulating trade and banking.  The ‘permanent institutions’ of the state have remained, while Presidents, regardless of party, have been shuffled in and out of the ‘Oval Office’.

The ‘First Black’ President Barack Obama pledged peace and pursued seven wars.  His successor, Donald Trump was elected on promises of ‘non-intervention’ and promptly picked up Obama’s ‘bombing baton’: tiny Yemen was attacked by US forces, Russia’s allies in the Donbas Region of Ukraine were savaged by Washington’s allies in Kiev and Trump’s ‘more realist’ representative, Nikki Haley, put on a bellicose performance at the UN in the style of ‘Madame Humanitarian Intervention’ Samantha Power, braying invectives at Russia.

Where is the change?  Trump followed Obama by increasing sanctions against Russia , while threatening North Korea with nuclear annihilation in the wake of Obama’s major military build-up in the Korean peninsula.  Obama launched a surrogate war against Syria and Trump escalated the air war over Raqqa.  Obama encircled China with military bases, warships and warplanes and Trump goose-stepped right in with warmongering rhetoric.  Obama expelled a record two million Mexican workers over eight years; Trump followed by promising to deport even more.

In other words, President Trump has dutifully picked up the march along his predecessors’ trajectory, bombing the same targeted countries while plagiarizing their maniacal speeches at the United Nations.

Obama increased the annual tribute (aid) to Tel Aviv to a whooping $3.8 billions while bleating a few pro-forma criticisms of expanding Israeli land-grabs in Palestine; Trump proposed to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem while blubbering a few of his own mini-criticisms of illegal Jewish settlements on stolen Palestinian land.

What is overwhelmingly striking is the similarity of Obama and Trump,’s policies and strategies in foreign policy, their means and allies.  What is different is their style and rhetoric.  Both ‘Change Agent’ Presidents immediately break the same phony pre-election promises and function well within the boundaries of the permanent state institutions.

Whatever differences they have are a result of contrasting historic contexts.  Obama took over the collapse of the financial system and sought to regulate banks in order to stabilize operations.  Trump took over after Obama’s trillion-dollar ‘stabilization’ and sought to eliminate regulations – in the footsteps of President Clinton!  So ‘much ado’ about Trump’s ‘historic deregulation’!

The ‘winter of discontent’ in the form of mass protests against Trump’s ban against immigrants and visitors from seven predominantly Muslim countries follows directly from Obama’s ‘seven deadly wars’.  The immigrants and refugees are direct products of Obama’s invasions and attacks on these countries leading to murder, injury, forced displacement and misery for million of ‘predominantly’ (but not exclusively) Muslims.  Obama’s wars have created tens of thousands of ‘rebels’, insurgents and terrorists.  The refugees, fleeing for their lives, have been largely excluded from the US under Obama and most have sought safe havens in the squalid camps and chaos of the EU.

As terrible and illegal as Trump’s border closure to Muslims and as promising as the mass public protests seem, they are all the result of the near decade long policy of murder and mayhem under President Obama.

Following the policy trajectory – Obama shed the blood and Trump, in his vulgar racist style is left to ‘clean up the mess’.  While Obama has been made into a ‘Nobel Peace Prize’ peace maker, grumpy Trump is soundly attacked for picking up the bloody mop!

Trump has chosen to tread the path of obloquy and faces the wrath of purgatory.  Meanwhile, Obama is off playing golf, wind surfing and flashing his ‘devil may care’ smile to his adoring scribblers in the mass media.

As Trump stomps down the path laid out by Obama, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators fill the streets to protest the ‘fascist’, with scores of major mass media networks, dozens of plutocrats and ‘intellectuals’ of all genders, races and creeds writhing in moral outrage!  One is left confused at the deafening silence of these same activists and forces when Obama’s aggressive wars and attacks led to the deaths and displacement of millions of civilians, mostly Muslim, and mostly women – as their homes, weddings, markets, schools and funerals were bombed.

So much for American muddle-headedness!  One should try to understand the possibilities that arise from a massive sector finally breaking their silence as Obama’s glib warmongering has been transformed into Trump’s crude march to doomsday.

Optimistic Perspectives

There are many who despair but there are more who have become aware.  We will identify the optimistic perspectives and realistic hopes rooted in current reality and trends.  Realism means discussing contradictory, polarizing developments and therefore we accept no ‘inevitable’ outcomes.  This means that outcomes are ‘contested terrain’ where subjective factors play a leading role.  The interface of conflicting forces can result in an upward or downward spiral – toward more equality, sovereignty and liberation or greaterconcentration of wealth, power and privilege.

The most retrograde concentration of power and wealth is found in the oligarchic German-dominated European Union – a configuration which is under siege by popular forces.  The United Kingdom voters chose to exit from the EU (Brexit).  As a result, Britain faces a break-up with Scotland and Wales and an even greater separation from Ireland .  Brexit will lead to a new polarization as London-based bankers depart to the EU and free market leaders confront workers, protectionists and the growing mass of the poor.  Brexit fortifies nationalist-populists and leftist forces in France , Poland , Hungary and Serbia and shatters the neo-liberal hegemony in Italy , Spain , Greece , Portugal and elsewhere.  The challenge to the EU oligarchs is that popular insurgency will intensify social polarization and can bring to the fore progressive class movements or authoritarian nationalist parties and movements.

Trumps ascent to power and his executive decrees have led to highly polarize electorates, increased politicization and direct action.   The awakening of America deepens internal fissures between small ‘d’ democrats, progressive women, trade unionists, students and others against the big ‘D’ Democratic Party opportunists, speculators, life-long Democratic warmongers, bourgeois black ‘D’ Party hacks (the mis-leaders) and a small army of corporate-funded NGO’s.

Trumps embrace of the Obama-Clinton military and Wall Street agenda will lead to a financial bubble, bloated military spending and more costly wars.  These will divide the regime from its trade union and working class supporters now that Trump’s cabinet is composed entirely of billionaires, ideologues, rabid zionists and militarists (as opposed to his promise to appoint ‘hard-nosed’ deal-making businessmen and realists).  This could create a rich opportunity for movements to arise which reject the truly ugly face of Trump’s reactionary regime.

Trump’s animosity to NAFTA, and advocacy of protectionism and financial and resource exploitation will undermine the corrupt, murderous, narco-neoliberal regimes which have ruled Mexico for the past 30 years since the days of Salinas .  Trump’s anti-immigration policy will lead to Mexicans choosing to ‘fight over flight’ in confronting the social chaos created by the narco-gangs and gangster police.  It will force the development of Mexico ’s domestic markets and industry.  Mass domestic consumption and ownership will embrace national-popular movements.  The drug cartel and their political sponsors will lose the US markets and face domestic opposition.

Trump’s protectionism will limit the illegal flow of capital from Mexico , which amounted to $48.3 billion in 2016 or 55% of Mexico ’s debt.  Mexico ’s transition from dependency and neo-colonialism will deeply polarize the state and society; the outcome will be determined by class forces.

Trump’s economic and military threats against Iran will strengthen nationalist, populist and collectivist forces over the neo-liberal ‘reformist’ and pro-Western politicians.  Iran ’s anti-imperialist alliance with Yemen , Syria and Lebanon will solidify against the US-led quartet of Saudi Arabia , Israel , Britain and the US .

Trump’s support for Israel’s massive seizure of Palestinian land and its ‘Jews-only’ ban against Muslims and Christians will lead to the ‘shaking off’ of the multi-millionaire Palestinian Authority quislings and the rise of many more uprisings and intifadas.

The defeat of ISIS will strengthen independent governmental forces in Iraq , Syria and Lebanon , weaken US imperial leverage and open the door to popular democratic secular struggles.

China ’s President Xi Jinping’s large-scale, long-term anti-corruption campaign has led to the arrest and removal of over a quarter-million officials and businesspeople, including billionaires and top Party leaders.  The arrests, prosecution and jailing has reduced the abuse of privilege, but more important, it has improves the prospects for a movement to challenge vast social inequalities.  What began from ‘above’ can provoke movements from ‘below’.  The resurrection of a movement toward socialist values can have a major impact on US vassal states in Asia .

Russia ’s support for democratic rights in Eastern Ukraine and the re-incorporation of Crimea via referendum can limit US puppet regimes on Russia ’s southern flank and reduce US intervention.  Russia can develop peaceful ties with independent European states with the break-up of the EU and the Trump electoral victory over the Obama-Clinton regime’s threat of nuclear war.

The world-wide movement against imperialist globalism isolates the US-backed right-wing power grab in South America .  Brazil , Argentina and Chile ’s pursuit of neo-liberal trade pacts are on the defensive.  Their economies, especially in Argentina and Brazil , have seen a three-fold increase in unemployment, four-fold rise in foreign debt, stagnant to negative growth and now face mass-supported general strikes.  Neo-liberal ‘toadyism’ is provoking class struggle.  This can overturn the post-Obama order in Latin America .

Conclusion

Across the world and within the most important countries, the ultra-neoliberal order of the past quarter century is disintegrating.  There is a massive upsurge of movements from above and below, from democratic leftists to nationalists, from independent populists to the right-wing reactionary ‘old guard’: A new polarized, fragmented political universe has emerged.  The beginning of the end of the current imperial-globalist order is creating opportunities for a new dynamic democratic collectivist order.  The oligarchs and ‘security’ elites will not easily give way to popular demands or step down.  Knives will be sharpened, executive decrees will issue forth, and electoral coups will be staged to attempt to seize power.  The emerging popular democratic movements need to overcome identity fragmentation and establish unified, egalitarian leaders who can act decisively and independently away from the existing political leaders who make dramatic, but phony, progressive gestures while seeking a return to the stench and squalor of the recent past.

“Predatory Humanism” and the Plunder of Haiti: “Clinton Robin Hood in Reverse Must Be Punished”

By Charles Ortel and Dady Chery, February 09 2017

Despite the polls in the run up to November 8, 2016, and the post-election shenanigans that continue to this day, the United States has a new President, and it is not Hillary Clinton. There are many reasons for this, and Charles Ortel’s dogged, two-year investigation of the Clintons’ predatory humanitarianism is a major one. He is not yet done. It is almost universally unacceptable to prey on the weak of one’s own species.

Fidel Castro’s Historical Legacy: Defiance of US Imperialism

By Arnold August, February 09 2017

What is it in Fidel that attracts so much animosity from the U.S., while he has enjoyed so much devotion from the Cuban people and millions of people around the world, who consider him a hero? What is this imperialism that he, along with the Cuban people, defied from 1953 to his last breath?

What America Should Know about “Annexed Crimea”: “We the People of Crimea…”

By Arina Tsukanova, February 09 2017

The speech by the new US permanent representative to the UN Security Council, Nikki Haley, at a Security Council meeting on 3 February backed up the idea that the new administration policy on Crimea will be followed up. Haley said exactly the same nonsense as Samantha Powerbefore her: «Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control of the peninsula to Ukraine». The White House supported Haley’s statement the same day. It is interesting that Mrs Haley was speaking about the territory of Crimea rather than the people. I wonder how she seeks the «return» of the Crimean Peninsula to Ukraine – with the people or without them? It’s a pity that this question has remained unanswered yet.

Prejudiced President, Pliant Republican Party: Return of the Boycott as Political Resistance

By Barbara Nimri Aziz, February 09 2017

How can the American public push back on its brash and prejudiced president while a pliant Republican party in control of the U.S. Congress seems in no mood to oppose their new leader?

Trump Plays Cat and Mouse with Iran

By Mike Whitney, February 09 2017

Why is the Trump administration threatening Iran? On February 1, National Security Adviser Michael Flynn announced that the administration was “putting Iran on notice” after it tested a ballistic missile which the US sees as a violation of Iran’s treaty obligations. Flynn’s frigid tone made it clear that the administration is considering the use of military force. But why?

How can the American public push back on its brash and prejudiced president while a pliant Republican party in control of the U.S. Congress seems in no mood to oppose their new leader?

Workers’ strikes may be effective in some countries. But in America striking is a tool of the distant past. Workers syndicates, with the possible exception of police unions, are hardly extant in the 21^st century.

Boycott is an option, but generally not a very effective political instrument where people are too attached to their pleasures and habits, whether sugary drinks, big cars, online shopping, dining or holidaying. (I admit that I myself am facing difficulty—thus far I’m managing—sustaining my boycott of SNL because of Katie Rich’s nasty remark about Trump’s young son.)

But we’re in a new era, aren’t we? A new ball game, where the immediate target of boycott would be very precise, a mortal, and a businessman. A perfect prey. No need to appeal to ethics or justice, when the strategy is to vote with one’s wallet against Trump family enterprises. No court decisions are needed, no mass signatures, no parades at the gates of Trump properties.

Consumers can simply stop buying, and there’s plenty to strike off the shopping list, starting with Ivanka Trump’s fashion and jewelry products—carried in upscale stores like Nieman Marcus and Saks and by peoples’ retailers Walmarts and Amazon. (A boycott that overrides class distinctions). From reports of markdowns in store this week, the action, initiated by #grabyourwallet seems well underway. https://grabyourwallet.org/ Boycott%20These%20Companies. html.

But wait. Ivanka’s shoe line is the glamorous surface of this movement. Forget about quarterback Brady’s friendship with Trump, and discover an underworld of millions of possible boycotters. I’m talking about academics—an almost invisible and, dare I say, politically conservative American (liberal) population. Our scientists and academics, if they are mad enough and can summon their courage to boycott, could make a tremendous impact. Unexpectedly, tens of thousands have already signed on to what’s become a tsunami wave to challenge Trump’s Muslim ban. University staff, hospital administrators, researchers and professors in all fields of scholarship and science are publicly acknowledging the millions of women and men in their labs, their lecture halls, their conferences and panels, and their classrooms who are recent or settled immigrants, visiting students, invited professors, co-authors—all foreign born, many of them Muslim– on special visas or with green cards.

In response to President Trumps travel ban, two major academic  boycotts are underway: a Canadian boycott with over 4000 signatories  arose on the heels of another initiated in the UK with  over 42,000 supporters. All are refusing to attend any professional conferences in the USA. To start.

Academic conferences? you inquire smugly. We need millions of plebeians in the streets to make any impact, you claim.

I give street protests their due; they’re essential in demonstrating the reach and depth of public resistance. But don’t sniff at conferences. Hotels thrive on them, yes. But so do our professors, graduate students, the entire research community, and the economy.

Academic conferences are where new graduates seek employment, where scholars present research findings and authors hunt for publishers, where accolades are awarded and new leaders are identified, where alumni meet and reaffirm their college’s reputation, where professional networks are strengthened and expanded. These conferences are huge events. Take my field of anthropology for example.

As a U. K. graduate we had a community of barely 300 anthropologists in the 1980s. So I was overwhelmed on my initial visit to the U.S., attending the annual AAA (American Anthropological Association) conference, to find myself among 3,300 fellow researchers. (Today that figure is double.) Besides nation-wide conferences, each profession has regional gatherings and state forums. Multiply this by all the professions, from neurology to modern Chinese literature, paleontology to copyright law, and you begin to grasp the scale of this low-keyed professional world.

Conferences are essential to academic growth, to career advancement, to intellectual competition and exchange, events eagerly anticipated year after year. Yet tens of thousands are ready to forego them in support of their ‘foreign’ colleagues. This is serious.

These scientists know how essential ‘foreigners’ are to their own successes, to rigorous intellectual dialogue, and to America’s global cultural and scientific influence. Those foreign students joining research teams win accolades and grants for their departments, many staying on permanently. Visiting professors are welcomed, feted, and often offered permanent jobs in the U.S. The high quality education and love of learning that Egyptians, Indians, Iraqis, Iranians, Pakistanis, Palestinians, Sudanese, and Syrians bring from their homelands are coveted by U.S. research laboratories, colleges and institutes.

Perusing the 2013 American National Science Foundation survey  we can measure the prominence of immigrants. For example, between 2003 and 2013, of 341,000 immigrant scientists and engineers, more than half, 1,873,000, originated in Asia—Far East, Southeast and South Asia, and ‘other’– likely West Asia/Middle East. (Compare with 632,000 from Europe, and 179,000 from South America.)

Of 21,000,000 scientists and engineers, 15.6 percent are non-native born. Over 80 percent of immigrant scholars enter computer and math sciences, increasingly important fields in our economy.

Engaging in an academic boycott is a real social, political and economic sacrifice. It’s neither common nor easy, as attested in the long, uphill of the academic boycott of Israel. Older professors recall their successful boycott of South Africa (1965-1990), part of the global Anti-Apartheid movement, 50 years ago with nostalgia, partly because of its exceptionality. So today’s boycott against Trump’s policies represents a historical breakthrough.

The lists are growing daily, the most recent being the boycott by an American NGO, a Minnesota nonprofit serving Somali-American youth.

Over barely two weeks, public boycotts are matching a fortnight of presidential decrees. “We’re making history.”

President Bashar al-Assad stressed that Syria is owned by the Syrians and that the peace is two things: fighting terrorists and terrorism, stopping the flowing of terrorism, every kind of logistical support. Second, dialogue between the Syrians to decide the future of their country and the whole political system.

On his expectations from the new administration in Washington,  President Assad said, in a statement to Belgian media,What we heard as statements by Trump during the campaign and after the campaign is promising regarding the priority of fighting terrorists, and mainly ISIS, that’s what we’ve been asking for during the last six years. So, I think this is promising, we have to wait, it’s still early to expect anything practical. It could be about the cooperation between the US and Russia, that we think is going to be positive for the rest of the world, including Syria. So, as I said, it’s still early to judge it.

Question 1: Mr. President, we’ve been to Aleppo, we’ve seen the destruction, how do you see the way forward to peace nowadays after Astana?

President Assad: If you want to talk about how to see the peace, it’s not related mainly to Astana; it’s related to something much bigger: how can we stop the flowing of terrorists toward Syria, or in Syria, how can we stop the support from regional countries like Turkey, Gulf states, or from Europe like France and UK, or from the US during the Obama administration. If we deal with that title, this is where you can talk about the rest, about the political procedure. Astana is one of the initiatives during this war on Syria, and it’s about the dialogue between the Syrians. Now it’s too early to judge Astana, the first one was positive because it was about the principles of the unity of Syria, about the Syrians deciding their future. How can you implement this communique? That’s the question, and I think we are going to see Astana 2 and so on. So, the peace is two things: fighting terrorists and terrorism, stopping the flowing of terrorism, every kind of logistical support. Second, dialogue between the Syrians to decide the future of their country and the whole political system. These are the headlines about how we see the future of Syria.

Question 2: We have seen many breaches in the ceasefire, would you consider the ceasefire is still upholding, or is it dead?

President Assad: No, it’s not dead, and it’s natural in every ceasefire anywhere in the world, in every war, in any conflict, to have these breaches. It could be sometimes on individual levels, it doesn’t mean there’s policy of breaching the ceasefire by the government or by any other party, and this is something we can deal with on daily basis, and sometimes on hourly basis, but till this moment, no, the ceasefire is holding.

Question 3: In the fight against terror group Daesh, do you think all means are justified?

President Assad: Depends on what do we mean by “all means,” you have to be…

Journalist: Literally all means.

President Assad: Yeah, but I don’t know what the means that are available to tell you yes or “all means,” so I don’t what the “all means” are. But if you want to talk about military means, yes of course, because the terrorists are attacking the people – I’m not only talking about ISIS; ISIS and al-Nusra and all the Al Qaeda-affiliated groups within Syria – when they are attacking civilians, and killing civilians, and beheading people, and destroying properties, private and public, and destroying the infrastructure, everything in this country, let’s say, our constitutional duty and legal duty as government and as army and as state institutions is to defend the Syrian people. It’s not an opinion; it’s a duty. So, regarding this, you can use every mean in order to defend the Syrian people.

Question 4: But we have seen the destruction in Aleppo, you have seen the images as well. Was there no other way to do it?

President Assad: Actually, since the beginning of the crisis, of the war on Syria, we used every possible way. We didn’t leave any stone unturned in order to bring people to the negotiating table, but when you talk about the terrorists, when you talk about terrorists, when you talk about Al Qaeda, when you talk about al-Nusra and ISIS, I don’t think anyone in this world would believe that they are ready for dialogue, and they always say they’re not; they have their own ideology, they have their own way path, they don’t accept anything that could be related to civil state or civil country, they don’t, and I think you know as a European about this reality. So, no, making dialogue with al-Nusra and Al Qaeda is not one of the means, but if somebody wanted to change his course on the individual levels, we are ready to accept him as a government, and give him amnesty when he goes back to the normal life and gives up his armament.

Question 5: The Belgian government is contributing in the fight against Daesh. There are six F-16 fighter planes in the fight against Daesh. Are you grateful to the Belgian government for that contribution?

President Assad: Let me be frank with you, when you talk about contribution in the operation against ISIS, actually there was no operation against ISIS; it was a cosmetic operation, if you want to talk about the American alliance against ISIS. It was only an illusive alliance, because ISIS was expanding during that operation. At the same time, that operation is an illegal operation because it happened without consulting with or taking the permission of the Syrian government, which is the legitimate government, and it’s a breaching of our sovereignty. Third, they didn’t prevent any Syrian citizen from being killed by ISIS, so what tobe grateful for? To be frank, no.

Question 6: You have stated several times that it is up to the Syrian people, it is up to the constitution, to decide who their leadership should be, who their president should be. If the Syrian people would decide for a new leadership, would you consider to step aside?

President Assad: If the Syrian people choose another president, I don’t have to choose to be aside; I would be aside, I would be outside this position, that’s self-evident, because the constitution will put the president, and the constitution will take him out according to the ballot box and the decision of the Syrian people. Of course, that’s very natural, not only because of the ballot box; because if you don’t have public support, you cannot achieve anything in Syria, especially in a war. In a war, what you need, the most important thing is to have public support in order to restore your country, to restore the stability and security. Without it, you cannot achieve anything. So, yes, of course.

Question 7: Mr. President, I am 43 years old, if I would have been born in Syria, there would always have been an Assad in executive power. Can you imagine a Syria without a member of the Assad family in executive power?

President Assad: Of course, we don’t own the country, my family doesn’t own the country, to say that only Assad should be in that position, that’s self-evident, and this could be by coincidence, because President Assad didn’t have an heir in the institution to be his successor. He died, I was elected, he didn’t have anything to do with my election. When he was president, I didn’t have any position in the government. If he wanted me to be an heir, he would have put me somewhere, gave me a responsibility, I didn’t have any responsibility, actually. So, it’s not as many in the media in the West used to say since my election, that “he succeeded his father” or “his father put him in that position.” So, yes, Syria is owned by the Syrians, and every Syrian citizen has the right to be in that position.

Question 8: Do you think the European Union or even NATO can play a role in, like, rebuilding the country, like, rebuilding Syria?

President Assad: You cannot play that role while you are destroying Syria, because the EU is supporting the terrorists in Syria from the very beginning under different titles: humanitarians, moderate, and so on. Actually, they were supporting al-Nusra and ISIS from the very beginning, they were extremists from the very beginning. So, they cannot destroy and build at the same time. First of all, they have to take a very clear position regarding the sovereignty of Syria, stop supporting the terrorists. This is where the Syrians would – I say would – accept those countries to play a role in that regard. But in the meantime, if you ask any Syrian the same question, he will tell you “no, we don’t accept, those countries supported the people who destroyed our country, we don’t want them to be here.” That’s what I think.

Question 9: Do you think Belgium can play a role in Syria?

President Assad: Let me talk about the European political position in general; many in this region believe that the Europeans don’t exist politically, they only follow the master which is the Americans. So, the question should be about the Americans, and the Europeans will follow and will implement what the Americans want. They don’t exist as independent states, and Belgium is part of the EU.

Question 10: There is a new administration in Washington, with Trump in power. What do you expect from it? Are you looking to work closely together?

President Assad: What we heard as statements by Trump during the campaign and after the campaign is promising regarding the priority of fighting terrorists, and mainly ISIS, that’s what we’ve been asking for during the last six years. So, I think this is promising, we have to wait, it’s still early to expect anything practical. It could be about the cooperation between the US and Russia, that we think is going to be positive for the rest of the world, including Syria. So, as I said, it’s still early to judge it.

Question 11: If you look back on the last couple of years, are there any things that you regret?

President Assad: Every mistake could be a regret, by any individual, and as a human…

Journalist: Have you made mistakes?

President Assad: As a human, I have to make mistakes to be human. Otherwise, I’m not a human.

Journalist: What would you consider a mistake?

President Assad: A mistake is when you either take a wrong decision or make a wrong practice, it depends on the situation. But if you want to talk about the crisis, as I understand from the question, the three decisions that we took from the very beginning is to fight terrorism, and I think it’s correct, is to make dialogue between the Syrians, I think it’s correct, to respond to every political initiative, whether it’s genuine or not, and I think it’s correct, and actually we supported the reconciliation between the Syrians, and I think it’s correct. Anything else could be trivial, so you have a lot of things regarding the practice, regarding the institutions, you always have mistakes.

Question 12: If you look back, was this war avoidable?

President Assad: No, because there was bad intention regarding the different countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, France, UK, and the US in order to destabilize Syria, so it wasn’t about the Syrians. That doesn’t mean that we don’t have many flaws before the war and today as a country that allow many of those countries to mess with our country. I’m not excluding, I’m not saying it’s only about them, but they were the one who took the initiative in order to wage this war, so I don’t think it was avoidable.

Question 13: You have just had a visit from a Belgian parliamentary delegation with Mr. Dewinter and Mr. Carcaci, do you consider them as friends?

President Assad: The most important thing about those visits is not to be friends with them. As a politician, you don’t come to Syria to visit your friend; you come to Syria to see what’s going on.

Journalist: Do you see them as political allies?

President Assad: No, they’re not my allies at all. They are coming here not for that reason; they are here in order to see what’s going on. They are the allies of the Belgian people. They came here because the government, the Belgian government, like many European governments, are blind today, they have no relation with this country on every level, so they don’t see what’s going on, they cannot play any role. So, now the only eyes that you have are the delegations that are coming from your country, and this is one of them, this is one of the eyes that your government could have, and you could have many other eyes and delegations coming to Syria. So, they’re not my allies, they’re not coming here for me; they’re coming here to see the situation, and I’m one of the players in the Syrian conflict, it’s natural to meet with me to hear what’s my point of view.

Question 14: Mr. President, just one more question: after the victories in Aleppo, Wadi Barada, your troops are close from al-Bab, do you think that all these major victories can change the mind of European governments concerning the Syrian government?

President Assad: I don’t know, I think they have to answer that question. For us, it’s our war, we need to liberate every single inch on the Syrian territory from those terrorists. If the European governments think that their efforts went in vain, that’s good, they may change their mind, and at least to stop supporting those terrorists that don’t have the support of the public in Syria; they only have the support of the Europeans and the Gulf states, the Wahabi Gulf states, in order to have more terrorism and extremism in Syria. We hope, I think during the last two years, the whole world has changed, the United States has changed, the situation in Syria has changed, the situation in the region in general has changed. Two things didn’t change or hasn’t changed till this moment: first of all, Al Qaeda is still there through ISIS and al-Nusra, and the mentality of the European officials, it hasn’t change yet, they live in the past.

Question 15: Mr. President, in your opinion, what is our ______ to question if after the war, the international court in the Hague should go over some responsibles on the crimes against humanity against the Syrian people, do you support that view, that the responsibles of the crimes at war should be judged by the international court in the Hague?

President Assad: We all know that the United Nations institutions are not unbiased, they are biased, because of the American influence and the French and British, mainly. So, most of those institutions, they don’t work to bring the stability to the world or to look for the truth; they are only politicized to implement the agenda of those countries. For me, as president, when I do my duty, the same for the government and for the army, to defend our country, we don’t look to this issue, we don’t care about it. We have to defend our country by every mean, and when we have to defend it by every mean, we don’t care about this court, or any other international institution.

Question 16: Yes. Do you accept the position of the United Nations?

President Assad: It depends on that position. Most of the positions are biased, as I said, regarding every organization, regarding every sector, regarding most of the resolutions against Syria. That’s why it was for the first time maybe for Russia and China to take so many vetoes in few years, because they know this reality. So, no, we don’t accept, we don’t accept.

Here we go again. General “Mad Dog” Mattis, the US Secretary of Defense, declares Iran “is the single biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.” National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn puts Iran “on notice.”

President Trump says “they are not behaving,” and, on his Superbowl interview, doubles down: “They are the No 1 terrorist state. They’re sending money all over the place – and weapons. And… [they] can’t do that.” Iran is slapped with new sanctions. It’s as if Dick “Dark Side” Cheney and Donald “known unknowns” Rumsfeld never left.

Never allow facts to get in the way of a bombastic quote. “State sponsor of terrorism” is a neocon meme for any nation/political system that resists US Exceptionalism. The industrial-military-intelligence-security complex feeds on massive budgets to engage these manufactured “threats” while real, on the ground terrorism – yielding from the Salafi-jihadi matrix – has absolutely nothing to do with Iran.

The birth of al-Qaeda was inbuilt in the official Dr Zbig “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski doctrine of fighting the former USSR in Afghanistan in the 1980s via a Wahhabi-controlled Jihad Inc. Nothing to do with Iran. Even Trump’s own national security advisor admitted on the record there was a “willful decision” by the Obama administration to let ISIS/ISIL/Daesh fester. Nothing to do with Iran.

So what is it all about? We must once again resort to the shadowplay/wayang of a Henry Kissinger-devised new balance-of-power US foreign policy bent on preventing Eurasian integration by prying away Russia from China while antagonizing Iran.

Putting the New Silk Roads “on notice”

Beijing was not amused by the new “unilateral” (Foreign Ministry description) anti-Iran sanctions barring access to the US financial system or dealings with US companies. After all, the sanctions include two Chinese companies and two Chinese nationals. Xinhua worries that overall this may become “a ticking time bomb for peace and stability in the Middle East.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov for his part stressed that Russia and Iran “cooperate on a wide range of issues, [we] value our trade ties, and hope to develop them further.”

Whatever the administration, and whoever the privileged dalang advisor in the shade, the US strategic imperative in Eurasia always remains the same – to prevent the ascent of a peer competitor, or worse, an alliance, as in the case of a Sino-Russian strategic partnership.

For China, Iran is an absolutely critical node of the New Silk Roads, or One Belt, One Road (OBOR). Along with Russia, it is a key player in the International North-South Transportation Corridor (INSTC), is set to increase its cooperation with the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), and will become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). All this spells out Eurasian integration. By 2030 Eurasia may exceed the US and Europe in global GDP terms. Eurasia, not the Atlantic alliance, is the future.

Most of the geostrategic game ahead hinges on whether there can be a “win-win” grand bargain between the Trump administration and the Kremlin. Assuming Washington would back off in eastern Ukraine and accept Russia’s legitimate sphere of influence in Eurasia – hardly a given – the price to pay for Moscow would be to let go of its very close partnership with Tehran. Kissinger should know better; this is not going to happen.

In between, there are pressing facts on the ground. The avowed, much ballyhooed Trump smashing of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh across “Syraq” simply cannot happen without Tehran-supported Shi’ite militias/boots on the ground, the Quds force led by Gen. Soleimani, as well as Hezbollah fighters in Syria. Trump is waiting for his ordered 30-day Pentagon plan of “victory” against the jihadis. Bets can be made that the Pentagon won’t integrate both Iran and Russia – both doctrinally regarded as “threats”.

In a nutshell; Trump cannot win his war against Islamist terror if he fully subscribes to the neocon wet dream of crippling the Russia-China-Iran alliance.

It also wouldn’t require a PhD thesis for Trump to understand that Iranophobia is bad for business. Iran is a tremendous developing market ripe for investment, as attested by European, Russian, Chinese and South Korean interest.

Assuming Trump’s campaign promise of no more regime change adventures holds, the new US strategic mission across Southwest Asia would be to essentially guarantee that global supply chain sea lanes remain open and secure – to the benefit of booming business across the Rimland. Russia and China could not agree more.

Everyone who’s been to Iran – neocons haven’t – knows Tehran won’t be subdued with angry threats. Iran has been under US sanctions for no fewer than 38 years. Absolutely nothing across Southwest Asia can be accomplished, geopolitically, without Iranian participation.

Nobody – except the usual suspects – wants confrontation. The Joint Chiefs had already informed then President Obama that Washington cannot go to war again until at least 2022; part of Trump’s platform is exactly to facilitate the means to recruit, retrain and re-tool a new US military.

And even in the (terrifying) event that the Pentagon hits Iran, it would take just a few Iranian ballistic missiles strategically deployed against oil fields and oil refineries around the Persian Gulf to spell out the end of the petrodollar.

Tehran is betting on – and wants to profit from – a new multipolar world order. Beijing knows there is no New Silk Road if Iran is constrained. Iran’s arc of development is inevitable – and European, Russian and Chinese investors know it. An American geography professor who conducted a project on the US presidential race told me that among pro-Hillary, anti-Hillary, pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions, “in no case did any of the four sides mention the New Silk Roads, or OBOR.” Trump’s cabinet – with the possible exception of Secretary of State “T.Rex” Tillerson – may also fit this mould.

To speak loudly and carry a tiny stick could not be more counter-productive. It might be a stretch to expect Trump to actually read his foreign policy dalang, but if he went through Kissinger’s World Order he would learn that “the United States and the Western democracies should be open to fostering cooperative relations with Iran. What they must not do is base such a policy on projecting their own domestic experience as inevitably or automatically relevant to other societies,’ especially Iran’s.”

Here we go again. General “Mad Dog” Mattis, the US Secretary of Defense, declares Iran “is the single biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.” National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn puts Iran “on notice.”

President Trump says “they are not behaving,” and, on his Superbowl interview, doubles down: “They are the No 1 terrorist state. They’re sending money all over the place – and weapons. And… [they] can’t do that.” Iran is slapped with new sanctions. It’s as if Dick “Dark Side” Cheney and Donald “known unknowns” Rumsfeld never left.

Never allow facts to get in the way of a bombastic quote. “State sponsor of terrorism” is a neocon meme for any nation/political system that resists US Exceptionalism. The industrial-military-intelligence-security complex feeds on massive budgets to engage these manufactured “threats” while real, on the ground terrorism – yielding from the Salafi-jihadi matrix – has absolutely nothing to do with Iran.

The birth of al-Qaeda was inbuilt in the official Dr Zbig “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski doctrine of fighting the former USSR in Afghanistan in the 1980s via a Wahhabi-controlled Jihad Inc. Nothing to do with Iran. Even Trump’s own national security advisor admitted on the record there was a “willful decision” by the Obama administration to let ISIS/ISIL/Daesh fester. Nothing to do with Iran.

So what is it all about? We must once again resort to the shadowplay/wayang of a Henry Kissinger-devised new balance-of-power US foreign policy bent on preventing Eurasian integration by prying away Russia from China while antagonizing Iran.

Putting the New Silk Roads “on notice”

Beijing was not amused by the new “unilateral” (Foreign Ministry description) anti-Iran sanctions barring access to the US financial system or dealings with US companies. After all, the sanctions include two Chinese companies and two Chinese nationals. Xinhua worries that overall this may become “a ticking time bomb for peace and stability in the Middle East.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov for his part stressed that Russia and Iran “cooperate on a wide range of issues, [we] value our trade ties, and hope to develop them further.”

Whatever the administration, and whoever the privileged dalang advisor in the shade, the US strategic imperative in Eurasia always remains the same – to prevent the ascent of a peer competitor, or worse, an alliance, as in the case of a Sino-Russian strategic partnership.

For China, Iran is an absolutely critical node of the New Silk Roads, or One Belt, One Road (OBOR). Along with Russia, it is a key player in the International North-South Transportation Corridor (INSTC), is set to increase its cooperation with the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), and will become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). All this spells out Eurasian integration. By 2030 Eurasia may exceed the US and Europe in global GDP terms. Eurasia, not the Atlantic alliance, is the future.

Most of the geostrategic game ahead hinges on whether there can be a “win-win” grand bargain between the Trump administration and the Kremlin. Assuming Washington would back off in eastern Ukraine and accept Russia’s legitimate sphere of influence in Eurasia – hardly a given – the price to pay for Moscow would be to let go of its very close partnership with Tehran. Kissinger should know better; this is not going to happen.

In between, there are pressing facts on the ground. The avowed, much ballyhooed Trump smashing of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh across “Syraq” simply cannot happen without Tehran-supported Shi’ite militias/boots on the ground, the Quds force led by Gen. Soleimani, as well as Hezbollah fighters in Syria. Trump is waiting for his ordered 30-day Pentagon plan of “victory” against the jihadis. Bets can be made that the Pentagon won’t integrate both Iran and Russia – both doctrinally regarded as “threats”.

In a nutshell; Trump cannot win his war against Islamist terror if he fully subscribes to the neocon wet dream of crippling the Russia-China-Iran alliance.

It also wouldn’t require a PhD thesis for Trump to understand that Iranophobia is bad for business. Iran is a tremendous developing market ripe for investment, as attested by European, Russian, Chinese and South Korean interest.

Assuming Trump’s campaign promise of no more regime change adventures holds, the new US strategic mission across Southwest Asia would be to essentially guarantee that global supply chain sea lanes remain open and secure – to the benefit of booming business across the Rimland. Russia and China could not agree more.

Everyone who’s been to Iran – neocons haven’t – knows Tehran won’t be subdued with angry threats. Iran has been under US sanctions for no fewer than 38 years. Absolutely nothing across Southwest Asia can be accomplished, geopolitically, without Iranian participation.

Nobody – except the usual suspects – wants confrontation. The Joint Chiefs had already informed then President Obama that Washington cannot go to war again until at least 2022; part of Trump’s platform is exactly to facilitate the means to recruit, retrain and re-tool a new US military.

And even in the (terrifying) event that the Pentagon hits Iran, it would take just a few Iranian ballistic missiles strategically deployed against oil fields and oil refineries around the Persian Gulf to spell out the end of the petrodollar.

Tehran is betting on – and wants to profit from – a new multipolar world order. Beijing knows there is no New Silk Road if Iran is constrained. Iran’s arc of development is inevitable – and European, Russian and Chinese investors know it. An American geography professor who conducted a project on the US presidential race told me that among pro-Hillary, anti-Hillary, pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions, “in no case did any of the four sides mention the New Silk Roads, or OBOR.” Trump’s cabinet – with the possible exception of Secretary of State “T.Rex” Tillerson – may also fit this mould.

To speak loudly and carry a tiny stick could not be more counter-productive. It might be a stretch to expect Trump to actually read his foreign policy dalang, but if he went through Kissinger’s World Order he would learn that “the United States and the Western democracies should be open to fostering cooperative relations with Iran. What they must not do is base such a policy on projecting their own domestic experience as inevitably or automatically relevant to other societies,’ especially Iran’s.”

Since the peace talks in Astana ended, meaningful progress has been made towards the settlement of the Syrian crisis. The guarantor countries managed to do impossible – to make Syrian government and the armed opposition sit down at one table to discuss the current situation in the country.

As a result of the talks in Astana, all sides have stated in final statement that they have common views to monitor the ceasefire process, they also achieved the agreement on setting up trilateral mechanism to monitor the ceasefire in Syria. In addition, the Russian delegation proposed a draft of a new Syrian constitution for its further discussion with the Syrian government, the opposition, and the countries in the region.

Most of the Syrian experts agree that this project might be a starting point for discussions in Syria, in which the warring parties should direct their efforts not at empty talks, and at the discussion of the real future of their country.

Despite the fact that the armed opposition’s reaction on the proposed draft constitution was critical, it is becoming clear that occurrence of one of the possible variants of the constitution is only aimed at the earliest settlement of the conflict. Today, when the ceasefire is generally respected, it is the best of times to define a clear plan of further actions, including the discussion of the future political system of the country.

It should be mentioned that on February 7, the second meeting of the operational group, which controls the ceasefire regime in Syria, was held in Astana. At the meeting the group was discussing and solving specific problems of the ceasefire at those sectors of the front, where it is possible. At this time, Jordan joined the meeting in the capital of Kazakhstan. Its participation could play an important role in resolving the conflict.

Of course, lots of controversial issues arise in the discussion of the Syrian problem, but the continuation of the talks is a great progress by itself. Over time, everything that causes the contradiction could be solved in cooperation with Russia, Iran, Turkey and Jordan.

It is known that at the second meeting it was not discussed a question of the draft constitution, however, it is planned to bring it to the agenda of the next meeting in Astana, which is scheduled for mid-February. However, we can already say that this project has the potential to become a full-fledged basis for a future constitution, which will be developed by the Syrians.

In the first of many mistakes of the Vietnam War, President Dwight Eisenhower said in 1954, “You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over quickly.”

CIA pilots and crews prepare to re-arm a T-28 bomber for bombing missions on Laos 1964.

By January 1961, Eisenhower had warned his successor John F. Kennedy that Laos was the most pressing foreign policy issue in the world and he had initiated Operation Momentum in Laos, for the CIA to train and arm a small force of Hmong tribesmen to fight the communist Pathet Lao and their North Vietnamese supporters.

But history would prove the “domino theory” in Southeast Asia was a misconception of tragic proportions. Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines would all confidently resist communist influence and would have surely have done so without the bloodbath of millions of deaths across Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

As a young freelance journalist in 1965, I tried to cover the secret war in Laos. In the capital Vientiane, I encountered CIA pilots running supplies to the Hmong army in Long Chen and urged them, over many beers at the bar of the Continental Hotel, to take me along but without success.

Now, more than a half century later, author Joshua Kurlantzick, a senior fellow for Southeast Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations, has published a book, A Great Place to Have a War, based on recently declassified documents and interviews with major players behind the secret war in Laos.

He also analyzes how the conflict in Laos was the genesis of the CIA’s support for clandestine paramilitary operations around the world, a pattern that continues through today. He concludes that the strategy in Laos set a sinister precedent for American presidents to conduct war without congressional or media oversight.

Kurlantzick writes,

“The Laos program would balloon in men and budget. It would grow into a massive undertaking run by CIA operatives. CIA leadership saw that an inexpensive proxy war could be a template for wars when U.S. presidents were looking for ways to continue the Cold War without going through Congress or committing ground troops. The CIA leadership thought that Laos was a great place to have a war.”

An army of hill tribes, mostly Hmong under the command of General Vang Pao, who initially led a ragged band of 5,000 guerrillas recruited and equipped by CIA officers. For 14 years, this irregular army fought the communists with Vang Pao’s guerrilla forces finally numbering 100,000 irregular troops.

Over those years, more bombs were dropped on Laos than were dropped on Japan and Germany during World War II. By the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, some 200,000 Laotians, both civilian and military had been killed, including at least 30,000 Hmong, with another 750,000 Laotians made homeless by the bombing. Some 700 Americans, mostly CIA officers, contractors and U.S. military also died in the Laos conflict, although those American deaths would not be revealed for decades.

Today, Laos is a failed country still strewn with landmines and other ordnance that take the limbs and lives of Laotians every day. Only 1 percent of the unexploded ordnance is believed to have been cleared and an estimated 20,000 Laotians have been killed or injured since the bombing ceased.

A Destructive Debacle

By most measures, the CIA’s war in Laos was a debacle that virtually destroyed a civilization. Plus, the war was “lost” from the U.S. government’s perspective when the country disappeared into the communist Vietnamese orbit. But by the CIA’s yardstick, it was a great success.

Hmong warlord Vang Pao who led the tribal army under the direction of the CIA until 1975.

“In the opinion of many officers in the CIA Clandestine services, the paramilitary programs that the agency operated in Laos between 1963-71 were the most successful ever mounted,” according to a quote from newly declassified CIA records cited by author Kurlantzick. “Small in numbers of personnel and even smaller in relative dollar costs, the CIA Laos operations shone in contrast to the ponderous operations of the US military forces in Vietnam.”

CIA Director Richard Helms declared that the agency had proven itself in Laos and had tied down 70,000 North Vietnamese troops who might otherwise have fought Americans in Vietnam. Laos would become the template for a new type of large, secret war for decades to come.

In his book, Kurlantzick concentrates on four remarkable individuals who in partnership with the CIA would control the agency’s war in Laos. All four have died recently, but Kurlantzick interviewed three of them.

There was Bill Lair, an American veteran of the U.S. Army’s 3rd Division in World War II who joined the CIA in Bangkok to train Thai troops for a possible invasion by China. Lair, adept at the Thai and Lao languages, was later sent to Laos where he would become the first chief agent to deal with the Hmong warlord Vang Pao.

There was Vang Pao, who met Lair in January 1961 and promised that if Lair would provide weapons he would gather 10,000 men to be trained by the CIA. Vang Pao had a reputation of having a sharp mind but his rage, sadness and energy sometimes overtook his abilities and knowledge.

There was Ambassador William Sullivan, who took his post in Vientiane in 1964 and soon became the most powerful U.S. ambassador in the world, in charge of the secret war in Laos. Sullivan’s power encompassed far more than the usual duties of filing reports on the political situation and attending diplomatic receptions. He had a strong respect for the CIA, unlike many U.S. ambassadors.

Sullivan also had a close relationship with President Lyndon Johnson, which Sullivan felt gave him a free hand to run the war in Laos. Called to testify before Congress, Sullivan drew the ire of Sen. William Fulbright, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who complained: “We pretend Laos is a sovereign country. We are pretending we are not there? You are deceiving the American people and Congress.”

Sullivan, who didn’t mention that he had commanded nearly every aspect of the operation in Laos, later became National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger’s right-hand man at the Paris peace talks. (Sullivan was the only one of the four principals whom Kurlantzick did not interview.)

The fourth principal in the Laotian war was Tony Poe, who had experienced heavy combat with the U.S. Marines island-hopping across the Pacific during World War II. When the Korean War broke out in 1950, Poe signed up to train Korean saboteurs. In 1961, Poe arrived in Laos to help train the Hmong who had become the center of Operation Momentum.

Graphic for the movie, “Apocalypse Now,” which featured Marlon Brando as a crazed U.S. intelligence operative leading an irregular army, a character believed drawn from the CIA’s covert war in Laos.

Poe was a hard-drinking combat trainer who sought opportunities to fight with the troops he had trained. He had a reputation of ruthlessness that included tales of cutting heads off North Vietnamese troops and dropping them from a helicopter. He is said to have shipped bags of ears cut from enemy soldiers to the U.S. Embassy in Vientiane.

In the mountains with his private army and drinking heavily, many of Poe’s colleagues believed he had gone mad. However, in 1975, Poe was awarded a second CIA intelligence medal for “extraordinary heroism.” It is believed Poe was the model for Marlon Brando’s portrayal of Col. Kurtz in the film “Apocalypse Now.”

Enduring Lessons

The lessons from Laos had long-term effects on how the CIA would operate for years. After 1975, agents with Laos experience took over CIA stations all over the world and held senior jobs in agency headquarters. They brought with them a conviction the CIA could handle large-scale war fighting skills, reported Kurlantzick.

The secret war also had echoes up to the present.

“The post-9/11 war on terror replicates the Laos war in other critical ways: CIA activities are totally unwatched by the public and the media. The strategies used to keep most of the war on terror secret … would have been completely familiar to the CIA operatives running the Laos war.”

In his last foreign trip, President Obama went to Laos, the first sitting U.S. president to ever do so. In a speech in Vientiane in September that got little notice back home, he offered no apologies, but pledged to increase funding for clearing unexploded bombs by $90 million over the next three years.

President Barack Obama speaks in Vientiane, Laos, in September 2016 to announce an additional $90 million aid for bomb removal in the next three years. (White House Photo)

“Given our history here, the United States has a moral obligation to help Laos heal,” Obama said. “At the time the U.S. did not acknowledge America’s role. Even now, many Americans are not fully aware of this chapter in our history, and it’s important that we remember today.”

Kurlantzick didn’t complete the research and transcript for his book until October, before the election of Donald Trump as president, but in an article for the Washington Post’s Outlook section Jan. 22, he analyzed the new administration’s likely policy toward the CIA:

“The incoming President seems eager to cut some of the agency’s spies and analysts. Instead, power would flow to operatives in the field – those who help arm allied foreign military forces and manage drone strikes … the Trump administration is poised to accelerate a transformation that has been happening since the 1960’s, with the CIA becoming less focused on spying and more on paramilitary organizations with a central role in violent conflicts.”

The first secret counter-terrorism operation under Trump’s orders took place on Jan. 29 in Yemen against an “Al Qaeda affiliate” and appeared to have been a botched mission though the Trump administration hailed it as a success. It was reported to have been carried out by U.S. Special Operation Forces, with no mention of CIA participation.

A senior Navy Seal was killed during the raid and Yemeni officials reported 30 civilians also killed, mostly women and children. The New York Times said the civilian casualties triggered widespread anger across Yemen toward the U.S., adding to the tensions over President Trump’s entry ban on Yemeni citizens.

Kurlantzick’s A Great Place to Have a War could help Americans remember the chaos and destruction visited upon one of the world’s most primitive societies. Whether the book will influence the future history of America’s way of war remains to be seen.

Don North is a veteran war correspondent who covered the Vietnam War and many other conflicts around the world. He is the author of Inappropriate Conduct,  the story of a World War II correspondent whose career was crushed by the intrigue he uncovered.

In the first of many mistakes of the Vietnam War, President Dwight Eisenhower said in 1954, “You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over quickly.”

CIA pilots and crews prepare to re-arm a T-28 bomber for bombing missions on Laos 1964.

By January 1961, Eisenhower had warned his successor John F. Kennedy that Laos was the most pressing foreign policy issue in the world and he had initiated Operation Momentum in Laos, for the CIA to train and arm a small force of Hmong tribesmen to fight the communist Pathet Lao and their North Vietnamese supporters.

But history would prove the “domino theory” in Southeast Asia was a misconception of tragic proportions. Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines would all confidently resist communist influence and would have surely have done so without the bloodbath of millions of deaths across Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

As a young freelance journalist in 1965, I tried to cover the secret war in Laos. In the capital Vientiane, I encountered CIA pilots running supplies to the Hmong army in Long Chen and urged them, over many beers at the bar of the Continental Hotel, to take me along but without success.

Now, more than a half century later, author Joshua Kurlantzick, a senior fellow for Southeast Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations, has published a book, A Great Place to Have a War, based on recently declassified documents and interviews with major players behind the secret war in Laos.

He also analyzes how the conflict in Laos was the genesis of the CIA’s support for clandestine paramilitary operations around the world, a pattern that continues through today. He concludes that the strategy in Laos set a sinister precedent for American presidents to conduct war without congressional or media oversight.

Kurlantzick writes,

“The Laos program would balloon in men and budget. It would grow into a massive undertaking run by CIA operatives. CIA leadership saw that an inexpensive proxy war could be a template for wars when U.S. presidents were looking for ways to continue the Cold War without going through Congress or committing ground troops. The CIA leadership thought that Laos was a great place to have a war.”

An army of hill tribes, mostly Hmong under the command of General Vang Pao, who initially led a ragged band of 5,000 guerrillas recruited and equipped by CIA officers. For 14 years, this irregular army fought the communists with Vang Pao’s guerrilla forces finally numbering 100,000 irregular troops.

Over those years, more bombs were dropped on Laos than were dropped on Japan and Germany during World War II. By the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, some 200,000 Laotians, both civilian and military had been killed, including at least 30,000 Hmong, with another 750,000 Laotians made homeless by the bombing. Some 700 Americans, mostly CIA officers, contractors and U.S. military also died in the Laos conflict, although those American deaths would not be revealed for decades.

Today, Laos is a failed country still strewn with landmines and other ordnance that take the limbs and lives of Laotians every day. Only 1 percent of the unexploded ordnance is believed to have been cleared and an estimated 20,000 Laotians have been killed or injured since the bombing ceased.

A Destructive Debacle

By most measures, the CIA’s war in Laos was a debacle that virtually destroyed a civilization. Plus, the war was “lost” from the U.S. government’s perspective when the country disappeared into the communist Vietnamese orbit. But by the CIA’s yardstick, it was a great success.

Hmong warlord Vang Pao who led the tribal army under the direction of the CIA until 1975.

“In the opinion of many officers in the CIA Clandestine services, the paramilitary programs that the agency operated in Laos between 1963-71 were the most successful ever mounted,” according to a quote from newly declassified CIA records cited by author Kurlantzick. “Small in numbers of personnel and even smaller in relative dollar costs, the CIA Laos operations shone in contrast to the ponderous operations of the US military forces in Vietnam.”

CIA Director Richard Helms declared that the agency had proven itself in Laos and had tied down 70,000 North Vietnamese troops who might otherwise have fought Americans in Vietnam. Laos would become the template for a new type of large, secret war for decades to come.

In his book, Kurlantzick concentrates on four remarkable individuals who in partnership with the CIA would control the agency’s war in Laos. All four have died recently, but Kurlantzick interviewed three of them.

There was Bill Lair, an American veteran of the U.S. Army’s 3rd Division in World War II who joined the CIA in Bangkok to train Thai troops for a possible invasion by China. Lair, adept at the Thai and Lao languages, was later sent to Laos where he would become the first chief agent to deal with the Hmong warlord Vang Pao.

There was Vang Pao, who met Lair in January 1961 and promised that if Lair would provide weapons he would gather 10,000 men to be trained by the CIA. Vang Pao had a reputation of having a sharp mind but his rage, sadness and energy sometimes overtook his abilities and knowledge.

There was Ambassador William Sullivan, who took his post in Vientiane in 1964 and soon became the most powerful U.S. ambassador in the world, in charge of the secret war in Laos. Sullivan’s power encompassed far more than the usual duties of filing reports on the political situation and attending diplomatic receptions. He had a strong respect for the CIA, unlike many U.S. ambassadors.

Sullivan also had a close relationship with President Lyndon Johnson, which Sullivan felt gave him a free hand to run the war in Laos. Called to testify before Congress, Sullivan drew the ire of Sen. William Fulbright, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who complained: “We pretend Laos is a sovereign country. We are pretending we are not there? You are deceiving the American people and Congress.”

Sullivan, who didn’t mention that he had commanded nearly every aspect of the operation in Laos, later became National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger’s right-hand man at the Paris peace talks. (Sullivan was the only one of the four principals whom Kurlantzick did not interview.)

The fourth principal in the Laotian war was Tony Poe, who had experienced heavy combat with the U.S. Marines island-hopping across the Pacific during World War II. When the Korean War broke out in 1950, Poe signed up to train Korean saboteurs. In 1961, Poe arrived in Laos to help train the Hmong who had become the center of Operation Momentum.

Graphic for the movie, “Apocalypse Now,” which featured Marlon Brando as a crazed U.S. intelligence operative leading an irregular army, a character believed drawn from the CIA’s covert war in Laos.

Poe was a hard-drinking combat trainer who sought opportunities to fight with the troops he had trained. He had a reputation of ruthlessness that included tales of cutting heads off North Vietnamese troops and dropping them from a helicopter. He is said to have shipped bags of ears cut from enemy soldiers to the U.S. Embassy in Vientiane.

In the mountains with his private army and drinking heavily, many of Poe’s colleagues believed he had gone mad. However, in 1975, Poe was awarded a second CIA intelligence medal for “extraordinary heroism.” It is believed Poe was the model for Marlon Brando’s portrayal of Col. Kurtz in the film “Apocalypse Now.”

Enduring Lessons

The lessons from Laos had long-term effects on how the CIA would operate for years. After 1975, agents with Laos experience took over CIA stations all over the world and held senior jobs in agency headquarters. They brought with them a conviction the CIA could handle large-scale war fighting skills, reported Kurlantzick.

The secret war also had echoes up to the present.

“The post-9/11 war on terror replicates the Laos war in other critical ways: CIA activities are totally unwatched by the public and the media. The strategies used to keep most of the war on terror secret … would have been completely familiar to the CIA operatives running the Laos war.”

In his last foreign trip, President Obama went to Laos, the first sitting U.S. president to ever do so. In a speech in Vientiane in September that got little notice back home, he offered no apologies, but pledged to increase funding for clearing unexploded bombs by $90 million over the next three years.

President Barack Obama speaks in Vientiane, Laos, in September 2016 to announce an additional $90 million aid for bomb removal in the next three years. (White House Photo)

“Given our history here, the United States has a moral obligation to help Laos heal,” Obama said. “At the time the U.S. did not acknowledge America’s role. Even now, many Americans are not fully aware of this chapter in our history, and it’s important that we remember today.”

Kurlantzick didn’t complete the research and transcript for his book until October, before the election of Donald Trump as president, but in an article for the Washington Post’s Outlook section Jan. 22, he analyzed the new administration’s likely policy toward the CIA:

“The incoming President seems eager to cut some of the agency’s spies and analysts. Instead, power would flow to operatives in the field – those who help arm allied foreign military forces and manage drone strikes … the Trump administration is poised to accelerate a transformation that has been happening since the 1960’s, with the CIA becoming less focused on spying and more on paramilitary organizations with a central role in violent conflicts.”

The first secret counter-terrorism operation under Trump’s orders took place on Jan. 29 in Yemen against an “Al Qaeda affiliate” and appeared to have been a botched mission though the Trump administration hailed it as a success. It was reported to have been carried out by U.S. Special Operation Forces, with no mention of CIA participation.

A senior Navy Seal was killed during the raid and Yemeni officials reported 30 civilians also killed, mostly women and children. The New York Times said the civilian casualties triggered widespread anger across Yemen toward the U.S., adding to the tensions over President Trump’s entry ban on Yemeni citizens.

Kurlantzick’s A Great Place to Have a War could help Americans remember the chaos and destruction visited upon one of the world’s most primitive societies. Whether the book will influence the future history of America’s way of war remains to be seen.

Don North is a veteran war correspondent who covered the Vietnam War and many other conflicts around the world. He is the author of Inappropriate Conduct,  the story of a World War II correspondent whose career was crushed by the intrigue he uncovered.

Gaining acceptance in Official Washington is a lot like getting admittance into a secret society’s inner sanctum by uttering some nonsensical password. In Washington to show you belong, you must express views that are patently untrue or blatantly hypocritical.

Fox News’ anchor Bill O’Reilly interviewing President Donald Trump.

For instance, you might be called upon to say that “Iran is the principal source of terrorism” when that title clearly belongs to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf state allies that have funded Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Islamic State. But truth has no particularly value in Official Washington; adherence to “group think” is what’s important.

Similarly, you might have to deny any “moral equivalence” between killings attributed to Russian President Vladimir Putin and killings authorized by U.S. presidents. In this context, the fact that the urbane Barack Obama scheduled time one day a week to check off people for targeted assassinations isn’t relevant. Nor is the reality that Donald Trump has joined this elite club of official killers by approving a botched and bloody raid in Yemen that slaughtered a number of women and children (and left one U.S. soldier dead, too).

You have to understand that “our killings” are always good or at least justifiable (innocent mistakes do happen from time to time), but Russian killings are always bad. Indeed, Official Washington has so demonized Putin that any untoward death in Russia can be blamed on him whether there is any evidence or not. To suggest that evidence is needed shows that you must be a “Moscow stooge.”

To violate these inviolable norms of Official Washington, in which participants must intuitively grasp the value of such “group think” and the truism of “American exceptionalism,” marks you as a dangerous outsider who must be marginalized or broken.

Currently, President Trump is experiencing this official opprobrium as he is widely denounced by Republicans, Democrats and “news” people because he didn’t react properly to a question from Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly terming Putin “a killer.”

“There are a lot of killers.” Trump responded.

“We’ve got a lot of killers. What do you think — our country’s so innocent. You think our country’s so innocent?”

Aghast at Trump’s heresy, O’Reilly sputtered, “I don’t know of any government leaders that are killers.”

Trump: “Well — take a look at what we’ve done too. We made a lot of mistakes. I’ve been against the war in Iraq from the beginning.”

O’Reilly: “But mistakes are different than —“

Trump: “A lot of mistakes, but a lot of people were killed. A lot of killers around, believe me.”

‘Moral Equivalence’

Though Trump is justly criticized for often making claims that aren’t true, here he was saying something that clearly was true. But it has drawn fierce condemnation from across Official Washington, not only from Democrats but from Trump’s fellow Republicans, too. Neoconservative Washington Post opinion writer Charles Krauthammer objected fiercely to Trump’s “moral equivalence,” and CNN’s Anderson Cooper chimed in. lamenting Trump’s deviation into “equivalence,” i.e. holding the U.S. government to the same ethical standards as the Russian government.

Then-Vice President George H.W. Bush with CIA Director William Casey at the White House on Feb. 11, 1981. (Photo credit: Reagan Library)

This “moral equivalence” argument has been with us at least since the Reagan administration when human rights groups objected to President Reagan’s support for right-wing governments in Central America that engaged in “death squad” tactics against political dissidents, including the murders of priests and nuns and genocide against disaffected Indian tribes. To suggest that Reagan and his friends should be subjected to the same standards that he applied to left-wing authoritarian governments earned you the accusation of “moral equivalence.”

Declassified documents from Reagan’s White House show that this P.R. strategy was refined at National Security Council meetings led by U.S. intelligence propaganda experts. Now the “moral equivalence” theme is being revived to discredit a new Republican president who dares challenge this particular Official Washington “group think.”

Lots of Killing

The unpleasant truth is that all leaders of major countries and many leaders of smaller countries are “killers.” President Obama admitted that he had ordered military strikes in seven different countries to kill people. His Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rejoiced over the grisly murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi with a clever twist on a famous Julius Caesar boast of conquest: “We came, we saw, he died,” Clinton chirped.

President George W. Bush launched an illegal war against Iraq based on false pretenses, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, many of them children and other civilians.

President Bill Clinton ordered a vicious bombing campaign against the Serbian capital of Belgrade, which included intentionally targeting the Serb TV building and killing 16 civilian employees because Clinton considered the station’s news reports to be “propaganda,” i.e., not in line with U.S. propaganda.

After the U.S. bombing in 1991 that incinerated more than 400 civilians, the Amiriyah Bunker in Baghdad was turned into a memorial to the victims. Since the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, the memorial was closed to the public.

President George H.W. Bush slaughtered scores of Panamanians who happened to live near the headquarters of the Panamanian Defense Forces and he killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, including incinerating a civilian bomb shelter in Baghdad, after he brushed aside proposals for resolving Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait peacefully. (Bush wanted a successful war as a way to rally the American people behind future foreign military operations, so, in his words, the country could kick “the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all.”)

Other U.S. presidents have had more or less blood on their hands than these recent chief executives, but it is hard to identify any modern U.S. president who has not been a “killer” in some form, inflicting death upon innocents whether as part of some “justifiable” mission or not.

But the mainstream U.S. press corps routinely adopts double standards when assessing acts by a U.S. president and those of an “enemy.” When the U.S. kills people, the mainstream media bends over backwards to rationalize the violence, but does the opposite if the killing is authorized by some demonized foreign leader.

That is now the case with Putin. Any accusation against Putin – no matter how lacking in evidence – is treated as credible and any evidence of Putin’s innocence is ridiculed or suppressed.

That was the case with a documentary that debunked claims that hedge fund accountant Sergei Magnitsky was murdered in a Russian prison because he was a whistleblower when the documentary showed that he was a suspect in a massive money-laundering scheme and died of natural causes. Although produced by a documentarian who started out planning to do a sympathetic portrayal of Magnitsky, the facts led in a different direction that caused the documentary to be shunned by the European Union and given minimal distribution in the United States.

By contrast, the ease with which Putin is called a murderer – based on “mysterious deaths” inside Russia – is reminiscent of how American right-wing groups suggested that Bill and Hillary Clinton were murderers by distributing a long list of “mysterious deaths” somehow related to the Clinton “scandals” from their Arkansas days. While there was no specific evidence connecting the Clintons to any of these deaths, the sheer number created suspicions that were hard to knock down without making you a “Clinton apologist.” Similarly, a demand for actual evidence proving Putin’s guilt in a specific case makes you a “Putin apologist.”

However, as a leader of a powerful nation facing threats from terrorism and other national security dangers, Putin is surely a “killer,” much as U.S. presidents are killers. That appears to have been President Trump’s point, that the United States doesn’t have clean hands when it comes to shedding innocent blood.

But telling such an unpleasant albeit obvious truth is not the way to gain entrance into the inner sanctum of Official Washington’s Deep State. The passwords for admission require you to say a lot of things that are patently false. Any inconvenient truth-telling earns you the bum’s rush out into the alley, even if you’re President of the United States.

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

Israel has banned anaesthetic gas from entering the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Ministry of Health revealed yesterday.

This is the third time that the occupation has prevented Nitrous Oxide (nitrox) gas, which is used for patients during surgery, from entering the besieged enclave, the ministry’s spokesman, Ashraf Al-Qidra, said. The ban means a number of urgent medical procedures have now been halted, he explained.

There are currently 200 patients awaiting urgent medical treatment in Gaza’s hospitals, Al-Qidra said.

In addition, he said, there healthcare sector in Gaza needs more than 4,000 kilogrammes of Nitrous Oxide each year, noting that the Israeli occupation rations the entry of the gas.

He urged international organisations to put pressure on the Israeli occupation in order to resume the entry of the vital gas to allow surgical operations to continue.

Amnesty International’s 48 page report titled, “Syria: Human Slaughterhouse: Mass Hangings and Extermination at Saydnaya Prison, Syria,” boasts bold claims, concluding:

…the Syrian authorities’ violations at Saydnaya amount to crimes against humanity. Amnesty International urgently calls for an independent and impartial investigation into crimes committed at Saydnaya.

However, even at a cursory glance, before even reading the full body of the report, under a section  titled, “Methodology,” Amnesty International admits it has no physical evidence whatsoever to substantiate what are admittedly only the testimony of alleged inmates and former workers at the prison, as well as figures within Syria’s opposition.

What you are looking at is a 3D model fabricated entirely in the United Kingdom, based solely on satellite pictures and hearsay. Passed off as evidence this technique of “forensic architecture” may soon become a new tool in the dissemination of war propaganda if it is not exposed.

Within the section titled, “Methodology,” the report admits:

Despite repeated requests by Amnesty International for access to Syria, and specifically for access to detention facilities operated by the Syrian authorities, Amnesty International has been barred by the Syrian authorities from carrying out research in the country and consequently has not had access to areas controlled by the Syrian government since the crisis began in 2011. Other independent human rights monitoring groups have faced similar obstacles.

In other words, Amnesty International had no access whatsoever to the prison, nor did any of the witnesses it allegedly interview provide relevant evidence taken from or near the prison.

The only photographs of the prison are taken from outer space via satellite imagery. The only other photos included in the report are of three men who allege they lost weight while imprisoned and a photo of one of eight alleged death certificates provided to family members of detainees who died at Saydnaya.

The alleged certificates admittedly reveal nothing regarding allegations of torture or execution.

Articles like, “Hearsay Extrapolated – Amnesty Claims Mass Executions In Syria, Provides Zero Proof,” provide a detailed examination of Amnesty’s “statistics,” while articles like, “Amnesty International “Human Slaughterhouse” Report Lacks Evidence, Credibility, Reeks Of State Department Propaganda,” cover the politically-motivated nature of both Amnesty International and the timing of the report’s promotion across the Western media.

However, there is another aspect of the report that remains unexplored – the fact that Amnesty International itself has openly admitted that the summation of the report was fabricated in the United Kingdom at Amnesty International’s office, using a process they call “forensic architecture,” in which the lack of actual, physical, photographic, and video evidence, is replaced by 3D animations and sound effects created by designers hired by Amnesty International.

Amnesty Hired Special Effects Experts to Fabricate “Evidence” 

In a video produced by Amnesty International accompanying their report, titled, “Inside Saydnaya: Syria’s Torture Prison,” the narrator admits in its opening seconds that Amnesty International possesses no actual evidence regarding the prison.

There are almost no pictures of its exterior [except satellite images] and none from inside. And what happens within its walls is cloaked in secrecy, until now.

Viewers are initially led to believe evidence has emerged, exposing what took place within the prison’s walls, but the narrator continues by explaining:

 We’ve devised a unique way of revealing what life is like inside a torture prison. And we’ve done it by talking to people who were there and have survived its horrors…

…and using their recollections and the testimony of others, we’ve build an interactive 3D model which can take you for the first time inside Saydnaya.

The narrator then explains:

In a unique collaboration, Amnesty International has teamed up with “Forensic Architecture” of Goldsmiths, University of London, to reconstruct both the sound and architecture of Saydnaya prison, and to do it using cutting-edge digital technology to create a model.

In other words, the summation of Amnesty International’s presentation was not accumulated from facts and evidence collected in Syria, but instead fabricated entirely in London using 3D models, animations, and audio software, based on the admittedly baseless accounts of alleged witnesses who claim to have been in or otherwise associated with the prison.

Eyal Weizman, director of “Forensic Architecture,” would admit that “memory” alone was the basis of both his collaboration with Amnesty International, and thus, the basis for Amnesty’s 48 page report:

Memory is the only resource within which we can start [to] reconstruct what has taken place. What does it feel like to be a prisoner in Saydnaya?

Weizman’s organization, “Forensic Architecture,” on its own website, describes its activities:

Forensic Architecture is a research agency based at Goldsmiths, University of London. It includes a team of architects, scholars, filmmakers, designers, lawyers and scientists to undertake research that gathers and presents spatial analysis in legal and political forums.

We provide evidence for international prosecution teams, political organisations, NGOs, and the United Nations in various processes worldwide. Additionally, the agency undertakes historical and theoretical examinations of the history and present status of forensic practices in articulating notions of public truth.

In other words, special effects experts and their tools – usually employed in the creation of fictional movies for the entertainment industry or for architectural firms to propose yet-to-exist projects – are now being employed to fabricate evidence in a political context when none in reality exists.

While the work of “Forensic Architecture” may be of interest to developing theories, it is by no means useful in providing actual evidence – evidence being understood as an actual available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid – not a fabricated body of supposed facts or information.

Technology used for creating Hollywood dinosaurs and aliens, or an architectural proposal for a vacant lot, is now being used to fabricate evidence for politically motivated reports when no actual evidence exists.

The work of “Forensic Architecture” and the witness accounts gathered by Amnesty International – all of which were admittedly gathered outside of Syria – would form the basis of an initial inquiry, not a final report nor the basis of a conclusion that human rights violations not only took place, but that they constituted crimes against humanity and demanded immediate international recourse.

Amnesty International’s report lacked any actual evidence, with its presentation consisting instead of admittedly fabricated images, sounds, maps, and diagrams. Amnesty – lacking actual evidence – instead abused its reputation and the techniques of classical deception to target and manipulate audiences emotionally. What Amnesty International is engaged in is not “human rights advocacy,” but rather politically-motivated war propaganda simply hiding behind such advocacy.

Exposing this technique of openly and shamelessly fabricating the summation of an internationally released report – promoted unquestioningly by prominent Western papers and media platforms, including the BBC, CNN, the Independent, and others – prevents Amnesty and other organizations like it from continuing to use the trappings of science and engineering as cover to deliver monstrous lies to the public.

The Government of India is attempting to push through the commercial cultivation of genetically modified (GM) food crops. In an attempt to spearhead the drive by making GM mustard the first such crop in the country, the government has apparently allowed regulatory delinquency, non-transparent procedures and fraudulent science. Aruna Rodrigues argues what is happening is blatant criminality and has taken the issue to the Supreme Court, which chairs the next hearing of the case on 7 February (date has since been put back a few days).

There is no proof that GM mustard is wanted or actually needed and one of (if not) the main arguments used to justify its introduction (reduction of edible oils imports) is fundamentally flawed. It raises the question: What is the point of GM mustard?

As lead petitioner in the case against GM mustard, Rodrigues is seeking a moratorium on the release of any genetically modified organisms into the environment pending a comprehensive, transparent and rigorous biosafety protocol in the public domain conducted by agencies of independent expert bodies, the results of which are made public.

Government bogus narrative on Bt cotton to drive GM food crops into India

The latest development in this ongoing saga involves a comprehensive deconstruction of the government’s claims about Bt cotton, India’s first genetically modified commercial crop. Rodrigues argues that the government is using a false narrative about the history and successes of GM cotton in the country to try to demonstrate the success of GM technology per se and thus drive GM food crops into the country.

She sets out her case against Bt cotton in a rejoinder affidavit in response to the government’s previous reply affidavit that heralded the apparent successes of the GM crop. According to Rodrigues, the government appears to be “conducting a deliberate exercise in dissimulation in the reporting of facts and data and seeking to reconstruct a new set of facts.” She adds that government data and statistics on Bt cotton “cannot be distinguished from what would be expected from the Industry.”

According to Rodrigues, the government is unswerving in its plans to use Bt cotton as the ‘template of success’, despite unequivocal hard data to the contrary. The plan seems to be to introduce wholesale into Indian agriculture Bt food crops in virtually the entire range of the nation’s crops.

Whereas the government argues the apparent success (better yields and pest resistance) of Bt cotton is due to genetically modified traits, evidence suggests that other factors have contributed to any improved yields. For example, Dr K R Kranthi, Director of the Central Institute for Cotton Research in Nagpur recently completed his PhD study into Bt cotton and concludes:

“Bt-cotton plus higher fertilizers plus increased irrigation also received a protective cover from the seed treatment of neonicotinoid insecticides such as imidacloprid, without which majority of the Bt-cotton hybrids which were susceptible to sucking pests would have yielded far less. It can safely be said that yield increase in India would not have happened with Bt-cotton alone without enhanced fertilizer usage, without increased irrigation, without seed treatment chemicals, and the absence of drought-free decade.”

Dr Krathni has 20 years’ experience in the field of cotton research. Readers may also wish to read this by Professor Glenn Stone, who quotes Kranthi to make the point that “in none of the top 4 cotton-producing states do the trends fit the claim that Bt cotton has boosted yields.”

Moreover, it must be made clear that there is no trait for yield in the Bt technology, which is based on reducing insecticide use and, even in this respect, it has been a failure.

Failing pesticide treadmill and now a failing biotech treadmill

Bt cotton is no longer effective for controlling the bollworm pest. Rodrigues argues that scientific publications clearly show that pink bollworm developed resistance to Bt-cotton Bollgard II six years ago in India. Resistance is now widespread and has led to a failure of the Bt technology. The evidence provided by Rodrigues is multi-sourced, including official statistical data. Readers are urged to consult the rejoinder for all cited sources, which includes a summary of Dr Kranthi’s findings.

More than 1,000 hybrid Bt cotton varieties of dubious quality were developed and sold by several companies without proper assessment of the need for the technology or the economic benefits. It is now at the stage where 95% of all cotton farmers adopting hybrid Bt seed cannot save seed for replanting, and seed for adapted domestic Desi cottons have disappeared from the market place. Farmers are now trapped on a failing biotech treadmill.

The rush to implement Bt cotton in India started in 2002. It was intended to solve a bollworm problem created by pesticide misuse (a failing pesticide treadmill). After its introduction, yields increased initially due to the dual effects of increased subsidised fertilisers and there was a temporary reduction in insecticide use. However, yields have since stagnated and insecticide use has increased to pre-2002 levels as new and highly damaging pests not controlled by the Bt technology have emerged and pest resistance to the Bt technology is spreading.

Rodrigues notes that more than 65% of India’s poorest farmers have less than a hectare of land. In rain fed areas, yields depend on the timing and quantity of highly variable monsoon rains. Add to that the high costs of Bt hybrid seed, continued insecticide use and usury costs and the situation has become economically devastating for poor farmers and is likely the proximate cause of the increase incidence of suicides.

What if this scenario develops if biotechnology applications are introduced for Indian food crops across the board?

The 2005 base year for Bt cotton tells a different story

Rodrigues provides compelling evidence to show that claims for the success of Bt cotton derive from playing fast and loose with the data. Aside from abnormally low cotton yields in 2002 (taken by many as the base year for Bt cotton in India), the evidence indicates that 2005 should be regarded as the actual base year as Bt cotton then hit a double-digit market share for the first time.

This essentially changes the dynamics of Bt cotton growth drastically, providing a truer picture. The drastic fall in productivity in the last two years (2014 and 15) means that cotton productivity (because of resistance and crop failures) has now fallen back to levels in the pre-Bt era. Rodrigues adds that it must be also noted that cotton yield in the pre-Bt era increased significantly from its low in 2002 (191 kg/Ha) to 318 kg/ha in 2004-2005 registering an increase of 66% in just 3 years (DES). This increase was a result of increased acreage under hybrids and a new class of insecticides. The momentum of this upward swing carried into the Bt era that had nothing to do with the Bt. technology.

Rodrigues also notes that India’s global rank is a dismal 30-32nd in terms of cotton yield, overtaken by non-Bt producing countries and despite irrigation infrastructure in 4.8 million hectares having improved significantly.

Evidence set out in the rejoinder affidavit shows the following.

1) Insecticide usage on cotton in 2001 was 10,988 metric tonnes without Bt-cotton.

2) Usage increased to 11,598 metric tonnes in 2013 with more than 95% area under Bt-cotton.

3) In 2002, insecticide usage on cotton was 0.88 kg per hectare, which increased to 0.97 kg per hectare in 2013.

Thus, there is no evidence of any advantage in insecticide usage due to Bt-cotton.

Rodrigues goes on to dismiss other claims with regard to Bt. It has not resulted in better incomes for cotton farmers. Also, bee colony collapse disorder (CCD) is a specific fall-out of Bt cotton in India. Neonicotinoids are used as seed treatment in India on every seed of hybrid Bt cotton, but not on desi cotton varieties. CCD has been extensively documented along with the suspected role of neonicotinoids.

GM is a dying technology: India should let it rest in peace

Rodrigues states:

“Never has an agri-tech been sold as a ‘magic bean’ to farmers, like Bt cotton, with opprobrium attaching to our regulators and ministries of governance who supported and continue to support this technology-castle built on sand, in the absence of evidence and when the hard data said the opposite.”

The area planted with Bt cotton has increased substantially, even displacing food crops of lentils and oilseeds. Despite stagnating yields, which is the real measure of productivity (kg lint/Ha), ‘adoption’ or market share was deliberately used to camouflage the reality.

There should be a very clear line between regulation and product promotion. However, in India (as elsewhere), official bodies seem to not know the difference and are quite content to act as GM agritech product promoters while masquerading as regulators.

In addition to this, officials also seem quite confused when it comes to actual productivity. Rodrigues says:

“There is little distance between our regulators and institutions and ministries of governance and the supposedly regulated biotech industry, all of which together, promote GM crops as vendors. Is it to be assumed that the U of I [Union of India] does not know the difference between ‘adoption’ and ‘productivity’?”

The rejoinder affidavit concludes by asserting that Bt technology is a dying technology worldwide because it is proving to be unsustainable on the ground. This is certainly true of Bt cotton in India. Therefore, Rodrigues says that it would be utterly tragic if at this juncture, India were to succumb to industry pressure and introduce Bt technology into other food crops as is clearly the plan.

It is clearly the case that Bt cotton cannot be used as a model of success to justify the push for GM. Along with fudged data and invalid field tests, it smacks of desperation and constitutes part of a monumental bluff instigated on behalf of powerful commercial interests.

Colin Todhunter is an independent writer https://twitter.com/Colin_Todhunter 

The Government of India is attempting to push through the commercial cultivation of genetically modified (GM) food crops. In an attempt to spearhead the drive by making GM mustard the first such crop in the country, the government has apparently allowed regulatory delinquency, non-transparent procedures and fraudulent science. Aruna Rodrigues argues what is happening is blatant criminality and has taken the issue to the Supreme Court, which chairs the next hearing of the case on 7 February (date has since been put back a few days).

There is no proof that GM mustard is wanted or actually needed and one of (if not) the main arguments used to justify its introduction (reduction of edible oils imports) is fundamentally flawed. It raises the question: What is the point of GM mustard?

As lead petitioner in the case against GM mustard, Rodrigues is seeking a moratorium on the release of any genetically modified organisms into the environment pending a comprehensive, transparent and rigorous biosafety protocol in the public domain conducted by agencies of independent expert bodies, the results of which are made public.

Government bogus narrative on Bt cotton to drive GM food crops into India

The latest development in this ongoing saga involves a comprehensive deconstruction of the government’s claims about Bt cotton, India’s first genetically modified commercial crop. Rodrigues argues that the government is using a false narrative about the history and successes of GM cotton in the country to try to demonstrate the success of GM technology per se and thus drive GM food crops into the country.

She sets out her case against Bt cotton in a rejoinder affidavit in response to the government’s previous reply affidavit that heralded the apparent successes of the GM crop. According to Rodrigues, the government appears to be “conducting a deliberate exercise in dissimulation in the reporting of facts and data and seeking to reconstruct a new set of facts.” She adds that government data and statistics on Bt cotton “cannot be distinguished from what would be expected from the Industry.”

According to Rodrigues, the government is unswerving in its plans to use Bt cotton as the ‘template of success’, despite unequivocal hard data to the contrary. The plan seems to be to introduce wholesale into Indian agriculture Bt food crops in virtually the entire range of the nation’s crops.

Whereas the government argues the apparent success (better yields and pest resistance) of Bt cotton is due to genetically modified traits, evidence suggests that other factors have contributed to any improved yields. For example, Dr K R Kranthi, Director of the Central Institute for Cotton Research in Nagpur recently completed his PhD study into Bt cotton and concludes:

“Bt-cotton plus higher fertilizers plus increased irrigation also received a protective cover from the seed treatment of neonicotinoid insecticides such as imidacloprid, without which majority of the Bt-cotton hybrids which were susceptible to sucking pests would have yielded far less. It can safely be said that yield increase in India would not have happened with Bt-cotton alone without enhanced fertilizer usage, without increased irrigation, without seed treatment chemicals, and the absence of drought-free decade.”

Dr Krathni has 20 years’ experience in the field of cotton research. Readers may also wish to read this by Professor Glenn Stone, who quotes Kranthi to make the point that “in none of the top 4 cotton-producing states do the trends fit the claim that Bt cotton has boosted yields.”

Moreover, it must be made clear that there is no trait for yield in the Bt technology, which is based on reducing insecticide use and, even in this respect, it has been a failure.

Failing pesticide treadmill and now a failing biotech treadmill

Bt cotton is no longer effective for controlling the bollworm pest. Rodrigues argues that scientific publications clearly show that pink bollworm developed resistance to Bt-cotton Bollgard II six years ago in India. Resistance is now widespread and has led to a failure of the Bt technology. The evidence provided by Rodrigues is multi-sourced, including official statistical data. Readers are urged to consult the rejoinder for all cited sources, which includes a summary of Dr Kranthi’s findings.

More than 1,000 hybrid Bt cotton varieties of dubious quality were developed and sold by several companies without proper assessment of the need for the technology or the economic benefits. It is now at the stage where 95% of all cotton farmers adopting hybrid Bt seed cannot save seed for replanting, and seed for adapted domestic Desi cottons have disappeared from the market place. Farmers are now trapped on a failing biotech treadmill.

The rush to implement Bt cotton in India started in 2002. It was intended to solve a bollworm problem created by pesticide misuse (a failing pesticide treadmill). After its introduction, yields increased initially due to the dual effects of increased subsidised fertilisers and there was a temporary reduction in insecticide use. However, yields have since stagnated and insecticide use has increased to pre-2002 levels as new and highly damaging pests not controlled by the Bt technology have emerged and pest resistance to the Bt technology is spreading.

Rodrigues notes that more than 65% of India’s poorest farmers have less than a hectare of land. In rain fed areas, yields depend on the timing and quantity of highly variable monsoon rains. Add to that the high costs of Bt hybrid seed, continued insecticide use and usury costs and the situation has become economically devastating for poor farmers and is likely the proximate cause of the increase incidence of suicides.

What if this scenario develops if biotechnology applications are introduced for Indian food crops across the board?

The 2005 base year for Bt cotton tells a different story

Rodrigues provides compelling evidence to show that claims for the success of Bt cotton derive from playing fast and loose with the data. Aside from abnormally low cotton yields in 2002 (taken by many as the base year for Bt cotton in India), the evidence indicates that 2005 should be regarded as the actual base year as Bt cotton then hit a double-digit market share for the first time.

This essentially changes the dynamics of Bt cotton growth drastically, providing a truer picture. The drastic fall in productivity in the last two years (2014 and 15) means that cotton productivity (because of resistance and crop failures) has now fallen back to levels in the pre-Bt era. Rodrigues adds that it must be also noted that cotton yield in the pre-Bt era increased significantly from its low in 2002 (191 kg/Ha) to 318 kg/ha in 2004-2005 registering an increase of 66% in just 3 years (DES). This increase was a result of increased acreage under hybrids and a new class of insecticides. The momentum of this upward swing carried into the Bt era that had nothing to do with the Bt. technology.

Rodrigues also notes that India’s global rank is a dismal 30-32nd in terms of cotton yield, overtaken by non-Bt producing countries and despite irrigation infrastructure in 4.8 million hectares having improved significantly.

Evidence set out in the rejoinder affidavit shows the following.

1) Insecticide usage on cotton in 2001 was 10,988 metric tonnes without Bt-cotton.

2) Usage increased to 11,598 metric tonnes in 2013 with more than 95% area under Bt-cotton.

3) In 2002, insecticide usage on cotton was 0.88 kg per hectare, which increased to 0.97 kg per hectare in 2013.

Thus, there is no evidence of any advantage in insecticide usage due to Bt-cotton.

Rodrigues goes on to dismiss other claims with regard to Bt. It has not resulted in better incomes for cotton farmers. Also, bee colony collapse disorder (CCD) is a specific fall-out of Bt cotton in India. Neonicotinoids are used as seed treatment in India on every seed of hybrid Bt cotton, but not on desi cotton varieties. CCD has been extensively documented along with the suspected role of neonicotinoids.

GM is a dying technology: India should let it rest in peace

Rodrigues states:

“Never has an agri-tech been sold as a ‘magic bean’ to farmers, like Bt cotton, with opprobrium attaching to our regulators and ministries of governance who supported and continue to support this technology-castle built on sand, in the absence of evidence and when the hard data said the opposite.”

The area planted with Bt cotton has increased substantially, even displacing food crops of lentils and oilseeds. Despite stagnating yields, which is the real measure of productivity (kg lint/Ha), ‘adoption’ or market share was deliberately used to camouflage the reality.

There should be a very clear line between regulation and product promotion. However, in India (as elsewhere), official bodies seem to not know the difference and are quite content to act as GM agritech product promoters while masquerading as regulators.

In addition to this, officials also seem quite confused when it comes to actual productivity. Rodrigues says:

“There is little distance between our regulators and institutions and ministries of governance and the supposedly regulated biotech industry, all of which together, promote GM crops as vendors. Is it to be assumed that the U of I [Union of India] does not know the difference between ‘adoption’ and ‘productivity’?”

The rejoinder affidavit concludes by asserting that Bt technology is a dying technology worldwide because it is proving to be unsustainable on the ground. This is certainly true of Bt cotton in India. Therefore, Rodrigues says that it would be utterly tragic if at this juncture, India were to succumb to industry pressure and introduce Bt technology into other food crops as is clearly the plan.

It is clearly the case that Bt cotton cannot be used as a model of success to justify the push for GM. Along with fudged data and invalid field tests, it smacks of desperation and constitutes part of a monumental bluff instigated on behalf of powerful commercial interests.

Colin Todhunter is an independent writer https://twitter.com/Colin_Todhunter 

A Lakota prophecy tells of a mythic Black Snake that will move underground and bring destruction to the Earth. The “seventh sign” in Hopi prophecy involves the ocean turning black and bringing death to many sea-dwelling creatures. It doesn’t take an over-active imagination to make a connection between these images and oil pipelines and spills.

It’s troubling enough that the growing “Black Snake” has branched out at an alarming rate, forming a massive subterranean coast-to-coast web. But to make matters worse, the nefarious reptile seems to suffer from leaky gut syn­drome, so that it functions as a toxic underground sprinkler sys­tem, spreading gas, oil, and poi­sonous byproducts everywhere it goes—including into waterways and drinking water sources.

Protest actions against major pipelines such as the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipeline have called attention to the potentially devastating effects of pipelines, but much of the gen­eral public still doesn’t understand the scope of the existing and pro­posed pipeline network in the US and around the globe. Executive actions by Donald Trump just four days into his presidency practically guarantee expedited approval for DAPL, as well as for Keystone XL. This indicates, among other things, that the maze of oil and gas pipelines in the US will continue to expand at an unprecedented and reckless pace.

The US is already home to approximately 2.5 million miles of underground gas and oil pipeline. For the sake of comparison, only one other country exceeds 100,000 pipeline miles: Russia, with 161,502 miles. Canada places third, with just over 62,000 miles of pipeline, and all other countries fall far below that, with most containing fewer than 10,000 pipeline miles.

Over 72,000 miles of the US conduits carry crude oil, and more than 20 pipelines di­rectly threaten Native lands. The reach of the “Black Snake” is mind boggling, especially considering that every one of these pipelines has already contributed to or is al­most certain to contribute to the on­going devas­tation of Mother Earth.

Effectively opposing new pipe­lines and pipeline extensions will require the active participation of thou­sands, if not millions, of deter­mined citizens. Water is necessary for the life of every person on the planet, and the seriousness of the current situation compels each and every one of us to become involved to the greatest extent feasible.

The Dakota Access Pipeline remains a serious threat, not only to the water supply and sa­cred lands of the Standing Rock Sioux, but to all waterways and lands along the pipeline’s 1,200-mile path through North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois. This monstrosity is an environmen­tal disaster waiting to happen. The heroic water protectors at Standing Rock have achieved much, but now the ground they’ve gained must be fought for all over again. With the stroke of a poisonous presidential pen, Trump has already managed to betray both long-standing treaty and recent agreement, bringing dishonor and disgrace on the US government while jeopardizing water supplies and planetary well-being.

There are a number of other significant pipeline battles that must be fought with the same tenacity that the water protectors have shown at Standing Rock, including the Mountain Valley Pipeline, the Diamond Pipe­line, the Atlantic Sunrise expansion to the Transco Pipeline, the Trans­mountain Pipe­line expansion, the Bayou Bridge Pipeline, the Pilgrim Pipeline, the Trans-Pecos and Co­manche Trail Pipelines, the Algo­nquin Incremen­tal Pipeline, the Al­berta Clipper pipeline expansion project, North­ern Gateway Pipe­line, and more. Some of these projects involve the transport of natural gas, while oth­ers will carry refined or crude oil—including the particularly filthy Bakken oil.

The proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP), which has an an­ticipated construction start date of mid-2017, will—if allowed to pro­ceed—carry fracked natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica shale regions along a route beginning in northwestern West Virginia and ending in southern Virginia, with a detour into Pennsylvania. Objec­tions to the project include the con­duit’s proximity (one-tenth of a mile in some places) to two major water supplies and countless resi­dential wells. The MVP would cross 377 bodies of water, the Ap­palachian Trail and the Blue Ridge Parkway, and could adversely af­fect thousands of acres of forest habitat.

The Diamond Pipeline, which was approved in August of 2016, is intended to transport “sweet” crude oil from Cushing, Oklahoma, across Arkansas, to the Valero Memphis (Tennessee) Refinery. Along the way, the Diamond will cross the Arkansas River, the Illi­nois Bayou, the White River, St. Francis River, and the Mississippi River.

One of the most disturbing as­pects of the Diamond Pipeline is its point of origin. Cushing, Okla­homa, is the self-proclaimed “Pipe­line Crossroads of the World,” a ti­tle proudly announced on signs placed at the entrances and exits to the town, which was once a part of the Sac and Fox reservations. The “tank farm,” which occupies sev­eral square miles, is one of the largest oil storage facilities in the world, and thirteen major pipelines run into and out of the busy hub.

As if pipeline leaks and spills weren’t enough cause for concern, the area surrounding Cushing has recently become in­credibly earth­quake prone, thanks to the large number of waste-water injection wells. The US Geologi­cal Survey reports 825 earthquakes of a 1.5 magnitude or greater in the Cush­ing area between January 14, 2016 and the same date in 2017, with an alarming 5.8 record-setter in nearby Pawnee in September 2016. If Ar­kansas water protectors do not suc­ceed in halting construction, the Dia­mond Pipeline will add one more spoke to Cushing’s mammoth oil storage hub, and will become a major conduit spreading pollution and potential devastation across Ar­kansas, a state that has for years been promoted as “the Natural State.”

Each of the planned, proposed, and under-construction pipelines listed above is deserving of strong opposition, as are the many other pipelines still in the planning and approval stages. Why? Because they are dangerous, as evidenced by the number of leaks, spills, and explosions.

In the six-year period between 2010 and 2016, 4,215 pipeline inci­dents occurred. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration reports that pipeline accidents between 2010 and 2015 were responsible for a to­tal of 7 million gallons of crude oil being leaked into surrounding soil and waterways, and the as-yet-un­tallied quantities lost in 2016 and early 2017 incidents will add significantly to that total. Many of the existing pipelines are old and poorly main­tained, and for some reason, the newer pipelines are even more ac­cident prone.

Human error causes some of the pipeline accidents, while natural occurrences are re­sponsible for oth­ers. In 2013, for example, lightning struck a pipeline in North Dakota, causing 840,000 gallons of crude oil to spill onto a nearby wheat field. One wonders what will hap­pen when the ongoing swarm of fracking-related Okla­homa earth­quakes damages the Cushing oil storage tanks or the pipelines con­nected to the facility.

Oil pollutes the water and land, sickens, and kills. Natural gas con­tributes to climate change, pol­lutes the air, and explodes. Oil and gas pipelines create temporary jobs for a relative few and permanent jobs for a small handful.

In the long run, the only people who benefit fi­nancially from the “Black Snake” are the already wealthy oil corpora­tions. The oil industry gives new meaning to the term “filthy rich,” while individuals living near petro­chemical plants contend with chronic respiratory illnesses and high rates of cancer. With so many clean, green energy sources ready to be put into place, there is no reason to allow the Lakota leg­end of the planet-de­stroying Black Snake to become a permanent and fatal reality.

The turnaround will not hap­pen easily. In fact, it will be quite a struggle. Greed is strong, and the oil corporations wield un­reasonable power—and now they have even more friends in high places, including the one who may as well be referred to as the CEO of the USA. But the previous halting of the Keystone XL, and the tenuous and seemingly temporary victory at Standing Rock have proven that it is indeed possible to make a difference with determination and solidarity.

The frightening number of proposed pipelines and the fact that those pipelines will likely receive swift approval make it clear that the battle for Mother Earth is indeed a war. This war cannot be won by an unknown, faceless “them,” because there is no “them.” There is only us, and each and ev­ery one of us is needed—now.

Teressa Rose Ezell is a St. Louis writer and ac­tivist. She and her fam­ily live in the Tower Grove South neighbor­hood, where she was her district’s Green Party candidate for the Mis­souri House of Representa­tives. Teressa can be reached at teres­[email protected], or connect via Facebook.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi declared on Tuesday in Canberra that a war between the United States and China was unthinkable because of the disastrous losses that conflict would bring to both sides. However, the very fact that Wang was questioned about the Trump administration’s belligerent stance toward Beijing is another indication of the growing fears of conflict between the two nuclear-armed powers.

Speaking at a joint press conference with his Australian counterpart Julie Bishop, Wang was asked by an Australian journalist for his reaction to statements by the new US administration signalling “a stronger and even more aggressive posture towards China on a range of issues… How concerned are you really by the possibility of war between the US and China?”

The journalist specifically highlighted the comments of Trump’s top adviser Steve Bannon, predicting war between the US and China in five to ten years over the South China Sea. Bannon, who was speaking last March on the extreme right-wing web site Breibart, said:

“There is no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those.”

Wang was at pains to play down the danger of war, declaring that despite

“tough or sometimes even irrational failings on China-US relations” over the past four decades, the relationship had “defied all kinds of difficulties and has been moving forward continuously.”

Taking a shot at Bannon, Wang declared:

“Any sober-minded politician, they clearly recognise that there cannot be conflict between China and the United States because both will lose, and both sides cannot afford that.”

However, while continuing the confrontational stance of the previous Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” against China, the Trump administration represents a fundamental shift toward a no-holds barred assertion of the interests of American imperialism. Trump’s “America First” demagogy, which has been directed in particular against China, signifies a ruthless determination to halt the historic decline of the US in a struggle against rivals and allies alike through all, including military, means.

Moreover, while Yang is dismissive of Bannon, Trump has placed the fascistic, former editor of Breitbart News on the top tier of his National Security Council—that is, the body tasked with responding to emergencies and crises, as well as preparing and overseeing provocations, military interventions and wars.

It is no accident that Bannon focused on the South China Sea, which the Obama administration transformed into a dangerous international flash point through its destabilising interventions into China’s territorial disputes with its neighbours. Using China’s land reclamation activities on a handful of islets, Obama gave the green light for three “freedom of navigation” operations—that is, the dispatch of US navy destroyers within territorial waters claimed by China.

Trump and his advisers have been critical of the Obama administration’s actions for not being forceful enough in confronting Beijing over the South China Sea. In his confirmation hearing, Rex Tillerson, now US Secretary of State, said the Trump administration would “send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.”

Sending US destroyers within the 12-nautical-mile limits around Chinese islets was a reckless and provocative course that risked a military clash. Tillerson’s threat to block Chinese access in its South China Sea could be implemented only by imposing a naval blockade in the disputed waters—a flagrant act of war.

Foreign Minister Wang suggested that the Trump administration in office was already moderating its hard-line, anti-China stance. He pointed out that James Mattis, the new US Defence Secretary, stressed the importance of diplomacy in relation to the South China Sea disputes.

Mattis, who visited South Korea and Japan in his first overseas trip, had already raised tensions with China by concluding an agreement with Seoul to deploy an anti-ballistic missile system in South Korea and threatening North Korea with “overwhelming” force if it attacked the US and its allies. In Japan, Mattis affirmed that the US would back Japan in any war with China over disputed islets in the East China Sea.

Having provoked angry reactions from Beijing on these two volatile flash-points, Mattiss’s comments on the South China Sea were relatively low-key. He declared that China’s land reclamation activities had “shredded the trust of nations in the region” but the US would exhaust diplomatic efforts to resolve the issues. “At this time, we do not see any need for dramatic military moves,” he added.

While publicly calling “at this time” for diplomacy before conflict, privately, according to several news sources, Mattis spoke of far more aggressive military measures to top Japanese officials.

The Nikkei Asian Review reported: “Mattis said America would no longer be that tolerant of China’s behaviour in the South China Sea. He pledged to take an active role in protecting freedom of navigation… Specifically, the US is set to increase the frequency of patrols within 12 nautical miles of man-made islands China has constructed in the sea.”

The newspaper also noted comments by the US defence secretary

“likening China’s expansion today to an effort to re-create the tributary system of the Ming Dynasty… In Mattis’s telling, Beijing could be trying to use its military and economic might to re-create a similar set-up today, though such efforts will not be tolerated in the modern world.”

Confronted with a bellicose US administration and the threat of war, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) veers between trying to appease Washington and engaging in an arms race that only heightens the danger of conflict. A senior official with China’s Central Military Commission, Liu Guoshun, warned last month that “a war within the [US] president’s term, war breaking out tonight, are not just slogans but the reality.”

The Chinese regime, which represents the interests of a tiny ultra-rich elite, is organically incapable of making any appeal to the only social force capable of halting the drive to war—the working class in China, the United States and internationally.

The threats by the Trump administration to implement trade war measures against China, to tear up alliances and multilateral arrangements if they are not in the immediate interests of American imperialism and, above all, to expand and use the US military to enforce American dominance are destabilising the entire region. The disputes in the South China Sea are just one of the triggers that could precipitate a catastrophic war.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi declared on Tuesday in Canberra that a war between the United States and China was unthinkable because of the disastrous losses that conflict would bring to both sides. However, the very fact that Wang was questioned about the Trump administration’s belligerent stance toward Beijing is another indication of the growing fears of conflict between the two nuclear-armed powers.

Speaking at a joint press conference with his Australian counterpart Julie Bishop, Wang was asked by an Australian journalist for his reaction to statements by the new US administration signalling “a stronger and even more aggressive posture towards China on a range of issues… How concerned are you really by the possibility of war between the US and China?”

The journalist specifically highlighted the comments of Trump’s top adviser Steve Bannon, predicting war between the US and China in five to ten years over the South China Sea. Bannon, who was speaking last March on the extreme right-wing web site Breibart, said:

“There is no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those.”

Wang was at pains to play down the danger of war, declaring that despite

“tough or sometimes even irrational failings on China-US relations” over the past four decades, the relationship had “defied all kinds of difficulties and has been moving forward continuously.”

Taking a shot at Bannon, Wang declared:

“Any sober-minded politician, they clearly recognise that there cannot be conflict between China and the United States because both will lose, and both sides cannot afford that.”

However, while continuing the confrontational stance of the previous Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” against China, the Trump administration represents a fundamental shift toward a no-holds barred assertion of the interests of American imperialism. Trump’s “America First” demagogy, which has been directed in particular against China, signifies a ruthless determination to halt the historic decline of the US in a struggle against rivals and allies alike through all, including military, means.

Moreover, while Yang is dismissive of Bannon, Trump has placed the fascistic, former editor of Breitbart News on the top tier of his National Security Council—that is, the body tasked with responding to emergencies and crises, as well as preparing and overseeing provocations, military interventions and wars.

It is no accident that Bannon focused on the South China Sea, which the Obama administration transformed into a dangerous international flash point through its destabilising interventions into China’s territorial disputes with its neighbours. Using China’s land reclamation activities on a handful of islets, Obama gave the green light for three “freedom of navigation” operations—that is, the dispatch of US navy destroyers within territorial waters claimed by China.

Trump and his advisers have been critical of the Obama administration’s actions for not being forceful enough in confronting Beijing over the South China Sea. In his confirmation hearing, Rex Tillerson, now US Secretary of State, said the Trump administration would “send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.”

Sending US destroyers within the 12-nautical-mile limits around Chinese islets was a reckless and provocative course that risked a military clash. Tillerson’s threat to block Chinese access in its South China Sea could be implemented only by imposing a naval blockade in the disputed waters—a flagrant act of war.

Foreign Minister Wang suggested that the Trump administration in office was already moderating its hard-line, anti-China stance. He pointed out that James Mattis, the new US Defence Secretary, stressed the importance of diplomacy in relation to the South China Sea disputes.

Mattis, who visited South Korea and Japan in his first overseas trip, had already raised tensions with China by concluding an agreement with Seoul to deploy an anti-ballistic missile system in South Korea and threatening North Korea with “overwhelming” force if it attacked the US and its allies. In Japan, Mattis affirmed that the US would back Japan in any war with China over disputed islets in the East China Sea.

Having provoked angry reactions from Beijing on these two volatile flash-points, Mattiss’s comments on the South China Sea were relatively low-key. He declared that China’s land reclamation activities had “shredded the trust of nations in the region” but the US would exhaust diplomatic efforts to resolve the issues. “At this time, we do not see any need for dramatic military moves,” he added.

While publicly calling “at this time” for diplomacy before conflict, privately, according to several news sources, Mattis spoke of far more aggressive military measures to top Japanese officials.

The Nikkei Asian Review reported: “Mattis said America would no longer be that tolerant of China’s behaviour in the South China Sea. He pledged to take an active role in protecting freedom of navigation… Specifically, the US is set to increase the frequency of patrols within 12 nautical miles of man-made islands China has constructed in the sea.”

The newspaper also noted comments by the US defence secretary

“likening China’s expansion today to an effort to re-create the tributary system of the Ming Dynasty… In Mattis’s telling, Beijing could be trying to use its military and economic might to re-create a similar set-up today, though such efforts will not be tolerated in the modern world.”

Confronted with a bellicose US administration and the threat of war, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) veers between trying to appease Washington and engaging in an arms race that only heightens the danger of conflict. A senior official with China’s Central Military Commission, Liu Guoshun, warned last month that “a war within the [US] president’s term, war breaking out tonight, are not just slogans but the reality.”

The Chinese regime, which represents the interests of a tiny ultra-rich elite, is organically incapable of making any appeal to the only social force capable of halting the drive to war—the working class in China, the United States and internationally.

The threats by the Trump administration to implement trade war measures against China, to tear up alliances and multilateral arrangements if they are not in the immediate interests of American imperialism and, above all, to expand and use the US military to enforce American dominance are destabilising the entire region. The disputes in the South China Sea are just one of the triggers that could precipitate a catastrophic war.

The media firestorm over Donald Trump’s hinting in a recent Fox News interview at the crimes carried out by the US government and its military and intelligence “killers” found fresh expression Tuesday in a New York Timeseditorial titled “Blaming America First.”

Responding to Fox commentator Bill O’Reilly’s indictment of Russian President Vladimir Putin as a “killer,” Trump, with the cynicism of an old gangster who knows how America works, stated, “We got a lot of killers. What, you think our country’s so innocent?”

Trump’s one undoubtedly true statement provoked media outrage, especially in the flagship of CIA-directed journalism, the New York Times. Its editorial indicts Trump for the crime of “moral equivalency”—that is, implying that the actions of the United States in pursuit of its interests can be compared to the crimes of its adversaries. This accusation was a staple of Cold War propaganda, used to justify US imperialism’s crimes and intimidate those who exposed them on the grounds of America’s supposed moral superiority to the Soviet Union.

The editorial denounces Putin’s “brutality,” including “bombing civilians in Syria,” while rejecting any comparison of his actions with some “terrible mistakes” made by Washington. The editorial mentions the invasion of Iraq (but not the death of over a million Iraqis) and “torturing terrorism suspects” (but not the establishment of secret torture centers all over the world). Whatever harm done by US military operations, it adds, has been the result of “unintended consequences.”

The Times insists that

“no American president has done what Mr. Putin has done in silencing nearly all independent media, crushing dissent, snuffing out Russia’s once-incipient democracy, invading Ukraine, interfering in the American election—apparently on Mr. Trump’s behalf—and trying to destabilize Europe.”

It continues:

“At least in recent decades, American presidents who took military action have been driven by the desire to promote freedom and democracy, sometimes with extraordinary results, as when Germany and Japan evolved after World War II from vanquished enemies into trusted, prosperous allies.”

US imperialism killed millions in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and elsewhere to “promote freedom and democracy?” Who does the Times think it’s kidding?

There is no doubt that Putin has blood on his hands. But when it comes to mass murder, the overthrow of governments and subversion of elections, he is not in the same league as US imperialism. This is not a matter of personality, but of Russia’s limited resources and the far smaller scope of its geopolitical reach.

Moreover, Putin is the direct and inevitable product of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the restoration of capitalism in Russia, which was celebrated by Washington as the greatest triumph of its global crusade for “democracy.” He heads the kind of regime that is required to defend the interests of the criminal oligarchs who enriched themselves through the theft of state property against the masses of impoverished Russian workers. To the extent that this regime enjoys a popular base and is able to suppress opposition from below, it is largely thanks to the concern and fear generated by the aggressive anti-Russian foreign policy of the United States.

The Times’ attitude toward Putin has nothing to do with crimes he may or may not have committed. Rather, it follows a well-worn Washington playbook: demonization of a country’s head of state always precedes a war of aggression. The same modus operandi was employed against Manuel Noriega in Panama, Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

To advance its brief against “moral equivalency,” the Times editorial board has to engage in a form of self-induced amnesia. One has only to do a cursory search of the Times’ own archives, using terms such as “CIA,” “assassination,” “torture,” “death squads,” etc., to turn up thousands of news reports of crimes carried out by US imperialism, from the fomenting of bloody coups, to the assassination of foreign heads of state, to the training of torturers and the organization of death squads. To cite only a few examples:

Vietnam assassination program

“Dark Side Up,” July 1, 1973

The Times presented a profile of new CIA director William Colby “who supervised the Phoenix program, designed to ‘neutralize’ the Vietcong, which its critics have charged was a program of systematic assassination, murder and torture—an accusation that Colby has vigorously denied, under oath. According to figures Colby provided to a House subcommittee in 1971, however, the Phoenix program killed 20,587 persons between 1968 and May, 1971.”

Training torturers

“Testifying to Torture,” June 5, 1988

The Times interviewed “an interrogator in a Honduran Army death squad, which he said had tortured and then murdered approximately 120 Hondurans and other Latin Americans. He had been trained in Texas by the Central Intelligence Agency, he told me. As a sergeant in the Honduran Army, he said, he had kidnapped and interrogated people, including an American priest, who were then murdered. ‘Horrible things’ had been done to people in dark basements and hidden graveyards.”

Operation Phoenix—Vietnam

“Body Count Was Their Most Important Product,” October 21, 1990

“So out into the countryside went teams of accountants and case officers, Vietnamese assassins and their American counterparts, with bags and bags of money, the whole effort tethered to a computer in the United States Embassy in Saigon. And from the embassy came reports again and again that the program was working. Body count became our most important product. The bodies turned out to be just about anyone who got in the way…”

Assassinations in Guatemala

“The CIA: A Pattern of Deceit,” April 1, 1995

“There is a pathology of secrecy and deceit at the Central Intelligence Agency that seems to defeat all remedial efforts, starting with the Congressional inquiries 20 years ago into intelligence abuses. The

latest sign of the agency’s chilling indifference to democratic principles is the still unfolding story of two killings [Michael DeVine, an American living in Guatemala, and Efrain Bamaca Velasquez, a rebel leader married to an American] in Guatemala and the CIA’s role in impeding the investigations and subverting a suspension of aid to Guatemala.”

Iranian, Guatemalan coups

“The CIA’s Foreign Policy,” May 31, 1997

“This week the Central Intelligence Agency revealed that it had destroyed almost all its files related to its secret mission in 1953 to overthrow the Government of Iran. Documents about other major covert operations may also have been destroyed long ago.

“Nonetheless, some secret files survived, and this week the CIA released documents showing how it had orchestrated the 1954 overthrow of Guatemala’s democratically elected President, Jacobo Arbenz Guzman. The agency also made plans, which it says were never carried out, to assassinate 58 Government officials, including Mr. Arbenz.”

Chilean coup

“All the President Had to Do Was Ask; The CIA Took Aim at Allende,” September 13, 1998

The Times cited documents on the run-up to the 1973 coup in Chile, which led to the death, disappearance and torture of tens of thousands of workers, leftists and students. The documents showed “how much the United States was committed to thwarting Mr. Allende even before he took office, and they illustrate a fact that was not well understood during the cold war: The CIA very rarely acted as a rogue elephant. When it plotted coups and shipped guns to murderous colonels, it did so on orders from the President.”

“Exposing America’s Role in Chile,” October 6, 1999

“Because of two 1975 Senate reports, Justice Department investigations and CIA reviews, the world is aware that Washington ran covert operations in Chile. These operations tried to prevent the inauguration of Salvador Allende, a Socialist, as president in 1970. They then sought to undermine his administration and encouraged—at the very least—the coup that toppled him. The CIA then maintained close ties to Mr. Pinochet’s repressive security forces.”

“New Evidence Surfaces in ‘73 Killing of American in Chile,” March 12, 2004

“More than 30 years after an American writer and filmmaker was kidnapped by Chilean security forces and killed here… evidence has been unearthed pointing to the involvement of high-ranking military and intelligence officials in the death of Charles Horman, who disappeared shortly after the American-instigated military coup that toppled President Salvador Allende on Sept. 11, 1973… In 1976, for instance, three State Department officials wrote a cable to the assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs accepting a degree of responsibility for Mr. Horman’s execution. ‘US intelligence may have played an unfortunate part in Horman’s death,’ the report acknowledges. ‘At best, it was limited to providing or confirming information that helped motivate his murder by the government of Chile.’”

The CIA and the Nazis

“CIA Knew Where Eichmann Was Hiding, Documents Show,” June 7, 2006

“The Central Intelligence Agency took no action after learning the pseudonym and whereabouts of the fugitive Holocaust administrator Adolf Eichmann in 1958, according to CIA documents released Tuesday that shed new light on the spy agency’s use of former Nazis as informants after World War II… The Eichmann papers are among 27,000 newly declassified pages released by the CIA to the National Archives under Congressional pressure to make public files about former officials of Hitler’s regime later used as American agents.

“In Cold War, US Spy Agencies Used 1,000 Nazis,” October 26, 2014

“In the decades after World War II, the CIA and other United States agencies employed at least a thousand Nazis as Cold War spies and informants and, as recently as the 1990s, concealed the government’s ties to some still living in America, newly disclosed records and interviews show… The agency hired one former SS officer as a spy in the 1950s, for instance, even after concluding he was probably guilty of “minor war crimes.”

Assassinating Patrice Lumumba

Obituary of former CIA agent Lawrence Devlin, December 11, 2008

The Times cited Devlin’s meeting in 1960 with the CIA’s “top poison expert, who passed on orders he said had been approved by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to kill Lumumba [the Congolese independence leader], who the United States feared might ally the mineral-rich Congo with the Soviet Union.”

All of the above is well known history, not a matter of opinion. For the Times to pretend otherwise is preposterous.

These crimes and so many more, from the savage repression and wholesale killings following CIA coups in Iran in 1953 and Indonesia in 1965, to the bringing to power of fascist-military regimes throughout South America, to the death squad massacres of hundreds of thousands in Guatemala and El Salvador and the dirty CIA “contra” war in Nicaragua, are now justified by the Times as part of a selfless “moral” struggle.

The Times, like the rest of the media, has been so corrupted over the past 30 years that it no longer even attempts to expose the crimes carried out by the CIA. An agency that was long viewed as a global criminal conspiracy, dubbed Murder Inc., is now hailed as a foundation of liberty and a counter-weight to the right-wing policies of Donald Trump.

Today, under the guiding hand of state-connected figures such as the newspaper’s editorial page editor, James Bennett, whose father was head of the US Agency for International Development, a long-time CIA front, and whose brother is US senator from Colorado, the Times functions as a direct mouthpiece for Washington’s massive military and intelligence apparatus.

The paper is outraged over Trump’s remarks on Fox because they cut across the propaganda campaign to demonize Putin and Russia. This campaign is, in turn, driven not by Washington’s supposed crusade “to promote freedom and democracy,” but by the calculations of that faction of the ruling establishment that sees Russia as the foremost obstacle to US imperialism’s drive to assert global hegemony.

Trump’s overtures to Russia have complicated that strategy. For the present, the president seemingly prefers to delay a settling of accounts with Russia, advancing instead a policy of belligerent militarism directed at Iran and China.

Trump calculates in the manner of an experienced Mafia don that it makes more sense to drive a wedge between China and Iran on the one side, and Russia on the other.

The Times and those sections of the CIA for which it speaks opposes that strategy. It is the bitter internecine struggle within the ruling establishment over the prioritizing of targets and the best path to world war that underlies the Times’ relentless propaganda barrage against Trump’s nods in Russia’s direction and its outrage over suggestions of “moral equivalency” between old KGB hand Putin and America’s own CIA killers.

The Colombian Constitutional Court has found in favour of an indigenous peoples’ centuries-old fight for their territory, granting the petition for the protection of constitutional rights requested by the Embera Chamí people of the Indigenous Resguardo Cañamomo Lomaprieta, in western Colombia.

The Resguardo’s claim was accepted by the Colombian Constitutional Court, the final court of appeal for constitutional matters in Colombia. The court ordered that the Resguardo’s lands must be delimited and titled within one year, during which time all further permits or formalisation of mining activities must be suspended. Any subsequent mining activities proposed on the delimited territories may only proceed on the basis of the effective participation of the Resguardo.

The court also ordered that the map produced by the Resguardo of their land be registered provisionally until it is officially demarcated. This ruling is also relevant for other indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities whose lands are awaiting delimitation.

In what appears to be a legal first internationally, the court also gave explicit protection to ancestral mining activities carried out by some of the 32 communities within the Resguardo, stating that, although not currently recognised under State laws, this mining conformed to Resguardo laws and could therefore not be considered illegal. Importantly, the court also recognised that the State had an obligation “not to criminalise this type of ancestral activity”.

Responding to the court judgment, Héctor Jaime Vinasco, ex-Governor of the Resguardo, and the principal coordinator of mining issues for the Cabildo, said: “This is an historic judgment for the indigenous Resguardo of Cañamomo Lomaprieta. For centuries, the different leaders of the Resguardo have been defending our collective land rights and seeking to resolve the problem of land titling with the authorities; this judgment orders that the delimitation and titling of the Resguardo is resolved without further delay.

“This judgment is a great opportunity to resolve issues caused by the lack of land titling, including exercising authority over our lands, applying our laws, thinking about economic development, and opposing projects that affect our survival as indigenous people. It supports the rightful claims of the Resguardo and suspends the existing deals that are going on behind the communities’ backs through mining titles, concessions, processes of legislation and licences and makes clear that no mining activity can be carried out in the territory without our consent.”

These requests are in keeping with international human rights instruments that recognise indigenous autonomy and self-government over ancestral territories, and the resources integral to these.

“This is a landmark decision for indigenous peoples in Colombia and globally,” said Viviane Weitzner of Forest Peoples Programme. “It recognises the legitimacy of indigenous self-regulation of subsoil resources within their territories, lifting the label of criminalisation of a spiritually, culturally and economically important activity that has been conducted without the use of harmful substances for centuries. The court is calling on the State to do more to protect indigenous territorial rights, by applying international standards around demarcation and titling and ensuring future decision-making includes the Cabildo’s free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). We remain concerned however that this decision may increase the risks to Resguardo leaders, some of whom have already suffered a number of recent credible death threats. It is important that the Colombian government ensure that members of the Resguardo are protected in light of this decision, and we urge the State to do everything in its power to ensure the safety of land and human rights defenders involved in this case.”

This historic court win is a critically important first step. But now rigorous implementation of the Court orders must take place for it to achieve its potential in upholding indigenous rights. Héctor Jaime Vinasco added: “We call on our allies and supporters to join the next moment of our journey, the implementation of the Court’s orders, which we know will be the hardest part.”

Useful Facts:

• Some 29.8% of the national territory of Colombia is occupied by 768 indigenous reserves, with 30,590,599 titled hectares and 1,192,628 hectares still required.
• Some 343,303 hectares issued in mining concessions overlap with Resguardo lands.

For decades the Resguardo, which was established in colonial times, has been seeking official delimitation of its territories through various administrative authorities in Colombia. In the absence of such delimitation, which was never completed, the National Mining Agency continued to grant permits and licences for gold mining without consulting with or seeking the consent of the Cabildo, the traditional authorities of the Resguardo, on the basis that the Resguardo’s territories were not registered in the official land titles register.

Gold mining is an ancestral activity of the Embera Chamí people, who have self-regulated this activity even prior to the formation of the Colombian State. The State’s permits both undermine the Resguardo regulations related to mining in their lands, and threaten the livelihoods of those who continue to carry out ancestral mining activities.

The Resguardo Cañamomo Lomaprieta comprises 32 communities (including one Afro-descendant community, some members of which are seeking separate status) and 24,068 inhabitants, according to a 2014 census. The lands currently claimed by the Resguardo total 4,836 hectares. The current territory claimed is significantly less than the original lands granted to the Resguardo in colonial times (which is in turn significantly less than the traditional territories of the Embera Chamí people).

The Embera Chamí people are an indigenous people from Western Colombia, whose traditional lands extended through the current departments of Antioquia, Caldas, Chocó, Risaralda and Valle de Cauca. Different groups within the Embera Chamí people continue to live across these departments (i.e. the people is not solely located within the Resguardo Cañamomo Lomaprieta).

For more information on the situation in Colombia, see Pushing for Peace in Colombia.

Forest Peoples Programme, 1c Fosseway Business Centre, Stratford Road, Moreton in Marsh GL56 9NQ, UK Tel: +44 (0)1608 652893, Charity Registration Number: 1082158 A company limited by guarantee (England & Wales) Reg. No. 3868836

www.forestpeoples.org

Why is the Trump administration threatening Iran?

On February 1, National Security Adviser Michael Flynn announced that the administration was “putting Iran on notice” after it tested a ballistic missile which the US sees as a violation of Iran’s treaty obligations. Flynn’s frigid tone made it clear that the administration is considering the use of military force. But why?

Under current UN resolutions (Resolution 2231), Iran is forbidden “to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.” Read that over again. Iran is not forbidden from testing ‘all ballistic missiles’ just missiles that are ‘capable of delivering nuclear weapons.’ The resolution could not be clearer. There’s no gray area here, none at all. Flynn is just fudging the resolution’s meaning, so he can rattle a saber. But, why?  And why are other members of the administration, including the president himself,  making equally belligerent remarks? In a tweet last week, Trump  said, “I won’t be as ‘kind’ to Iran as Obama” which was followed by a speech by US Defense Secretary James Mattis who called Iran “the single biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.”

What’s going on? Why the full court press against Iran?   And how are these threats consistent with Trump’s campaign promise to avoid pointless confrontations abroad? Here’s an excerpt from a speech Trump delivered in Cincinnati on December 1:

“We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past…We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments…. Our goal is stability not chaos …In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will.”

Where is the “peace, understanding, and good will” towards Iran? There doesn’t seem to be any. This is the same incendiary rhetoric we’re heard from every US administration dating  back to the Iranian Revolution in 1979. But, why?

Isn’t the problem the same as it was with Iraq, Libya, Syria and every other country the US has either toppled or tried to topple in the last 65 years?

Of course it is. Washington abhors any country that conducts its own independent foreign policy or resists US attempts to install its own puppet government. With Iran, the problems run even deeper since Iran sits on a vast ocean of oil and natural gas to which the western oil giants feel they are entitled. They think the oil is theirs and they expect Washington to help them expropriate it.

Washington wants to return Iran to the glory days of the Shah, an era in which the USG had a trusted ally in Tehran who would follow its directives, crush the domestic opposition, and preserve the privatization-model of oil production. It’s worth noting that the Shah was installed in a CIA coup that triggered a nearly 40-year reign of terror for which the US is entirely responsible.  Here’s a short except from The Harvard Crimson that will help readers to understand the horror Washington unleashed on the Iranian people to achieve its foreign policy objectives:

“The Shah systematically dismantled the judicial system of Iran and the country’s guarantees of personal and social liberties. …. Nearly every source of creative, artistic and intellectual endeavor in our culture was suppressed.

The SAVAK conducted most of the torture, under the friendly guidance of the CIA which set up SAVAK in 1957 and taught them how to interrogate suspects. Amnesty International reports methods of torture that included “whipping and beating, electric shocks, extraction of teeth and nails, boiling water pumped into the rectum, heavy weights hung on the testicles, tying the prisoner to a metal table heated to a white heat, inserting a broken bottle into the anus, and rape.”…

The Shah greatly expanded the military and turned it against his own people. With newfound oil wealth the Shah bought $2C million of U.S. arms. The U.S. military trained Iranian officers. Despite claims that a strong army was needed to prevent external aggression, its real purpose became clear when the army murdered more than 50,000 Iranians fighting the Shah.” …. The number of students tortured, lost or murdered is unknown.” (“Life Under the Shah“, The Harvard Crimson)

This is America’s legacy in Iran:  “Whipping, beating, electric shocks, extraction of teeth, boiling water pumped into the rectum, and rape.” This is how the exceptional nation exported democracy to Iran.

The US has never tried to make amends for the suffering or death it inflicted on the Iranian people, nor have its crimes ever been prosecuted at an international tribunal, nor has there ever been any talk of monetary reparations.  Instead, the US has done everything in its power to further isolate and punish Iran for resisting Washington’s savage intrusion into their affairs. For many years, Washington has justified its cruelty by claiming that Tehran was developing nuclear weapons that would endanger the region and the world. As it happens, there’s no evidence that Iran ever had nuclear weapons program, it’s all a hoax concocted by the political class and their allies in the media. Here’s a quote that sums up the “Iran nukes” fable in one short paragraph:

“It is essential to recognize that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapons program, nor does it possess a nuclear weapon. On February 26, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Ayatollah Khomenei, the supreme leader of Iran, ended his country’s nuclear weapons program in 2003 and “as far as we know, he’s not made the decision to go for a nuclear weapon.” This repeats the “high-confidence” judgement of the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) that was first made in November 2007.”

(Micah Zenko, “Putting Iran’s Nuclear Program in Context”, Council on Foreign Relations)

There it is in one, short clip: No nukes, no nuclear weapons program, no diversion of nuclear fuel, and no sinister nuclear project aimed at blowing up Israel and establishing a region-wide Islamic Republic.  It’s all 100 percent bunkum conjured up by the same group of journalists who produced the mobile weapons labs, the yellowcake uranium, the aluminum tubes, curveball and the myriad other lies that preceded the invasion of Iraq.

But if Iran is not building nukes and is actually complying with the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (aka– The Iran Nuclear Agreement) then why all the fiery rhetoric and saber rattling?  Is Trump seriously considering an attack on a country that poses no recognizable threat to the United States or its allies in the region?

Many people seem to think so, but I am not at all convinced.

Keep in mind, that a war with Iran would not be a cakewalk, it will be a bloody and protracted affair that would require significant military resources and tens of thousands of  American troops on the ground. US warplanes would not be able to selectively bomb designated targets without provoking asymmetrical retaliatory attacks on US military bases, oil platforms and strategic allies in the region.

Iranian special forces would be deployed to locations beyond their borders where they would wreak havoc while plunging the Middle East into a broader regional war. The transport of oil through the Straits of Hormuz would be blocked indefinitely which would send gas prices skyrocketing while global equities went off a cliff.

More important, Washington would have no allies in the conflict excluding a few of the corrupt Gulf monarchies whose military value is negligible at best. The traditional European allies would abandon the US in order to maintain their ever-dwindling political base which is fed up with American adventurism.  The war in Iraq, followed by the Wall Street-generated global financial crash, followed by the flood of refugees fleeing US conflicts in Syria, Libya and beyond, have made it impossible for EU leaders to support another bloody US-led fiasco in the Middle East. Washington would have to go it alone which would, in turn, strengthen the position of  rising rightwing politicians in the EU that want to sever relations with the US and develop an more Euro-centric foreign policy.

The end of the Atlantic Alliance would mark the end of imperial America and the collapse of the current global order. If Washington were to lose its ability to persuade or coerce the vassal states to follow its edicts, it would be cut off from its greatest source of geopolitical power. An attack on Iran would precipitate a speedy unraveling of the global system the US has painstakingly stitched together over a seventy year period.  US dominance would progressively erode while foreign governments would ditch the dollar leaving Washington to face a future of pariah-like isolation and grinding poverty.

In my opinion, an attack on Iran would trigger a series of events that would greatly accelerate US economic decline while exacerbating tensions between allies that would lead to the inevitable breakup of the Atlantic Alliance and the end of the dollar’s dominant role as the world’s reserve currency. Is Trump really willing to risk all that in order to punish Iran or is something else going on below the radar?

In order to understand what Trump is doing, we need to clarify a few details regarding the Iranian nuclear deal or JCPOA. In very broad terms, the Iranian leadership accepted the strictest nuclear inspections regime in history (overseen by the IAEA) in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. (which, by the way, were imposed without any hard evidence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons) Donald Trump believes that this is the worst deal in history when, in fact, Iran was being unfairly punished for crimes it never committed.

The question is: Why would Trump oppose an agreement that clearly eliminates any chance for Iran to cheat and secretly build a nuclear weapon?

The obvious answer is that the hawks in his administration want to (eventually) topple Iran’s government which requires that they weaken the regime as much as possible through economic sanctions. This is how Washington typically conducts its regime change operations; economic strangulation usually precedes the coup d’ etat followed by the installing of a US puppet. Wash, rinse, and repeat.

But here’s the rub: The administration cannot unilaterally terminate the JCPOA because it’s a multi-lateral agreement endorsed by the UN Security Council. As one analyst said, If Trump rejects the deal “the international sanctions regime that incentivized Iran to negotiate would unravel…. Russia and China, for instance, won’t continue sanctions on Iran because the GOP says they should. If this were to happen, Iran would receive sanctions relief without having any constraints on its nuclear program.” Besides, If Trump walks away from the JCPOA, then “the next round of negotiations will be the US sitting at a table for one.”

So even though Trump doesn’t like the deal, he’s stuck with it, because if he bails out, the allies are not going to support him. Here’s a little more background that helps to explain things:

“Some opponents of the deal advocate for threatening the international community: You can either do business with Iran or business with the United States. But this threat lacks credibility. As Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew explained in a New York Times Op-ed, 40% of American exports go to the European Union, China, Japan, India, and Korea. By threatening to exclude these countries from our banking system, the U.S. would be placing a significant portion of its own economy at risk. Moreover, the major importers of Iranian oil (China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey) also account for one-fifth of U.S. exported goods and own 47% of foreign-held American treasuries. Even threatening to terminate this economic connectivity could have negative ramifications for both the US economy and the economies of our allies.

Our negotiating partners will not maintain sanctions that hurt their economies simply because the U.S. Congress insists they do so. Threatening our allies with economic warfare is a ludicrous approach, especially when compared to the practical and widely supported alternative of implementing the agreement….”(“Iran Nuclear Deal: Debunking the Myths“, The Center for Arms Control and Non Proliferation)

What does it all mean?

It means that coercion and arm-twisting aren’t going to work this time. The agreement is written in a way that make it nearly impossible for the administration to achieve its objectives, which is to return to a bygone era when the US could inflict excruciating economic punishment on Iran without anyone uttering a word of protest. Those days are gone.

But if that’s the case, then why have Trump and his lieutenants stepped up the hectoring, the demonization and the saber rattling? What’s that all about?

That’s where it gets interesting. The Trump team has settled on a strategy of cat and mouse, which means they’re trying to beat Iran by tricking them into making a mistake that will give the US the advantage. In other words, Trump does not want a shooting war with Iran,  he simply wants Iran’s leaders to overreact to Washington’s bullying by abandoning JCPOA. That’s the goal. The fact that the administration can’t unilaterally reject the nukes deal, doesn’t mean that Iran can’t be duped into doing it for them. And, if Iran takes the bait and withdraws from the agreement, then Trump will have the allies on his side for another painful round of economic sanctions. That’s what Trump wants.

So the best thing Iran can do is nothing. They need to continue to stay the course, shrug off the provocations, and keep up their end of the deal. That’s it; just hang tight and stay cool.

Unfortunately, that’s easier said than done.

Despite the polls in the run up to November 8, 2016, and the post-election shenanigans that continue to this day, the United States has a new President, and it is not Hillary Clinton. There are many reasons for this, and Charles Ortel’s dogged, two-year investigation of the Clintons’ predatory humanitarianism is a major one. He is not yet done. It is almost universally unacceptable to prey on the weak of one’s own species.

There are laws and religious precepts against this in every human culture. In fact, as humans, we find it so heinous to prey on the helpless that, contrary to all biological rules, we prey on the strong, and not the sick, young, and injured, even when we hunt other species. The Clintons and their associates are not above the law, and Ortel, with his credentials as a graduate of the Harvard Business School, decades of Wall Street experience, and accurate assessment in 2008 of General Electric stock as being overvalued, is taking his investigation to the next level. I caught up with him last week for the following interview.

DC: Charles, we now know that former President Barack Obama did not pardon former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

CO: The pardons would have been for the Clinton family and others for federal offenses arising from the illegal operation of, and solicitation for, numerous so-called charities. The apparent failure to pardon removes a major excuse that US state, federal, and foreign government authorities may have had for failing to investigate, expose, prosecute, and win criminal convictions in what I believe to be the largest charity fraud ever attempted.

It will take time to replace federal government employees inside the Department of Justice, Internal Revenue Service, and Federal Trade Commission, who likely were complicit in a scheme to impede and obstruct investigations into this ongoing charity-fraud conspiracy. Given time, I certainly hope the Trump administration will increase the resources for the rumored investigations by the FBI and the IRS, which should address widespread illegal solicitation and operations in virtually every US state and numerous foreign countries. I also hope that the Trump administration will work closely with foreign-government donors who either were complicit in these charity frauds, or who should now be working hard to recover funds advanced to Clinton charities under false pretenses.

DC: Now that the Clinton Global Initiative has shut down its operations, will there be access to its documents? Are the people who were involved with CGI still responsible to show to the IRS and other government agencies that its affairs are in order?

CO: Unlike investigations into Ponzi schemes and other frauds involving for-profit entities, investigators wield enormous leverage when they finally decide to look into frauds by not-for-profit entities. Review of New York and other state laws, IRS regulations and practices, and laws in relevant countries suggest that the executives, directors, and their professional advisors will bear the burden of proving that they organized and then operated the various Clinton charities lawfully at all times. Losing or obscuring records will hurt those who are potentially liable, and I would note that criminal penalties for organizing and operating charity frauds, particularly disaster-relief charity frauds, are onerous.

DC: Many people confuse the Clinton Global Initiative, which recently closed its doors, with the Clinton Foundation. Is the CGI a legal entity, and how does it relate to the Clinton Foundation?

CO: The CGI began to operate in New York by September 2005, illegally, as a concept. Under US law, a validly organized charity cannot be a formless association; instead it must be a lawfully constituted entity. In most cases, the trustees or directors of a lawfully organized charity choose to establish a nonprofit corporation under US state laws; after this, they get federal tax exemption on the basis of a detailed application that must be filled out truthfully and accurately, and that states their specific purposes, which are then authorized by the IRS. There’s no record anywhere that the Clinton Foundation validly changed its authorized purposes. Originally, in January 1998, these were to erect a presidential archive, establish a research facility in Little Rock, Arkansas, and raise a capital endowment. So, starting with the first CGI Annual Meeting in Manhattan, the Clinton Foundation became engaged in substantial activities that were not authorized, or even charitable. Disclosures in the IRS filings for the Clinton Foundation show that CGI activities were substantial in every year from 2005 through 2009.

New CGI

On September 4, 2009, several weeks before the 2009 CGI Annual Meeting in Manhattan, a new Arkansas nonprofit corporation called “Clinton Global Initiative, Inc.” was established. It’s not clear yet from the filings how sums were divided between January 1, 2009 through September 3, 2009; and September 4, 2009 through 31 December 31, 2009. Though a CGI meeting was held in 2009 while the old initiative and the new legal entity both, in theory, existed, an application for federal tax exemption for the new entity was not submitted until August 2010. This application falsely claims that the new entity wasn’t a legal successor to any previous activity, when abundant evidence in the public domain shows otherwise.

The New CGI held meetings in 2010, 2011, and 2012. So far, the Shared Services Agreement under which the parent Clinton Foundation operated New CGI hasn’t been made public. So we don’t yet know the financial ramifications of these arrangements. According to documents in the public domain, the Clinton Foundation controlled New CGI. So, in these three years, New CGI provided Annual Reports to the IRS, but its financial results were also consolidated into the Clinton Foundation’s financial and operating reports.

The Clinton Foundation elected, in theory, to merge New CGI back into the Clinton Foundation in 2013. To do so validly under Arkansas and other laws, each charity must be validly organized and operated from inception through the merger date. I don’t believe close analysis supports such a conclusion. Until recently, the Clinton Foundation continued to solicit funds for CGI and to hold various meetings whose charitable purpose is far from clear.

Laureate Education Inc.

I am certain that patient, empowered review of the many thousand CGI Commitments to Action will uncover numerous instances where CGI was operated for substantial private gain. A single example that I feel deserves focus is Laureate Education, Inc. Beginning in 2007/8, the Clinton Foundation, through its CGI, supposedly formed a joint venture with Laureate, which was a profit seeking entity at that time. Some disclosures concerning 2010 through 2012 show that the program service expenses of this supposed joint venture, CGI University, averaged up to several million dollars per year.

Bill Clinton began to receive payments personally for speeches from entities that either lent money to Laureate, or invested risk capital in Laureate, starting earlier than 2010. Between 2010 and 2015, he and his wife received more than $17 million from Laureate for his part-time service as a so-called Honorary Chancellor. These payments were substantial, but they remain undisclosed on filings for the parent Clinton Foundation, CGI, and the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative.

DC: How does the HIV-AIDS initiative relate to the Clinton Foundation or CGI?

CO: The HIV-AIDS initiative is the Clinton Foundation’s largest operation. Numerous records, and public statements by Bill Clinton, Ira Magaziner, and others show clearly that the efforts supposedly “fighting HIV/AIDS internationally” were never organized or operated lawfully at any time.

Old CHAI

Bill Clinton wrote in his book, Giving, published around September 2007, that the health initiatives started around July 2002. A more recent book by Joe Conason, Man of the World, well worth reading by the way, suggests these efforts were born in early 2002. Though substantial sums may have been raised by Bill Clinton from the New York office of the Clinton Foundation starting in 2002, none of the financial consequences for these activities appears in Annual Reports filed with the IRS for 2002 and 2003. By March 24, 2004, a new entity had been created called Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative, Inc., or CHAI, yet the application for federal tax-exemption and Annual Reports for this entity for 2004 and 2005 are omitted from the Clinton Foundation website.

As I noted earlier for CGI, for CHAI a questionable decision was also taken to merge this HIV/AIDS entity back into the Clinton Foundation by December 31, 2005. Yet the Clinton Foundation was clearly not authorized to control this new activity. There is no evidence in the public domain that it received tax-exemption from the IRS, Arkansas, or any other government authority. Nevertheless, from 2006 through 2009, the Clinton Foundation falsely held out to contributors, potential donors, and the general public that it was validly authorized to “fight HIV/AIDS internationally.” It raised hundreds of millions of dollars. So far, there has never been a required comprehensive accounting to evaluate what sums actually were sent and how these were spent around the world.

DC: Some of your discoveries about CHAI have set off alarm bells for you as a financial investigator.

New CHAI

CO: Given the foregoing history from early 2002 through 2009, and the fact that CHAI was such a large percentage of Clinton Foundation declared program-service expenses from 2004 through 2009, I found it quite surprising that a new application was tendered to the IRS at the end of December 2009 that claimed, falsely, that a new entity called Clinton Health Access Initiative was not a successor to any previous activity. This is clearly a bold-faced, but perhaps lawyerly lie. In sum and in substance, as numerous Clinton-issued documents show, the new entity succeeded to all the rights and obligations of the prior operation.

Amounts, addresses, and aims?

Beyond these grave legal problems, I was surprised to see numerous instances where donors like Australia, Ireland, Norway, UNITAID, Gates Foundation, Alphawood Foundation, Children’s Investment Fund Foundation/US and UK, and Elton John AIDS Foundation/US and UK, among many others, declared donations to various Clinton entities that did not match as to amount, and in some cases as to address.

I question whether any of these activities are charitable, and wonder whether they may more properly be viewed as business-development activities for manufacturers of generic HIV/AIDS drugs and HIV test kits. In many places, Bill Clinton himself seems to articulate a profit motive to justify the use of generic HIV/AIDS medicines. See his book and see Elton John’s book, Love is the Cure. Put simply, Clinton seems to have argued that, by setting prices too high, drug companies were losing opportunities to have captive patients over the long periods when they would need regular HIV/AIDS medication.

Details, details, details

In the disclosures put out so far by Clinton entities, there is no granularity concerning its largest operation, HIV/AIDS, from 2004 onwards. Normally, one would expect to see geographic breakdowns for activity, local currency results, translation rates to US dollars, and much more specific information concerning pharmaceuticals sold to and then distributed by the Clinton Foundation. Instead, from 2005 onwards, the Clinton Foundation discloses large blanket expenses for “pharmaceuticals” with no detail at all. So, the public cannot understand whether the Clinton Foundation offered and gave the pharmaceuticals away at a loss, or whether Clinton entities and allies pocketed the difference, which seems substantial, between what the donors sent towards the Clinton Foundation to fight HIV/AIDS internationally and what Clinton Foundation entities actually spent.

DC: In Haiti, HIV-AIDS research and treatment is largely done by an organization called GHESKIO. It is an odd research organization that is connected to Paul Farmer; it is very well funded and almost exclusively so by USAID. In your work, did you find a connection to GHESKIO, Paul Farmer, or both?

CO: I have not looked deeply into GHESKIO yet, but I shall. I do find it significant that USAID has supported so many counterparties associated with the Clinton Foundation. It seems to me that real audits need to be performed of monies that our government sends out around the world, and to multi-lateral organizations like UNITAID, Global Fund and the UN complex. Only then can taxpayers understand how those who are associated with charities might be profiting from receipt of government grants.

DC: In your view, Charles, did the HIV-AIDS initiative help 9 million people with lower-cost generic HIV-AIDS drugs, as Hillary Clinton has claimed?

CO: The evidence I have seen suggests that this claim is absurd. I’ve seen higher amounts than 9 millions claimed. Clinton Foundation filings do not support this. If the various entities have more evidence, let them share it with the public.

Efforts to bring down the price of HIV/AIDS medicines through the use of generic medicines were initially opposed by the Clinton Administration in its second term! Independently of the Clintons, several manufacturers of generic HIV/AIDS drugs were well advanced in lowering costs by 2003 when Bill Clinton and Ira Magaziner stepped up their efforts. That year, Bill Clinton and Ira Magaziner were not officers or directors of the Clinton Foundation. So it’s tough to see the argument bearing up that they deserve more than partial credit for bringing down the cost of HIV/AIDS medication.

From 2004 forward, I believe that the Clinton Foundation and its HIV/AIDS Initiative were illegally organized and operated. It’s hard to imagine how illegal charities deserve credit for anything.

Let’s be charitable and assume that the HIV/AIDS activities might have gained special dispensation, somehow, to operate outside applicable laws, which is not actually possible, does the 9 million number make any sense? Remember: once you start using HIV/AIDS drugs, until a cure is found, you are consigned to using these drugs for the rest of your life. By 2016, the Clinton Foundation was 13 or 14 years into a process of creating access to some patients to treat HIV/AIDS. The sums claimed on Clinton Foundation filings for “pharmaceuticals” are a tiny fraction of the annual cost of treating 9 million HIV/AIDS patients, and a miniscule portion of the cumulative cost of treating however many patients may have been treated since 2002.

DC: You and others have worked incessantly for two years to expose the Clintons’ financial dealings. Thanks partly to this work, the US has a new administration. What’s the probability that we’ll see the Clintons in court to answer for their activities in the Clinton Foundation, CGI, and other initiatives?

CO: Thank you Dady, for all your hard work and for those of your colleagues, Gilbert Mercier and others, that began many years before I got involved.

Around the world, and especially in rich donor countries, we’ve become complacent about charity, perhaps thinking that charities normally do lots more good than harm, so why should they be closely scrutinized. The Clinton Foundation and its vast network of sham charities and donors proves why the general public and numerous governments must finally get serious about regulating charities, and especially those that operate internationally.

It is a sad truth, and perhaps an unalterable one, that appeals for donations involving children, disasters and disease will always uncork streams of incoming donations, particularly so now that the internet makes it so easy to spread cash all over the world. It is also a sad truth that politicians need money to fund campaigns and lifestyles, and that the stock and volume of illegally obtained money needs a ready laundry. So, in too many ways, charities operated with loose or even no controls by celebrities are perfect instruments to corrupt politicians, cement political power, and transfer illegally generated sums.

An element in most of us cheers on Robin Hood and his band of thieves, because they stole from the rich to give to the poor. But why do so many still support the Clinton family following almost two decades spent, evidently, stealing from the poor to reward themselves and their rich cronies and political supporters? From what I can tell, and from what determined readers and government authorities can discover, the network of Clinton tax-exempt entities practices charity in name only. It is false philanthropy, about which examples must be made, with stiff punishments and financial restitution. The Clinton case must not stand unexposed or unpunished. It is too large, it has operated for too long, and it taints as well as harms too many lives. Let there be a reckoning, not simply here in the United States but let donor nations and recipient nations understand what seems to have happened here. We must force the Clinton entities through their directors, foundation donors, executives, and professional advisors to account for all the money sent towards these charities and all the private gains that have been created around the world in the guise of charity.

Dady Chery is the author of We Have Dared to Be Free: Haiti’s Struggle Against Occupation. | Photographs one, two, eight and ten from the United Nations archive; photographs three, four, five and six from US Department of State archive;photographs nine and eleven from The World Bank archive; and  photographs thirteen and fourteen from Karl-Ludwig Poggeman‘s archive.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Macedonia has expressed its outrage to the US State Department after Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher suggested it was not a country, and should be partitioned by neighbors such as Kosovo and Bulgaria.

Australia’s prime minister has been politically tone deaf for the duration of his tenure, which was won by the political assassination of his predecessor, Tony Abbott. Since being in power, he has squandered a workable majority, been held in a headlock by reactionaries in his party, and looking every bit the straw man of politics. As he withers, opponents within and without feed remorselessly.

While this slide into oblivion has taken place, the global brushfire of populism has done its bit to rattle a few of Australia’s politicians. Generally speaking, the soil for revolt in Australia has generally been infertile, much like most of the hostile continent.

There have been sharp moments of inspired anger, usually confined to the agrarian and blue-collar segments of the population. Be it the disaffected worker, or the farmer at risk of losing his or her property, such individuals provide potentially rich pickings for demagogues and party strategists.

Again, such protests have been generally contained in brief spurts of electoral indignation: Pauline Hanson’s One Nation successes in Queensland in the 1990s, for instance, and, then the party’s resurgence among other curious fruit salad choices for the Australian federal senate in the last election.

Australian voters have generally detested those “pointy-headed” intellectual types, let alone anything remotely resembling cerebral noise: there has, in fact, been very little need to engineer a broad war against the experts, since they were never liked to begin with. Pragmatism remains cult and practice down under. Revolutionary potential there remains modest.

At heart, Australia remains, essentially, a conservative society more interested in interest rates and franked dividends than broader arguments about liberties, the grand vision of its place in the world or the vanishing society. Even Prime Minister Turnbull has publicly reneged on his Republican vision, preferring to praise Australia’s titular head of state, the Queen.

Protest against the Trans Pacific Partnership has been, relative to counterparts in the US and Europe, murmurings of regret. The sovereign surrender of the country to both the unelected corporation and the United States as bully are features that are occasionally acknowledged, though never seriously.

This is the context with which Senator Cory Bernardi, one of Australia’s true reactionary conservatives, has been working within. As far back as 2014, he was already telling the National Press Club that voters were gravitating towards independents and minor parties – the big don’ts of the country’s politics – as “a popular response to a perception of cowardice and distrust of the major parties.”

Dazzled by his time in New York on secondment to the United Nations, he returned to Australia convinced that there was something coursing in the waters. He was so convinced he started giving Turnbull a splitting headache, snipingly suggesting that his leader had lost, or at the very least misplaced, the plot. Kellyanne Conway, one of the architects of Trump’s victory, loomed in his consciousness.

“The past weeks,” he said reflecting on his New York sojourn with callow optimism, “have been enlightening and filled with amazing experiences. In a sense, they have extended my understanding of what is possible and reinforced my knowledge of what needs to be done.”

His Damascus conversion meant the need to leave the Liberal Party, the bosom that had nurtured and warmed his conservative instincts for years. “My time in the USA has made me realise I have to be part of that change, perhaps even in some way a catalyst for it.”[1]

Modest to a fault. “If you didn’t love a guy who was so in love with himself, you’d have a lot of trouble living with Cory,” observed his wife, Sinead. As far as ego is concerned, Bernardi has it in bucket loads.

His brief speech on the reasons why he was leaving the Liberal Party cherry pick the populist tree with self-serving grit. “There are few, if any, who can claim that respect for politics and politicians is stronger now than it was a decade ago.” (For those familiar with Aussie-gazing, Australians have never deemed politics a genuinely admirable pursuit now or then.)

According to Bernardi, “the body politic is failing the people of Australia and it’s clear we need to find a better way.” The major parties had been a cause of “public disenchantment,” a “direct product of the political class being out of touch with the hopes and aspirations of the Australian people.”

Political tribalism in Australia deems such acts of defection and independence as perfidious. It reeks of the rat fleeing briskly from a sinking ship; it suggests a level of intelligence and opportunism higher than the primitive collective.

“Acts of disloyalty and failing to stand by your commitments,” comments Paul Colgan, “are hallmark drivers of the type of voter cynicism which Bernardi is railing against.” Having been elected a Senator on the conservative ticket, “he will now enjoy five years of using that platform against them, while sitting in the Senate trousering $200,000 a year in taxpayers’ money as salary.”[2]

What are, then, his chances in driving this new party? Small, if not microscopic. One Nation is far more likely to scoop a larger share, as would Family First. The church, one filled with sermons against climate change as a reality, the joys of the fossil fuel state, the evils of same-sex marriage, or the tyranny of progressivism, is already rather full and particularly noisy. Bernardi will find it hard finding a chair.

We can always say that Trump’s chances at political glory were similarly limited, with chances deemed so obscure the Huffington Post refused – initially – to cover his candidacy other than in its entertainment section.

But unlike Trump, Bernardi is a professional politician, the very figure of the establishment common room that many Australian voters would have trouble identifying with. The immediate future is more prosaic, though no less problematic for the government. It means that Turnbull will have a fully-fledged reactionary on the Right of the spectrum, a person outside the tent piddling in: a grim proposition for him indeed.

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

Notes

[1] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/new-york-chill-fired-up-cory-bernardi/news-story/b8cefd48194da321683dd9dfc6e1dffa

[2] http://www.businessinsider.com.au/cory-bernardi-and-the-confusion-of-australian-conservatives-2017-2

Australia’s prime minister has been politically tone deaf for the duration of his tenure, which was won by the political assassination of his predecessor, Tony Abbott. Since being in power, he has squandered a workable majority, been held in a headlock by reactionaries in his party, and looking every bit the straw man of politics. As he withers, opponents within and without feed remorselessly.

While this slide into oblivion has taken place, the global brushfire of populism has done its bit to rattle a few of Australia’s politicians. Generally speaking, the soil for revolt in Australia has generally been infertile, much like most of the hostile continent.

There have been sharp moments of inspired anger, usually confined to the agrarian and blue-collar segments of the population. Be it the disaffected worker, or the farmer at risk of losing his or her property, such individuals provide potentially rich pickings for demagogues and party strategists.

Again, such protests have been generally contained in brief spurts of electoral indignation: Pauline Hanson’s One Nation successes in Queensland in the 1990s, for instance, and, then the party’s resurgence among other curious fruit salad choices for the Australian federal senate in the last election.

Australian voters have generally detested those “pointy-headed” intellectual types, let alone anything remotely resembling cerebral noise: there has, in fact, been very little need to engineer a broad war against the experts, since they were never liked to begin with. Pragmatism remains cult and practice down under. Revolutionary potential there remains modest.

At heart, Australia remains, essentially, a conservative society more interested in interest rates and franked dividends than broader arguments about liberties, the grand vision of its place in the world or the vanishing society. Even Prime Minister Turnbull has publicly reneged on his Republican vision, preferring to praise Australia’s titular head of state, the Queen.

Protest against the Trans Pacific Partnership has been, relative to counterparts in the US and Europe, murmurings of regret. The sovereign surrender of the country to both the unelected corporation and the United States as bully are features that are occasionally acknowledged, though never seriously.

This is the context with which Senator Cory Bernardi, one of Australia’s true reactionary conservatives, has been working within. As far back as 2014, he was already telling the National Press Club that voters were gravitating towards independents and minor parties – the big don’ts of the country’s politics – as “a popular response to a perception of cowardice and distrust of the major parties.”

Dazzled by his time in New York on secondment to the United Nations, he returned to Australia convinced that there was something coursing in the waters. He was so convinced he started giving Turnbull a splitting headache, snipingly suggesting that his leader had lost, or at the very least misplaced, the plot. Kellyanne Conway, one of the architects of Trump’s victory, loomed in his consciousness.

“The past weeks,” he said reflecting on his New York sojourn with callow optimism, “have been enlightening and filled with amazing experiences. In a sense, they have extended my understanding of what is possible and reinforced my knowledge of what needs to be done.”

His Damascus conversion meant the need to leave the Liberal Party, the bosom that had nurtured and warmed his conservative instincts for years. “My time in the USA has made me realise I have to be part of that change, perhaps even in some way a catalyst for it.”[1]

Modest to a fault. “If you didn’t love a guy who was so in love with himself, you’d have a lot of trouble living with Cory,” observed his wife, Sinead. As far as ego is concerned, Bernardi has it in bucket loads.

His brief speech on the reasons why he was leaving the Liberal Party cherry pick the populist tree with self-serving grit. “There are few, if any, who can claim that respect for politics and politicians is stronger now than it was a decade ago.” (For those familiar with Aussie-gazing, Australians have never deemed politics a genuinely admirable pursuit now or then.)

According to Bernardi, “the body politic is failing the people of Australia and it’s clear we need to find a better way.” The major parties had been a cause of “public disenchantment,” a “direct product of the political class being out of touch with the hopes and aspirations of the Australian people.”

Political tribalism in Australia deems such acts of defection and independence as perfidious. It reeks of the rat fleeing briskly from a sinking ship; it suggests a level of intelligence and opportunism higher than the primitive collective.

“Acts of disloyalty and failing to stand by your commitments,” comments Paul Colgan, “are hallmark drivers of the type of voter cynicism which Bernardi is railing against.” Having been elected a Senator on the conservative ticket, “he will now enjoy five years of using that platform against them, while sitting in the Senate trousering $200,000 a year in taxpayers’ money as salary.”[2]

What are, then, his chances in driving this new party? Small, if not microscopic. One Nation is far more likely to scoop a larger share, as would Family First. The church, one filled with sermons against climate change as a reality, the joys of the fossil fuel state, the evils of same-sex marriage, or the tyranny of progressivism, is already rather full and particularly noisy. Bernardi will find it hard finding a chair.

We can always say that Trump’s chances at political glory were similarly limited, with chances deemed so obscure the Huffington Post refused – initially – to cover his candidacy other than in its entertainment section.

But unlike Trump, Bernardi is a professional politician, the very figure of the establishment common room that many Australian voters would have trouble identifying with. The immediate future is more prosaic, though no less problematic for the government. It means that Turnbull will have a fully-fledged reactionary on the Right of the spectrum, a person outside the tent piddling in: a grim proposition for him indeed.

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

Notes

[1] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/new-york-chill-fired-up-cory-bernardi/news-story/b8cefd48194da321683dd9dfc6e1dffa

[2] http://www.businessinsider.com.au/cory-bernardi-and-the-confusion-of-australian-conservatives-2017-2

The so-called “Democratic Forces” (SDF), backed by the US-led coalition, have retaken the vilalgles of Abu Dallah, Lubaydan and Abu Susah from ISIS in the northeastern countryside of the terrorist group’s self-proclaimed capital of al-Raqqah. Clashes are also ongoing in Mu’ayzilah.

On Tuesday, the US-led coalition released a statement, claiming that its warplanes had destroyed 17 heavy equipment vehicles, 11 vehicles, four dump trucks, three front-end loaders, three VBIEDs and two tanks near Palmyra, Separately, the US-led coalition airpower reportedly destroyed three tunnels, a weapons facility, a vehicle, a VBIED and an oil well head in the province of al-Raqqah.

After a series of failures in Bzaah, Turkish forces changed the point of military efforts near al-Bab, targeting ISIS units in the western outskirts of the ISIS stronghold of the province of Aleppo.

The Turkish Army and a coalition of pro-Turkish militant groups branded as the Free Syrian Army took control of the Dalil Roundabout, the Al-Bab Hospital, Sheikh Aqil and Youth Housing Project. If they are able to hold the area, they will have a fire control over a notable part of the town.

Additionally to their gains near al-Bab, pro-government forces seized the Hawwart Jabbul hill, an important site which allows to control a road near the Jabbul Lake. This signs that the Syrian army is going to develop an advance south of the Kuweires Air base.

The Syrian army made another attempt to link up the airport area with the rest of the government-held pocket in the city of Deir Ezzor, but was not able to achieve a success in this effort. Especially heavy clashes took place in the cemetery area.

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

Por increíble que parezca, hay un gobierno de izquierda en Europa, antineoliberal, que funciona bien. Por increíble que parezca, ya que parecía que el clima no daría para eso. Syriza no ha logrado hacer frente a la austeridad de la Unión Europea. El PSOE se ha negado a hacer alianza con Podemos, lo que habría llevado a un gobierno como el de Portugal.Los portugueses escriben artículos sobre infinidad de temas pero no ayudan a difundir el Gobierno de Portugal, un gobierno de izquierda que está resultando.Es una una actitud cobarde sumarse al silencio de los grandes medios internacionales, que se unen en contra del gobierno portugués, un gobierno que aúna a toda la izquierda del país.

Cuando el Gobierno de la derecha no logró hace un año y medio la mayoría suficiente para gobernar, a pesar de quedar en primer lugar, surgió la propuesta de un Gobierno de toda la izquierda. Un ejecutivo que reuniera a toda a la izquierda, al Partido Socialista, al Frente de Izquierda y al Partido Comunista, todos juntos alcanzarían la mayoría para gobernar. Para que esto fuese posible tuvieron que llegar a un acuerdo entre ellos, con concesiones mutuas. El Partido Socialista tuvo que abandonar su propuesta de flexibilización de relaciones en el  trabajo, así como la  privatización del sistema de transportes, pero sobre todo tuvo que abandonar las políticas de austeridad que promueven una devastación social en toda Europa. Los otros grupos de izquierda no participaron directamente del gobierno, pero lo apoyaron, a través de un documento que define el fin de la política de austeridad a cambio del rechazo a la posición de salida de la Unión Europea.

Al inicio había un cierto escepticismo sobre la viabilidad de este tipo de gobierno, que se canalizaba a través de de las acusaciones terroristas de la derecha, las cuales afirmaban que el país iría a la quiebra.  Casi un año y medio después, el gobierno del socialista Antonio Costa va muy bien.Es mas popular que nunca y tiene unos resultados económicos y sociales muy positivos, lo que confirma que la vía de la izquierda contemporánea es el camino de la unidad y la lucha por la superación del modelo neoliberal.

Los sueldos de los trabajadores públicos se recuperaron, su jornada de trabajo pasó de 40 a 35 horas y el sueldo vital aumentó en términos reales, del mismo modo que lo hicieron las remuneraciones de los jubilados.

Durante este tiempo se están respetando los criterios sobre los déficits presupuestarios, una cifra que bajó un 2,3% del Producto Bruto Interno, lo que representa la cifra más baja de la historia democrática de Portugal. Todo ello va acompañado del retorno del crecimiento económico y la disminución del desempleo, que ha pasado de un 12,3% a un 10,5%.

“Nuestro principal objetivo era frenar el programa de la derecha y lo hemos logrado”, dice la joven dirigente del Frente de Izquierdas, Catarina Martins, líder de la bancada del partido en el Congreso

“Nosotros hemos contribuido a un conjunto de medidas que van en la dirección de conseguir una mayor justicia social”, ha declarado Jeronimo de Souza, dirigente del Partido Comunista de Portugal. Era necesario encontrar “respuestas a los problemas urgentes de los salarios, el despido de los trabajadores y el funcionamiento del sistema de salud”, agregó

“El acuerdo que logramos fue el mejor posible, teniendo un 10% de los votos”, comenta Catalina.

Este esquema es el que casi se consigue en España con la alianza del PSOE con Podemos, pero fue bombardeado por los sectores conservadores del socialismo español.

Portugal demuestra que es posible, al igual que ocurre con los gobiernos progresistas de América Latina, organizar un gobierno centrado en la lucha por la supresión del modelo neoliberal.

España mira con esperanza a Portugal, pero también Francia, donde un candidato de izquierda triunfó en las primarias del Partido Socialista y se posicionó como alternativa al otro candidato socialista, Melenchon, y al candidato verde.

No se entiende por qué un gobierno de izquierda que funciona no es promovido por las fuerzas de izquierda y por los intelectuales portugueses, además de otros que a menudo escriben sobre Portugal para destacar los reveses y las dificultades de la izquierda

Colaboran así para sabotear a ese gobierno, dejándolo en la sombra. Parece que a esa solo les gusta destacar los errores y los problemas de la izquierda, pero no están dispuestos a difundir y a reconocer los avances de la izquierda.

A pesar de todo, el gobierno de unidad de la izquierda en Portugal avanza y tiende a convertirse en una referencia para la izquierda de los otros países de Europa.

Emir Sader

Emir Sader: Sociólogo y científico político brasileño, es coordinador del Laboratorio de Políticas Públicas de la Universidad Estadual de Rio de Janeiro (UERJ).

The speech by the new US permanent representative to the UN Security Council, Nikki Haley, at a Security Council meeting on 3 February backed up the idea that the new administration policy on Crimea will be followed up. Haley said exactly the same nonsense as Samantha Power before her: «Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control of the peninsula to Ukraine». The White House supported Haley’s statement the same day.

It is interesting that Mrs Haley was speaking about the territory of Crimea rather than the people. I wonder how she seeks the «return» of the Crimean Peninsula to Ukraine – with the people or without them? It’s a pity that this question has remained unanswered yet.

Does Nikki Haley know whether the Crimean people regard themselves as Ukrainians or not?

It is unlikely that the US ambassador to the UN wants to move the people out of Crimea so that she can give the peninsula back to Ukraine.

Especially as she would have to move not only the living, but also the dead, since the ‘Ukrainian’ history of Crimea is very short, around a quarter of a century. It is surprising that the citizen of a country whose constitution begins with the words «We the people of the United States…» is doing everything to avoid a conversation in terms of «We the people of Crimea…»

From the point of view of the people who live on the Crimean Peninsula, Ukraine annexed Crimea in 1991, grossly violating the rules of international law. Crimea became part of independent Ukraine illegally, and repeated attempts by the Crimean people to redress this injustice met with opposition from Kiev.

In order to understand this, Nikki Haley just needs to be made aware of a few facts.

In 1990, the Parliament of the Ukrainian SSR adopted the Declaration of State Sovereignty, which hid behind the words «Expressing the will of the people of Ukraine…» and spoke of a new state being established within the existing boundaries of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic based on the Ukrainian nation’s right to self-determination. But did the Ukrainian nation have the right to self-determination in Crimea if the number of Ukrainians on the peninsula made up only 25.8 percent of the population?

The answer is obvious – no, it did not. This was the first step in the annexation of Crimea by the Ukrainian state, which, at that point, was the Ukrainian SSR separate from the Soviet Union.

On 20 January 1991, the first Crimean referendum was held on the restoration of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as a subject of the USSR and as a party to the Union Treaty. (Between 1921 and 1945, the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic.) With a high turnout of 81.37 percent, 93.26 percent of the Crimean population voted in favour of restoring autonomy. On 12 February 1991, the restoration of the Crimean ASSR was confirmed by law: the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR accepted the results of the referendum. The Crimean people were clearly self-determining, and this self-determination differed hugely from the self-determination of the Ukrainian nation.

The Ukrainian SSR 1991 law on establishment of the Crimean Autonomous Republic, signed by the Chair of the Supreme Council of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk

So what did the Ukrainian state do next? On 24 August 1991, the Supreme Court of the Ukrainian SSR, again on the basis of self-determination, declared the independence of Ukraine, arbitrarily identifying the Crimean ASSR as a territory of the newly established state. By doing so, the founders of Ukraine ignored a law requiring a separate referendum to be held in Crimea on the Crimean ASSR’s status within Ukraine. This was done deliberately, since Kiev knew perfectly well that the people of Crimea would never vote in favour of becoming part of Ukraine. At the same time, a huge scam to manipulate history was being prepared: on 1 December 1991, another referendum was held in the whole Ukraine including the Crimean ASSR, known as “the Ukrainian independence referendum”. The results in Crimea and Sevastopol were notably different from those in the mainland Ukraine (most of the Crimeans ignored the plebiscite), but the quorum was reached thanks to non-residents were allowed to vote at the Crimean poll stations. In this underhand way, Ukraine took its second step towards the annexation of Crimea.

A Crimean boy standing for boycott of the Ukrainian elections

The Crimeans did not agree with the Ukrainian sharp cookies, however. From the start of 1992, the number of protests began to increase – the Crimean people were outraged at the deception and demanded secession from Ukraine. Under pressure from the people, the Supreme Council of Crimea adopted the Act of State Independence of the Republic of Crimea, approved its own constitution (link in Russian), and passed a resolution to hold a referendum on 2 August 1992. It was another step towards the self-determination of the Russian majority of Crimea was pushing for lawfully and legitimately. The Constitution of Crimea began with the words: «We the people, who make up the multi-ethnic nation of Crimea and are united by centuries-old ties of a common historical fate, are free and equal in dignity and rights…»

By this time, however, Kiev had already gotten a taste for political tricking. The referendum was postponed to a later date (it was held in 1994 in the form of a public opinion poll) and the Constitution of Crimea, under pressure from Kiev, was rewritten dozens of times until the peninsula was tied to Ukraine for good. The first presidential elections took place in Crimea in 1994, but by 1995, both the position of president and the Constitution of Crimea had been abolished. In late 1998, the Ukrainian authorities brought the legislation of the Autonomous Republic of Ukraine completely in line with the legislation of Ukraine. This was the penultimate step in the annexation of Crimea, the final step being to deprive Crimea of its autonomous status by establishing a Crimean region as part of Ukraine.

Over the next decade, Kiev did not dare do this, since any attempt to raise the issue of abolishing Crimean autonomy led to large-scale protests and demands to restore the 1992 Constitution and the statehood of the Republic of Crimea. Creeping Ukrainization was also unsuccessful – moulding Crimea to be more like Ukraine did not work even in light of the 2001 census:

The February (2014) uprising in Kiev was not supported in Crimea, but attempts by Crimeans to oppose it led to tragedy: on the night of 20 and 21 February, buses taking protesting Crimeans home from a chaotic Kiev were stopped by armed nationalists in the small city of Korsun-Shevchenkivskyi. The Crimeans were beaten, tortured, forced to sing the Ukrainian national anthem under threat of death, and made to pick up broken glass from the buses’ windows, which had been smashed with sticks, with their bare hands. This episode was reported in details in Andrei Kondrashov’s 2015 documentary “Crimea: way back home”:

In the referendum on 16 March 2014, the Crimean people once again confirmed their historical choice, just as the United States once did when they broke away from the British Crown. In the US Declaration of Independence, it says that the Creator endowed people with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Just like Americans, Crimeans also want to live, be free and be happy. That is precisely why they spent decades trying to break away from the Ukrainian dictate, something they finally achived in 2014 when they returned to Russia.

It seems that Nikki Haley, like millions of her fellow Americans, does not know the history of the Crimean people’s struggle against its illegal annexation by Ukraine, which began in 1990 and ended in 2014. Questioning the choice of the Crimean people in 2014 seems to be the reason why the US permanent representative to the UN Security Council is keeping quiet about the Ukrainian annexation of Crimea in the 1990s. After all, no one in the world could doubt the results of the Crimean referendum held on 20 January 1991. If it is a case of the deliberate distortion of facts, however, then the situation looks a lot worse.

If you were to side with the Crimean people, then the history of Crimea’s reunification with Russia becomes simple and understandable. It is enough to know that for each territory, whether that is the US or Crimea, exactly the same words are key: «We the people…»

Source: Strategic Culture

Nadie que no sea un iniciado en el laberinto interno de la élite de Podemos puede comprender las claves del “debate-no debate” que se está produciendo de forma pública y cansina entre los llamados errejonistas y los denominados pablistas. Incomprensible cuando el momento es óptimo para consolidar a la formación morada como segunda en intención de voto y primera en la oposición con opción futura a formar gobierno.

El capital de confianza acumulado por Podemos puede evaporarse si en Vista Alegre II la organización no sale con un proyecto político claro para impedir que haya un cierre de la crisis del régimen del 78 -que no crisis del Estado-, particularmente de su arco de bóveda: el bipartidismo, y que se abra un duro y difícil proceso de cambio constitucional. La confianza de las clases subalternas y de la juventud en la nueva organización puede verse defraudada si no se combaten y frenan las políticas de austeridad impuestas por la Unión Europea que impregnan los presupuestos antisociales y las reformas de la legislación laboral pensadas contra los derechos de las y los trabajadores. De ahí la irresponsabilidad cainita.

El 15 M interpeló al régimen del 78 y denunció la corrupción, pero sobre todo exigió responsabilidades a quien hasta entonces simbólicamente representaba en el campo popular las aspiraciones más profundas: el partido socialista. Este entró en una crisis profunda de fondo, de proyecto. Las aspiraciones encontraron para muchos su expresión en Podemos. Lo único que explica que pese al espectáculo del culebrón que están ofreciendo quienes deberían estar dando soluciones, la intención de voto a Podemos no decaiga -según el CIS- son dos cuestiones. Podemos nació como necesidad de un amplio sector de la sociedad después de las luchas de la mareas, y no –como se ha rescrito de forma bobalicona y engreída- por el diseño de gabinete en un despacho de politólogos de la universidad; pero además, Podemos aguanta porque el PSOE no sale de su postración (de momento).

En estos días hemos leído/oído una serie de explicaciones de la crisis interna de Podemos en clave de conspiración entre camarillas. Se habla más de lealtades personales que de lealtades al proyecto y a las gentes de abajo. Alguno de los escritos llega a ser patético en términos de amor despechado. Otros justifican, pese a la importante formación filosófica de los autores, las muy equivocadas opciones políticas de Vista Alegre I tanto en sus términos políticos: ilusiones en ganar el gobierno al margen de las relaciones de fuerza entre las clases sociales, como en términos organizativos: máquina de guerra electoral jerarquizada que impide la participación y deliberación de la militancia de forma cotidiana. Y, para justificar lo que se dice, se muestran “viejas” fotos fundacionales en las que bastantes de quienes estaban no están. Pero… cometen una falta a la verdad. Son las fotos de una fracción -Claro que podemos (CQP)- que desde la dirección unificada de los hoy en riña dirigieron la organización. Esa foto es tardía, la foto real de la fundación de Podemos es la del Teatro del Barrio tomada bastante antes. Esa foto es la que mejor representa el futuro de Podemos donde no sobra nadie.

Podemos tiene en su Asamblea dos retos que no son tan simples como quién se queda con la corona. Por un lado, salir con un plan de trabajo y unas propuestas programáticas que permitan aparecer como opción fiable para formar un gobierno del cambio que, más pronto que tarde, tendrá que enfrentarse a la oligarquía europea y española y optar entre los de arriba y las gentes de abajo. Por otro, configurarse como un partido-movimiento democrático y capaz de alimentar y alimentarse de las energías de la sociedad, de las organizaciones sociales, de las aspiraciones y luchas de las y los subalternos. Podemos debe abrir brechas populares en las instituciones, pugnar por mejorar las condiciones de vida de la mayoría, pero no creer que pisar moqueta por si solo resuelve a favor del pueblo la correlación de fuerzas entre las clases. Para ello es necesario que Podemos, Unidos Podemos, las confluencias en Galicia y Cataluña, el nuevo municipalismo alternativo que configuran en conjunto un nuevo sujeto político, además de usar bien los escaños impulsen la autoorganización popular. El pueblo, los pueblos, ni se crean ni se destruyen, solo se transforman. Se transforman si aumenta su grado de conciencia, organización y empoderamiento, si se forjan nuevas alianzas, identidades y comunidades.

En la pugna entre Capuletos y Montescos, entre güelfos y gibelinos: ni unos ni otros. Yo opto por otra saga de ancestros que aparece y reaparece en el curso de la historia y adopta formas distintas, la de Espartaco. Esa y no otra es la razón de fondo por la que apoyo los documentos y la candidatura para Vista Alegre II de Podemos en Movimiento, por responsable, democrática, no sectaria y al margen de conspiraciones; ofreciendo soluciones, no relatos. Hoy lo principal es hacer frente a la “Gran coalición” PP-PSOE-Cs. Lo demás, como sabiamente dice el Eclesiastés, vanitas vanitatis.

Manuel Garí

Manuel Garí: Economista, miembro de Podemos y militante de Anticapitalistas, pertenece al Consejo Asesor de VIENTO SUR.

If you want to be an American TV talking head or a Western presstitute, you are required to be braindead and integrity-challenged like Bill O’Reilly, CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and all the rest.

In an interview with President Donald Trump, O’Reilly said: “Putin is a killer.”

O’Reilly is indifferent to the fact that thermo-nuclear war is a killer of planet Earth. For O’Reilly, President Trump’s desire to normalize relations with Russia is an indication that the President of the US is comfortable making deals with killers, as if America’s last three presidents have not been mass killers comfortable with their destruction in whole or part of many countries and millions of peoples.

President Trump’s response to O’Reilly’s was:

“We’ve got a lot of killers. What do you think – our country’s so innocent?”

The only thing wrong with President Trump’s response is that it implicitly accepts that Putin is no different from Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. Yet there is no evidence that Putin is a “killer.” This accusation is an assertion from those who prosper from having a “Russian threat” to keep the money and power flowing to themselves.

As Finian Cunningham shows, Trump should have reprimanded O’Reilly for his unsupported and undiplomatic accusation against the president of a country with which President Trump hopes to restore normal relations.

President Trump’s statement of an obvious fact was quickly branded “defense of a killer” by congressional Republicans, Hillary Democrats, the liberal, progressive, left-wing, and the Western presstitutes.

Even online sites, such as politico.com, jumped in to criticize “Donald Trump’s defense of Vladimir Putin’s homicidal history.” Allegations of “Putin’s homicidal history” are astonishing after 24 years of Washington’s genocide against Muslins in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, and Syria, and non-Muslims in Yugoslavia and the Russian regions of Ukraine. Washington ranks as one of the worst mass murderers in human history, but the Western presstitutes brand Putin as the one who is homicidal.

Listen to these members of Congress who represent Americans in Washington:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, Ky) said referring to the thrice elected President of Russia:

“He’s a thug.”

McConnell has gone along with Washington’s mass murder of peoples for 15 years, and this accomplice to mass murder said that Washington’s murder of countless millions, which have sent refugees all over the Western world, are not evidence against America. In his response to Trump’s statement, McConnell actually said:

“We don’t operate in any way the way the Russians do. I think there’s a clear distinction here that all Americans understand, and I would not have characterized it that way.”

The Republican senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, said: “We are not the same as Putin.” Of course we aren’t. We are mass murderers.

The Republican senator from Nebraska, Ben Sasse, said, and this is a level of ignorance hard to believe even for Americans, that “Putin is an enemy of political dissent. The U.S. celebrates political dissent and the right for people to argue free from violence about places or ideas that are in conflict [as at Cal Berkeley]. There is no moral equivalency between the United States of America, the greatest freedom loving nation in the history of the world, and the murderous thugs that are in Putin’s defense of his cronyism.”

The Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens said:

“Trump puts US on moral par with Putin’s Russia. Never in history has a President slandered his country like this.”

No Bret, you have it backwards. No US president has ever slandered Russia like this. There is no moral equivalency between Washington and Moscow. Washington is totally devoid of all morality. Russia is not. It is not Russia that has murdered, maimed, and displaced peoples in at least 9 countries in the last 15 years, sending refugees all over the Western world, some of whom no doubt bear legitimate grudges.

Trump’s vice president, Mike Pence, rushed to tell NBC that Trump didn’t mean that Washington is not morally superior to Putin’s Russia. Of course the US is morally superior to everyone. The millions of peoples we kill and dislocate are proof of our unquestioned moral superiority. Every time we bomb a wedding, a funeral of the wedding guests, a children’s soccer game, innumerable hospitals and medical centers, schools, farms, public transportation, we exceptional and indispensable Americans are demonstrating our moral superiority over the Earth. Only the morally superior can commit vast crimes against humanity without being held accountable.

Normal relations with Russia do not seem to be in the cards. The demonization and lies will continue. The New Cold War is too important to the ruling establishment, and to the members of the House and Senate who are dependent on military/security campaign donations, for Trump to be allowed to normalize relations with Russia.

Everything that Reagan and Gorbachev achieved has been undone. The material interest of a few has again placed humanity at risk.

“The greatest freedom loving nation in the history of the world” can’t even have a debate about it, because a debate is Putin apologetics and moral equivalency.

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

El próximo 19 de febrero Ecuador enfrenta sus primeras elecciones presidenciales en los últimos 10 años y medio sin que el nombre de Rafael Correa Delgado esté en la papeleta de votación.

Entender el ascenso de Alianza PAIS y Rafael Correa al poder, implica entender también sus orígenes, con la conformación de este partido político tan sólo ocho meses antes del proceso electoral del 2006, donde se determinó la primera de las múltiples victorias electorales correístas durante esta década.

Antecedentes inmediatos al correísmo

Al igual que lo que sucedía en el resto de la región, en Ecuador se vivía desde la década de 1990 en un marco de inestabilidad política fruto de un apretado ciclo de levantamientos populares y grandes movilizaciones que conllevaron al derrocamiento de tres presidentes constitucionalmente elegidos (Abdalá Bucaram en 1997, Jamil Mahuad en 2000 y Lucio Gutiérrez en 2005), con el consiguiente descrédito del régimen de partidos, de las instituciones políticas ecuatorianas y del sistema económico neoliberal implementado tras el estallido de la crisis de la deuda externa en 1982. La salida de esta crisis devino en la progresiva construcción de un modelo empresarial de desarrollo que fue consolidado a partir del gobierno de Sixto Durán Ballén (1992-1996) y que fue ampliado por los gobiernos sucesores.

Este período puede ser definido como la fase inicial de la modernización del capitalismo ecuatoriano, durante el cual se mejoraron los beneficios empresariales a costa del deterioro del los servicios públicos, el achicamiento del rol y el tamaño del Estado, la concentración de la riqueza, la desregulación tributaria, la precarización laboral y a partir del crack financiero (1998-2000) y la pérdida de soberanía monetaria a través de la dolarización del país, con la explosión del fenómeno migratorio ecuatoriano.

Es en ese contexto en el cual entre mayo y junio de 1990 tomaba forma el primer levantamiento de los pueblos y nacionalidades indígenas del Ecuador. Sus demandas, dieciséis puntos, recogían la defensa y reivindicación de sus derechos, territorios, la justicia y la libertad.

El “levantamiento del Inti Raymi” consolidó al movimiento indígena como un sujeto protagónico en las luchas sociales ecuatorianas durante un período que se prolongó entre 1990 y 2005, pasando de la resistencia popular al cogobierno durante una breve etapa del gobierno de Lucio Gutiérrez. Convertido el movimiento político Pachakutik en la principal fuerza de oposición al ajuste estructural implementado en Ecuador desde las instituciones de Bretton Woods, su participación en la gestión gubernamental –lo que inicialmente se consideró un triunfo- generaría una crisis interna de la cual el movimiento indígena en su conjunto aún no ha sido capaz de levantar cabeza. Ello hace que el escenario político cambie y tomen fuerza las demandas ciudadanas, en torno a las cuales se aglutinaron las clases y capas medias urbanas. Esto propiciará la “revuelta de los forajidos” y la caída del gobierno gutierrista en abril de 2005, última crisis gubernamental vivida en este pequeño país andino.

Es desde este preámbulo que resulta factible la construcción, apenas unos meses antes de la primera vuelta de las elecciones presidenciales del 2006, de un fenómeno político nuevo pero que electoralmente resultó tremendamente eficaz: la conformación de Alianza PAIS bajo el liderazgo de un joven profesor universitario, Rafael Correa, cuya experiencia política era ajena a las luchas de los movimientos sociales locales y cuyo único antecedente político era haber ocupado durante cuatro meses el cargo de ministro de Economía durante el gobierno anterior a su elección.

La década correísta

Tras su investidura el 15 de enero de 2007, el objetivo del gobierno del presidente Correa fue abordar un segundo proceso de modernización capitalista en el país, esta vez mediante la reinstitucionalización y fuerte intervención del Estado, recuperando la institucionalidad pública y la relegitimación del sistema de representación política institucional. Los ideólogos del correísmo llamarían a esto la construcción de una sociedad posneoliberal, implementado un proceso de reformas por fases que pretendía como objetivo la construcción de un segundo momento que podríamos definir como “socialismo de mercado” (capitalismo popular), para terminar en un tercer estadio que tuvieron a bien definir como “biosocialismo” (una sociedad de autoconciencia implementada bajo los principios civilizatorios del Buen Vivir).

En la práctica y tras más de diez años de gobierno del presidente Rafael Correa, podemos aseverar que el proceso no ha sido capaz de pasar de su primera fase. Sería el propio presidente Correa quien con la siguiente frase definiría de forma adecuada su gestión ante un medio público: “básicamente estamos haciendo mejor las cosas con el mismo modelo de acumulación, antes de cambiarlo, porque no es nuestro deseo perjudicar a los ricos, pero sí es nuestra intención tener una sociedad más justa y equitativa” (Diario El Telégrafo, 15 de enero de 2012). Sin embargo, llegado en el año 2013 el fin del período conocido popularmente en América Latina como la “década dorada o del boom de las materias primas”, las políticas públicas correístas sufrieron una fuerte involución debido a la falta de liquidez económica gubernamental. Dentro de esta involución destacan hechos como la ampliación de la frontera petrolera con su correspondiente impacto social y ambiental sobre el conjunto de territorios originarios de los pueblos y nacionalidades indígenas ancestrales; la entrega de los campos maduros (conocidos en el mundo petrolero como las “joyas de la corona”) a transnacionales extractivas extranjeras; la concesión sin licitación pública de varios puertos estratégicos del país a grupos de capital extranjeros; el apoyo a los grandes del agronegocio en detrimento de la soberanía alimentaria nacional; un proceso de flexibilización laboral que permite la reducción de las horas trabajo de las y los operarios; la vuelta de la vigilancia sobre la economía nacional a manos del FMI; así como el actual proceso en marcha para la privatización de hidroeléctricas, gasolineras y otras empresas públicas que inicialmente fueron rescatadas durante la primera fase de este proceso político autodenominado propagandísticamente como revolución ciudadana.

El correísmo, al igual que otros gobiernos progresistas de la región, se caracterizó durante sus años de bonanza económica por impulsar políticas sociales compensatorias que fueron la base de esta nueva gobernabilidad a la par que exacerbó el modelo de explotación extractivista de recursos naturales, fortaleciendo un Estado que había quedado reducido a su mínima expresión durante el período neoliberal y fomentando ampliamente la construcción de obras de infraestructura en el país en la búsqueda de desarrollar cierta competitividad sistémica (creación de un entorno sustentador que pueda conducir a un desarrollo acelerado buscando ventajas competitivas para la inversión privada nacional y extranjera).

La gestión correísta durante el período de bonanza económica (los ingresos del Estado ecuatoriano entre 2007 y 2015 fueron de 221 mil millones de dólares, lo que significó unos ingresos promedio 3,84 veces superior a los ingresos existentes entre los años comprendidos entre 2000 y 2006) permitió que la pobreza por ingresos se redujera en torno a los 12 puntos, pasando el salario básico de 160 dólares en 2006 a 340 dólares en 2013; que el Estado invirtiese aproximadamente 13 500 millones de dólares en salud, impulsando la construcción de hospitales y otras infraestructuras sanitarias; que en materia de Educación se haya incrementado la tasa neta de matrícula en educación básica del 92% al 96%, siendo de seis puntos porcentuales el incremento de matrículas en el caso de la población más pobre; y que el Estado haya intervenido sobre 9 000 kilómetros de carreteras durante esta década.

El crecimiento de la renta per cápita durante dicho período activó la “popularización” del sistema financiero privado (facilidad de acceso al crédito para familias humildes buscando incentivar el consumo), lo que consolidó un capital emergente que enfocando sus criterios de rentabilidad hacia el mercado interno agudizó el problema ya anteriormente existente del control de empresas monopólicas sobre los distintos sectores del mercado nacional ecuatoriano.

Es así que la intervención del estado en la dinamización de la economía, principal característica del socialismo del siglo XXI, significó que el gasto de inversión pasara del 11,4% por Presupuesto General del Estado en 2008 al 20,5% en 2013, mientras los grandes grupos económicos que operan en el mercado nacional incrementaron en casi un 40% sus ingresos. En pocas palabras, las empresas más grandes que operan en el mercado ecuatoriano ganaron durante el período progresista sustantivamente más que durante los años anteriores a la llegada del presidente Rafael Correa al Palacio de Carondelet. Así, en 2006, con un PIB de 46 800 miles de millones de dólares, las 300 empresas más grandes en Ecuador ingresaron 20 363 millones de dólares, lo que viene a significar un 43,6% del PIB. Tanto solo seis años después, en 2012, y con un PIB de 84 700 millones de dólares (casi el doble que el del 2006), estas mismas empresas ingresaron 39 289 millones de dólares, lo que implica tres puntos porcentuales más sobre el PIB nacional.

Sin embargo, desde que comenzase la caída en 2013 de los precios de las materias primas en el mercado global, el país entró en una crisis económica que es fruto de la falta de cambios estructurales en el ámbito económico. Tres factores externos (caída del precio del petróleo, apreciación del dólar y encarecimiento del financiamiento externo) sumado a la falta de diversificación productiva interna han golpeado seriamente al país.

Ecuador posee una estructura productiva altamente dependiente de las exportaciones de crudo y otros bienes primarios, así como de la importación de productos elaborados para su buen desenvolvimiento. Esto hace que cuando las exportaciones primarias decrecieron el país haya vuelto a la senda del endeudamiento externo y que la economía ecuatoriana se haya contraído en 2015 un 1,7% de su PIB.

El llamado “socialismo del siglo XXI” en Ecuador no fue capaz, por incapacidad o por falta de voluntad política, de transformar la matriz de acumulación capitalista heredada del neoliberalismo. Esto implica que la estructura productiva nacional se mantenga concentrada en pocos grupos económicos que ejercen su control sobre los distintos sectores de la economía nacional, a pesar de que sean bajos generadores de empleo. Los pequeños emprendimientos que dan empleo hasta 9 personas generan el 70% del empleo nacional, mientras que las empresas que emplean desde 100 personas en adelante concentran alrededor de la mitad de los ingresos de la economía del país. El fisco ecuatoriano reconoce la existencia de 118 grandes grupos económicos que operan en el mercado nacional, de los cuales 16 controlan la mayor parte de la economía. Las políticas fiscales y productivas desarrolladas en los últimos años permitieron una serie de excepciones fiscales que determinan el hecho de la presión fiscal no recaiga sobre las grandes empresas, recaudándose de estas tan solo el 15% del montante total del Impuesto a la Renta.

A la postre, el actual deterioro de la economía ecuatoriana conlleva que los indicadores sociales positivos logrados durante gran parte del período correísta en el ámbito de la disminución de la pobreza, la disminución del empleo o las mejoras en materia de capacidad adquisitiva de la población, se encuentren en la actualidad en franco deterioro. Por ofrecer tan solo un par de ejemplos sobre esta afirmación: durante el ejercicio 2015 se perdieron 340 000 puestos de empleo digno en el país, mientras que el incremento del salario básico para 2017 equivale a 30 centavos de dólar al día, lo que no da para financiar en su acumulado de una semana un triste plato de comida en el comedor popular más económico existente en la ciudad de Quito.

La cuestión se agrava en la medida que el incremento relativo de la capacidad adquisitiva de la población ecuatoriana durante la etapa de bonanza, conllevó a una política interna de democratización del acceso al consumo, que a la postre ha derivado en un fuerte crecimiento del endeudamiento familiar. Según un estudio del Colegio de Economistas de Pichincha, el 41% de los hogares ecuatorianos gastan más de lo que ganan, siendo las personas más endeudadas las que menos ingresos perciben (mayor endeudamiento entre los pobres).

Es esta nueva condición económica que atraviesa el país lo que ha hecho que el correísmo haya perdido legitimación social durante los últimos tres años de mandato del presidente Correa. La crisis hegemónica neoliberal no conllevó en Ecuador a la implementación de un modelo posneoliberal anclado a un proyecto de transformación social y económico. El correísmo es apenas un ejemplo más de las lógicas ilusorias capitalistas que pretenden de combinar crecimiento capitalista subordinado y emancipación social. Eso sí, todo ello con una gran dosis propagandística de radicalidad discursiva.

En la actualidad se evidencia que lo construido en materia de mejoramiento de los indicadores sociales a lo largo de este período tiene unos pilares demasiado frágiles. Dicha condición nos debe hacer reflexionar, aquí y en otros lugares, sobre el hecho de que no es posible mejorar estructuralmente la situación de los más pobres sin tocar los privilegios de las élites económicas y los grandes grupos de poder.

La actual disputa electoral

El hecho de que Rafael Correa no esté en la papeleta de votación, sumado a la condición de deterioro económico que vive el país, permitió que los sectores de la oposición política aspiraran por primera vez de forma seria a ganar el próximo proceso electoral.

Sin embargo, las rivalidades existentes entre las distintas familias que conforman el conservadurismo ecuatoriano no les ha permitido desarrollar una estrategia de unidad similar a lo que en algún momento desarrolló la oposición en Venezuela. Esto hace que existan dos facciones enfrentadas de la derecha ecuatoriana. Una encabezada por un magnate propietario de uno de los principales bancos del país (Guillermo Lasso), y otra por una política de la vieja derecha socialcristiana (Cynthia Viteri). Conscientes de que no pueden ganar las elecciones presidenciales por separado, el objetivos de ambos es forzar una segunda vuelta o balotaje, intentando posicionarse cada uno de ellos como el contendor final al continuismo oficialista. De lograr tal objetivo, se articularía una alianza de casi la totalidad de fuerzas opositoras para apoyar la candidatura conservadora. Más allá de lo anterior, en lo que va de campaña electoral, ambas facciones de la derecha han confrontado dialéctica y hasta físicamente en escenarios de aparición conjunta. Todo ello a pesar de que sus propuestas electorales sean similares y tengan como propuesta la reimplementación del neoliberalismo en Ecuador.

Desde el ámbito de las izquierdas disidentes al régimen, se alinearon un conjunto de fuerzas opositoras cuyo abanico abarca posiciones ideológicas que van desde la socialdemocracia liberal (encarnada por el reconstituído partido Izquierda Democrática), hasta múltiples sectores que han ido poco a poco quedando excluidos del gobierno correísta, pasando por el propio Pachakutik y la Unidad Popular (un reconvertido y muy disminuido partido maoísta que en el pasado se denominó Movimiento Democrático Popular).

Esta alianza electoral, que en la práctica carece de homogeneidad ideológica y que goza de escasas expectativas cara a ganar las elecciones, se agrupa en torno a la candidatura del general Paco Moncayo, un viejo militar de corte nacionalista que alcanzó notoriedad en 1995 como comandante en jefe de las Fuerzas Armadas del Ecuador en su conflicto militar con el Perú. Moncayo es precursor de lo que en el país se ha venido a llamar, en una alarde de imaginación inusitada, “militarismo ilustrado”.

A menos de dos semanas de los comicios electorales, las encuestas más serias en el país vienen a indicar que el partido de gobierno (Alianza PAIS) baja paulatinamente su intención de voto debido a los incesantes escándalos de corrupción institucional que están apareciendo casi de forma diaria en la prensa nacional. El diseño es estratégico y sin duda elaborado por la oposición conservada, quienes aguardaron hasta la campaña electoral para, con la complicidad de los medios de comunicación privados, posicionar una larga lista de depravados affaires gubernamentales que dan luz a la descomposición ética del régimen.

Esta campaña electoral se convirtió para Alianza PAIS en una especie de partido contra reloj, pues aunque se mantienen como opción preferencial del electorado ecuatoriano, su caída en intención de voto es sostenida y sus estrategas cuentan los días que faltan de campaña entre las angustias de la pudredumbre que se va aireando a su alrededor.

Para ganar en primera vuelta sin mayoría absoluta, Alianza PAIS necesita del 40% de los votos válidos con un 10% de ventaja sobre sus opositores. Dicha condición comienza a ponerse en cuestión, aunque el régimen cuenta con el apoyo de un Consejo Nacional Electoral (órgano rector de la democracia en el país, pero cuya composición en íntegramente oficialista) cuya imparcialidad electoral está en cuestión. En paralelo, el partido CREO liderado por Guillermo Lasso (principal fuerza opositora) apuesta por ser la opción elegida en el último día por parte de ese 30% del electorado que en pasadas elecciones depositó su voto por el correísmo, pero que en la actualidad se define como indeciso a pesar de lo avanzado de la campaña electoral y de que el voto en Ecuador sea obligatorio para el conjunto de ciudadanos comprendidos entre los 18 y los 65 años.

En todo caso y más allá de la opción política que triunfe electoralmente en esta campaña electoral, el próximo gobierno se verá obligado a proceder con un plan de ajuste que conllevará el recorte del gasto público y una renegociación para los pagos de la deuda externa contraída durante estos últimos años por el régimen. Además, basta oír los discursos de los principales presidenciables para entender que los planes diseñados para la salida de la actual crisis recaerá a todas luces sobre las espaldas de las y los trabajadores. Es de esperar que en base a lo anterior y con un gobierno que ya no gozará de la legitimidad social y política sobre la que se sustentó los primeros siete años de gobierno correísta, exista una recomposición del tejido social ecuatoriano. Será únicamente a través de la movilización social como se reempoderarán los movimientos sociales ecuatorianos, esos que protagonizaron en su momento las luchas de resistencia al neoliberalismo, permitiendo un acumulado histórico que llevo a Alianza PAIS al poder, y que hoy se sienten defraudados por el accionar de un gobierno que dijo representarles.

Decio Machado

Decio Machado: Sociólogo y consultor político residente en Ecuador.

Una placa metálica con la foto de un chico delgado decora la entrada del campo de refugiados de Aida, en Belén, Cisjordania. Un texto corto explica, en inglés y árabe, que el chico delgado era Aboud Shadi, apodo de Abed Al-Rahman Shadi Obeidallah. Él fue asesinado por un soldado israelí el día 15 de octubre de 2015, exactamente en aquel lugar, cuando tenía 13 años. Aboud Shadi conversaba con amigos.

Según los relatos de varios testigos, Aboud estaba parado cuando el sniper [tirador de elite] tiró, de frente al muro que divide los territorios anexados israelís de Belén, alcanzando al chico en el corazón. Él fue llevado al hospital, pero no resistió. Sin razón aparente para la acción, las fuerzas militares israelís confirmaron que el asesinato “fue un error”, el soldado responsable permanece impune. En la placa en homenaje a Aboud, se lee: “Mi alma continuará aquí, persiguiendo al asesino y motivando a mis compañeros de clase. Yo me pregunto cuando la comunidad internacional traerá justicia para los niños palestinos”.

Con ojos llorosos y voz baja, Shadi Obeidallah, padre de Aboud, contó para el reportaje que todos los días pasa frente a la placa, ya dañada por agujeros de otros tiros. “Parece que él me está preguntando porqué no pudo ser protegido de la ocupación, porqué permití que lo mataran”, dice.

La presencia de Aboud es constante en la vida del padre. “Yo pienso en él, el tiempo todo. Colocamos un plato y cubiertos para él en la hora del almuerzo. Todos los días yo vuelvo para casa del trabajo, hago café y converso con su foto en un porta-retrato. Es mi hora preferida del día”, dice.

El año pasado, Shadi se encontró con el entonces Secretario General de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU), Ban Ki-Moon, en la ciudad palestina de Ramallah, y le preguntó que podría hacer por los niños palestinos asesinados. “Él no me respondió”, dice. En seguida, él terminó la entrevista: “No es fácil hablar sobre esto”.

Lo que Shadi probablemente no sabe, entre tanto, es que, una semana antes del asesinato de su hijo, el Comité sobre los Derechos de los Niños de la ONU divulgó un informe acusando la Policía Militar brasileña de matar niños en situación de calle con el objetivo de “limpiar la ciudad” para los Juegos Olímpicos de 2016. En julio del mismo año, el Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia (Unicef) público un informe mostrando que 28 personas menores de 19 años son asesinadas diariamente en Brasil, una tasa mayor que en zonas de guerra, de acuerdo con la agencia.

El laboratorio

La conexión entre los datos y la muerte de Aboud Shadi sería apenas una coincidencia, si no fuese por el hecho de que tanto el entrenamiento cuanto la renovación bélica de la Policía Militar y del Ejército brasileño para los mega eventos deportivos entre 2014 y 2016 fueron importados de las Fuerzas Armadas israelís.

Según especialistas en el tema, Brasil es uno de los mayores clientes de la industria de armamentos de Israel. Una nota publicada en el diario Folha de S. Paulo, en enero de este año, muestra que el Ejército Brasileño cerró un acuerdo de R$ 6,3 billones (US$ 2 mil millones) con empresas israelís para compra de blindados en los próximos años. Una de las proveedoras – la empresa Elbit – es acusada de haber construido drones que mataron 164 niños palestinos en Gaza, durante la ofensiva de 2014. Los datos son de la ONG Defense for Children International Palestine (DCI).

De acuerdo con informaciones proporcionadas para este reportaje por la organización Who Profits, centro de investigación dedicado al monitoreo de las relaciones comerciales involucrando multinacionales israelís, Elbit fue una de las primeras compañías israelís a entrar en el mercado de vigilancia brasileño. La organización destacó otras empresas que también operan en Brasil, como Afcon Holdings, que desarrolla sistemas de control presentes en los checkpoints de Cisjordania; Carmor, especializada en vehículos militares; y Contact International, también productora de equipamientos militares.

Según el antropólogo y escritor israelí Jeff Halper, las relaciones económicas y bélicas entre Brasil y Israel son muy significativas. “Brasil es un gran cliente. (…) El principal punto de la industria militar israelí es que ella no se queda solo en lo militar, actúa en seguridad y en lo relativo a la policía. En Río de Janeiro y en otras ciudades donde hay policías de pacificación en las favelas, ellos son entrenados por israelís y con armas israelís.

Para Halper, que ya fue candidateado al Premio Nobel de la Paz por la actuación “en pro de la liberación de los palestinos”, la importancia que el Estado de Israel asumió en el contexto internacional está relacionada justamente con la exportación de inteligencia militar. “Israel está en todos los países, no solo directamente en el sentido militar, pero en términos de entrenamiento, exportación de armas, unidades de operación especial, seguridad presidencial. Está más dentro de las sociedades de lo que los Estados Unidos, exactamente porque ellos se quedan en los espacios militares y nosotros vamos a la seguridad, la policía, las prisiones”, explicó.

En la opinión del escritor, es exactamente ese papel internacional que libra al país de condenaciones en la Justicia. “De esa forma, Israel escapa del hecho de hacer una ocupación hace 50 años, de estar realizando crímenes de guerra, decenas de violaciones de la ley internacional de la ONU. Incluso con todo eso el status internacional de Israel es positivo. La única explicación para eso es la política de seguridad de Israel, un país minúsculo que transforma seguridad militar y policial en poder político. (…) En un país como Brasil, con todas las desigualdades, Israel va a proveer todo el sistema de seguridad y vigilancia para controlar a la población. Ese control poblacional es lo que hacemos hace 70 años. Somos un laboratorio, controlamos palestinos y eso es lo que nos diferencia en el mercado: millones de palestinos tienen que pasar por los checkpoints diariamente”, analizó.

La expresión “laboratorio” es utilizada por diversos activistas para describir la relación militar de Israel con los territorios palestinos ocupados. El documental The Lab, del director Yotam Feldman, explora exactamente esa relación y su importancia para la legitimidad de la industria bélica israelí. En el filme, Brasil es nuevamente citado como un gran socio comercial de Israel, y algunas escenas muestran tanques y armas israelís siendo utilizadas en operaciones en el Complejo del Alemán, Río de Janeiro, favela que es popularmente conocida como la “Franja de Gaza” carioca.

La activista israelí y estudiante de pedagogía Sahar Vardi es una líder del movimiento contra la militarización y ocupación de Israel en Palestina. Presa por dos meses durante proceso de ‘objeción’ al servicio militar obligatorio, Sahar cree que la utilización de la tecnología militar en los palestinos es “definitivamente el diferencial en el mercado”. “Nosotros exportamos a más de 130 países, no hay duda de que la exportación de la militarización de Israel es un fenómeno mundial. La ocupación no es una necesidad para la industria militar, ni vice-versa, ya que esa industria comenzó en los años 70 y ya había ocupación antes de eso. Pero sin duda hay un interés económico de la industria en mantener la ocupación”.

Según Sahar, en 2013, el gobierno brasileño destinó 1,13% del Producto Interno Bruto (PIB) del país para “modernizar las fuerzas armadas con equipamientos israelís”. Ella destaca la compañía israelí International Security & Defense Systems (ISDS), que hace entrenamientos para las policías brasileñas en las favelas. En el site de la compañía, ya en la página inicial, consta el slogan de “proveedora oficial de los juegos olímpicos Rio 2016”. Al final de la página, la conexión con Israel es señalada abiertamente. “La ISDS es una empresa registrada y certificada por el Ministro de Defensa de Israel y opera de acuerdo con sus regulaciones y directrices”.

Militarización

En el mirador que marca la salida del museo del Holocausto, Yad Vashem, en Jerusalén, Yahav Zohar, ex-guía del museo, señala la vista de un asentamiento israelí. Él explica, en voz baja, que antiguamente había un poblado palestino en el lugar, destruido durante la Nakba en 1948 (nombre palestino para el proceso de construcción del Estado de Israel, que significa “catástrofe”). Repleto de imágenes fuertes sobre las consecuencias del nazismo, la propuesta del museo – ejemplificada hasta en la arquitectura – es celebrar la conquista de Israel como una especie de redención para los judíos.

Yahav, que sirvió en el ejército como la mayor parte de la población judía de Israel, renunció a su empleo en el museo por no poder compartir las críticas que tiene sobre la ocupación israelí en Palestina. Por el mismo motivo, un amigo suyo, que también era guía, fue despedido. Entre diversos grupos de soldados que visitaban el museo como parte obligatoria del servicio, Yahav mantenía un tono de voz discreto y parecía alejar malos recuerdos.

“Hay similaridades entre el holocausto y lo que estamos haciendo aquí con los palestinos. El problema es que creemos que esa fue la única tragedia de la humanidad, cuando no fue más importante o horrible de lo que la esclavitud en toda América, por ejemplo. Nosotros tenemos que dejar de creer que estamos en peligro todo el tiempo. Si usted se esfuerza tanto por recordar una parte de la historia como por suprimir otra parte, usted pierde su argumento”, opinó.

Educación

La visita al Museo Yad Vashem es realizada por lo menos tres veces durante la vida de los israelís. Además de la ida cuando están en el Ejército, las escuelas de Israel llevan a los estudiantes cuando niños y durante la secundaria. Para Nurit Peled, profesora de la Universidad Hebrea de Jerusalén, activista y estudiosa de la forma como los palestinos son retratados en el sistema educacional israelí, la educación militar es una de las principales facetas del sionismo actual. “Ellos tienen procesos de seguridad en la escuela a partir de los tres años, los soldados van a los jardines de infantes y dan a los niños todo tipo de información. Ellos son modelos, la mayor aspiración de todo joven es ser soldado, sea él de derecha o de izquierda. El mayor deseo de los padres es que los hijos sean soldados. Ellos fueron adoctrinados de la misma forma”, explica.

Algunos feriados israelís, para ella, también muestran como la militarización es cultivada en la sociedad. “Ellos aprenden mucho sobre el Día de la Independencia, el Día de Homenaje a los Soldados y el Día del Holocausto. Celebran los asesinatos de árabes. Todo relacionado con la muerte. La imagen de que la militarización nos va a salvar de otro holocausto es muy fuerte. Es bastante difícil para un joven rebelarse contra eso, la cantidad de personas que objeta ir al ejército, por ejemplo, es prácticamente inexistente”.

Pie de foto: Grafiti sugiriendo matar árabes en cámaras de gas, hecho frente a una escuela infantil palestina, en Hebrón.

La historia de la objeción de Sahar al servicio obligatorio, incluso para ella misma, es una excepción. “Cada uno de nosotros [amigos que también objetaron el alistamiento] fue arrestado por cerca de una semana o un mes. Después fuimos enviados nuevamente a la base militar para continuar nuestro ‘servicio’. Entonces objetamos de nuevo y fuimos condenados nuevamente. Ese proceso se repitió algunas veces. Es un proceso muy difícil, algunas veces me encontré pensando porque estaba haciendo aquello. El efecto psicológico de las prisiones es muy fuerte”, explicó.

Para la activista, la militarización en la sociedad israelí influencia diversos aspectos sociales. “Parte de eso es el hecho de portar armas todo el tiempo, en todas partes, ya que los soldados pueden llevar las armas a casa los fines de semana, llevarlas a fiestas y en el transporte público. Pero va más allá de eso. Nosotros incorporamos parte del lenguaje militar en nuestra comunicación diaria y ni pensamos en eso, está completamente internalizado. La manera que estudiamos historia está muy centrada en el nacionalismo y en las Fuerzas Armadas. En las propagandas y comerciales, siempre hay soldados, ellos son idealizados, son el modelo. La militarización y el miedo están realmente en todos los aspectos de la sociedad”.

En la opinión del colono israelí-estadounidense Bob Lang, representante del asentamiento de Efrat y defensor de la ocupación militar de Palestina, los israelís no viven en constante miedo. “Para mí, la militarización es normal. Es natural ver soldados con armas en la calle y que los niños sean revisados en las escuelas, no es bueno o malo, las cosas son así. Obviamente, me gustaría que las Fuerzas Armadas no tuviesen que existir y espero el día en que eso acontezca. (…) Yo no vivo con miedo aquí, no más. Tengo más miedo de mi hija viajando por América del Sur que sirviendo al Ejército en Israel”, afirmó.

Lo mismo no puede ser dicho por Shadi Obeidallah, padre de Aboud. Al preguntarle sobre los sueños y gustos del hijo, afirmó: “Él soñaba, como cualquier otro palestino de su edad, con jugar seguro. Pasó toda la vida en el campo de Aida, pero los soldados no lo dejaban jugar. Si veían a los niños jugando, lanzaban gas lacrimógeno y disparaban balas de goma. Como cualquier niño, él solo quería jugar sin estar en peligro”.

Júlia Dolce

Victor Labaki

En sus primeros quince días de administración, el presidente Trump ha mostrado el mismo talante que caracterizó su discurso electoral, que habiendo tocado el hígado de la población blanca de clase media, le llevó al triunfo electoral de manera por demás inesperada. En el mismo lapso se han registrado ya las limitaciones reales que el discurso ramplón provocan, comenzando por la magnitud de las manifestaciones de rechazo de parte importante de la población norteamericana, encabezada por la insurgencia femenil, pero secundada por otros sectores de la población y por agentes políticos de peso, como son algunos gobernadores y alcaldes, así como de jueces que rechazan la forma arbitraria e ilegal con que actúa el ocupante de la Casa Blanca. También en lo internacional han comenzado a mostrarse las resistencias, Europa y China en primera instancia, con expresiones de franca oposición al magnate devenido en gobernante; incluso México ha recibido expresiones de solidaridad ante sus agresiones directas.

Pero hay otros limitantes que la realidad obliga a ser consideradas. Trump no puede llevar a efecto sus baladronadas sin medir que su belicosidad puede merecer respuestas que lo coloquen ante la inminencia del conflicto armado, respecto del cual, y no obstante contar con la mayor capacidad bélica del mundo, su eficacia sería nula ante un conglomerado de adversarios tanto de gobiernos como de pueblos; el recuerdo de Viet Nam, de Afganistán y de Irak le muestra que sus fuerzas se empantanan, pero que el grado de destrucción que por ambas partes se generaría dejarían a Estados Unidos en condición de minusválido. De suerte que Trump tendrá que medir sus palabras y sus actitudes de enfrentamiento.

Para el caso mexicano el asunto es más simple: la aplicación de los postulados trumpistas provocaría un serio problema de inestabilidad en el país con riesgo de franco rompimiento, más grave aún si se mide que allá están radicados cerca de treinta millones de mexicanos amenazados. Lo último que puede convenir a un imperio en vías de recomposición, como el pretendido, es registrar un incendio en el patio trasero susceptible de extenderse continentalmente; y el riesgo es real. Este es un factor que pronto se irá haciendo patente en el imaginario colectivo yanqui y, particularmente, en el entorno de Washington. Es una limitación que los negociadores mexicanos tendrían que incluir en su portafolio para sus tratos con el imperio.

Si el patriotismo y la inteligencia de nuestra vieja diplomacia reviviera sabría cómo, siendo un pequeño ratón, puede burlarse del gato. Quiero recordar conversaciones con el gran mexicano que fue Antonio Carrillo Flores, quien hacía alusión a la forma en que el entonces presidente Adolfo Ruiz Cortínez jugaba las cartas con Eisenhower, frecuentemente dado a presionar a México por motivos de su poca solidaridad en posturas de política internacional; comentaba Don Antonio que si aquel presionaba, por ejemplo mediante la restricción a las ventas de tomate mexicano a los Estados Unidos, Don Adolfo soltaba un poco las riendas del control político a movimientos de corte comunista, incluso los inventaba, para advertir que se le podían salir de control si la política norteamericana afectaba a sectores de la población; ante el riesgo el triunfador de la II Guerra Mundial, daba elegante marcha atrás en sus afanes impositivos y el gato cargaba su cascabel colocado por el ratón. Los taurinos también saben que en la fuerza y la violencia del toro radica la posibilidad de triunfo del torero.

Anécdota aparte, el asunto viene al caso porque bien puede ser la carta en la manga de los negociadores para convertir en conveniencia la actitud amenazante de Trump, siempre que se conduzca conforme a los intereses nacionales. Que si Trump quiere romper con el TLC, pues adelante, pero no aceptar una renegociación mendigante que nos someta en grado aún mayor. Que te aprieto con la repatriación de migrantes, te respondo con el planteamiento de una mora en el pago de la deuda, capaz de provocar una crisis financiera internacional incontrolable, siempre en perjuicio del imperio. Son estos sólo algunos ejemplos de lo que, apegados a principios y valores tradicionales, puede lograr una diplomacia verdaderamente aplicada al beneficio de lo mexicano. ¿Por qué no?

Gerardo Fernández Casanova

Attaining a major breakthrough from a potentially disastrous fallout

Should President Trump fulfill his campaign promise to relocate the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, it would have major regional and international repercussions.

The Trump administration is currently reevaluating the implications of such a move and no final decision has been made. Given the sensitivity and far-reaching consequences, if he nevertheless decides to relocate the embassy it is critical that he concurrently takes a balancing act to prevent the potentially disastrous fallout. This could profoundly change the dynamic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the better while preserving the two-state solution.

Trump should use the occasion of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to Washington on February 15th to make it clear that relocating the American Embassy to Jerusalem has a price tag:

a) it cannot infringe on the prospect of a two-state solution;

b) the US will recognize that East Jerusalem will be the capital of the future state of Palestine;

c) the expansion of the settlements cannot continue unabated; and

d) Israel must not begin the implementation of the new law that retroactively legalizes scores of illegal settlements built on private Palestinian land, which in any case the Israeli Supreme Court will more than likely overturn.

Relocating the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem unconditionally will be a de facto recognition of Jerusalem, east and west, as the capital of Israel. Since the Israeli government insists that Jerusalem is the eternal united capital of the state, the move would suggest that the United States recognizes the Israeli position.

To put things in perspective, it is necessary to first assess the fallout of such a unilateral move on the part of the Trump administration.

First, the Arab states led by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan—which is the custodian of the holy Muslim shrines, the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock—will view such a move as a flagrant assault on Islam itself. Even though the Israelis will make a special provision that will allow Jordan to continue to administer its custodianship over these holy places, under no circumstances would the Arab states allow Israel to have sovereignty over Haram Al-Sharif (the Temple Mount), with the exception of the Wailing Wall (a part of the outer wall of the Second Temple).

Second, such a move will, for all intents and purposes, put an end to the prospect of peace based on a two-state solution. Indeed, for the Palestinians, the establishment of an independent state with its capital in East Jerusalem is non-negotiable. This is not merely a symbolic demand; it is a requirement which is at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No one should dismiss the potential breakout of ferocious violence between Israel and the Palestinians joined by other Arab extremist groups if the Palestinians are denied the establishment of their capital in East Jerusalem. Such violence would be incomparable to any such conflagration that we have witnessed in the past.

Third, the United States’ standing and credibility in the Middle East, which has eroded since the Iraq War, would suffer another major setback in its relations with its Arab allies in the region.  The US must reassert its position and lead with the support of its European and Arab partners to bring about an end to the many conflicts sweeping the region. The US cannot simply provide more openings for Russia, which is eager to capitalize on US setbacks as President Putin is poised to take full advantage of the prevailing chaotic conditions throughout the region.

Fourth, the move could have an extraordinarily adverse effect on Israel’s future as this would foreclose any prospect of an Arab-Israeli peace. The move would also embolden the right-wing Netanyahu government to annex more Palestinian territories and further expand the settlements, scuttling any prospect of peaceful Israeli-Palestinian coexistence. While the Trump move appears on the surface to help Israel realize its long-held dream, it will in fact severely undermine Israel’s relations with Egypt and Jordan and jeopardize their peace treaties, which is central to containing regional instability and limiting the threat against Israel’s national security.

Fifth, the move would further alienate the European community, which feels the most affected by continuing turmoil in the Middle East and views the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a major contributor to the upsurge of extremism. They view the rise of Hamas, Hezbollah, and other extremist groups as a direct result of the Israeli occupation. For the EU, relocating the American embassy to Jerusalem is another, if not the final, nail in the coffin of a two-state solution, which would instigate increasing regional violence from which Europe will continue to suffer.

Attaining breakthrough from the potentially disastrous outcome:

Should President Trump still decide to relocate the American embassy, he can convert the prospective disastrous consequences of such a move into a historic breakthrough that could change the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and cement the prospect of peace based on a two-state solution.

Given that the US purchased land in West Jerusalem on which to build the American embassy, which has been postponed by successive American administrations, Trump can announce that the US will soon begin the building of the new embassy in the western part of the city.

In conjunction with that, Trump must reemphasize the US’ traditional support for the two-state solution and the establishment of the Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, provided that the Palestinians move quickly and steadily toward negotiating peace with Israel. The US ought to make it clear that relocating the American embassy to West Jerusalem does not constitute recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over East Jerusalem.

That said, the US needs to reaffirm its position that Jerusalem must remain under any circumstances an undivided city and that the rights of every religious and ethnic group are secured.  To assure the Palestinians of its intention, the US could purchase land or a building in East Jerusalem for future use for the American embassy in Palestine, because in any case there will be no Israeli-Palestinian peace unless East Jerusalem becomes the capital of the state of Palestine.

There is no doubt that the Netanyahu government would vehemently object to such a move, but due to the fact that US military and political support is indispensable for Israel, no Israeli government can ignore the US’ position.

Indeed, if Trump is concerned (as I believe he is) about Israel’s national security and its future wellbeing, the only way to safeguard that is by insisting that the two-state solution remains a viable option.

The implications of such a move alone will be far and wide:

• Notwithstanding Israel’s stern objection, it will breathe new life into the two-state solution;
• It will prompt the Palestinians to change their approach to the conflict by ending incitement and violence, as they will begin to see the prospect of establishing a Palestinian state could soon become a reality which they do not want to jeopardize;
• It will dramatically enhance the US’ overall positon among its Arab allies and restore its credibility as the ultimate guarantor of regional stability;
• It will prompt the Arab states to support the American initiative and pressure Palestinian extremists to accept the inevitable;
• It will strengthen the hand of Israel’s opposition parties, who will be in a better position to develop alternate policies to that of Netanyahu while weakening the hand of extremist Israelis.

To be sure, President Trump can keep his promise to relocate the American embassy and at the same time, instead of torpedoing any prospect for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, inject new life into it and perhaps put an end to the most debilitating conflict since World War II.

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

Long ago, inner city kids like myself had wonderful public schools with dedicated teachers, preparing us for higher education when even top colleges and universities were affordable.

No longer. Bush’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Obama’s Race to the Top (RTTT) wrecked public education the way it used to be. It was deplorable before they made a bad system worse – polar opposite how it was decades earlier.

NCLB leaves most kids behind. RTTT is a race to the bottom. Both agendas reflect schemes to destroy a nearly four century tradition.

Public schools in America don’t teach. They’re institutions of intimidation and social control. They produce uneducated youths unprepared for the adult world they’re about to enter – most facing a working lifetime of rotten jobs with poverty wages along with few or no benefits.

No wonder many end up in prison, America’s most vulnerable, mostly people of color, abused throughout the nation’s sordid history.

Can US primary and secondary education get worse?

Instead of appointing an eminent educator, Trump chose the billionaire sister of Blackwater USA Eric Prince, Betsy DeVos.

She’s a businesswoman opponent of public education, a supporter of peudo-private charter and religious schools. According to American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten:

“In nominating DeVos, Trump makes it loud and clear that his education policy will focus on privatizing, defunding, and destroying public education in America” more than already.

Thomas Jefferson was the forerunner of US public education. In an 1813 letter to John Adams, he hoped it would become “the keystone in the arch of our government.”

He feared centralized authority at the federal or state levels, calling on local areas to run their own schools, saying otherwise “they would be badly managed, depraved by abuses.”

He urged parental involvement, arguing that believing schools will be better managed by “any authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward…is a belief against all experience.”

Government can no more manage schools than “farms, mills and merchants’ stores,” he said.

National Education Association president Lily Eskelsen Garcia blasted Devos’ longtime efforts to “undermine public education,” saying she “push(es) a corporate agenda to privatize, de-professionalize, and impose cookie-cutter solutions to public education” issues.

She has longstanding GOP ties. She chaired the Alliance for School Choice and Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty. She’s married to former Amway CEO Dick DeVos. Her father Edgar Prince founded the Prince Corporation, a manufacturer and distributor of agricultural and other products.

In late November, Trump nominated her to serve as education secretary. On January 31, she cleared the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on a party-line vote.

On February 7, the Senate deadlocked on her nomination 50 – 50 with two Republicans voting nay. Vice President Pence broke the tie, confirming her as Trump’s education secretary.

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.

GreenWire has reported that climate change denier Mike Catanzaro — a lobbyist for oil and gas companies Noble Energy, Devon Energy, Encana Oil and Gas,  American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and Hess Corporation — will soon become a top energy policy aide for President Donald Trump. 

Catanzaro’s lobbying disclosure forms for quarter four of 2016 serve as a potential preview of energy policy to come from the Trump White House. During that quarter, Catanzaro lobbied against U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) methane regulations, against U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement offshore drilling regulations, and for oil and gas development on U.S. public lands.

U.S. National Archives at College Park

As DeSmog has reported, Catanzaro served as a top energy aide during Trump’s presidential campaign. According to GreenWire, he is expected to serve as special assistant to Trump for energy and environmental issues under the umbrella of the White House National Economic Council.

His activities will include “implementing the president’s domestic energy and environment agenda and kind of managing the inter-agency process that deals with those issues,” a source close to the Trump administration told GreenWire. “This is likely to be the most influential domestic energy policy position within the White House [and] will comfort industry and conservatives who view him as a champion for free-market energy and environment policy.”

Catanzaro and the White House press team did not respond to a request for comment.

Path to the Trump White House

Catanzaro began his political career as a staffer for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which was then chaired by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the Senate’s most prominent climate change denier. During this time, Catanzaro also landed a job as Deputy Policy Director for the 2004 Bush-Cheney presidential campaign.

After transitioning into positions for the George W. Bush White House first as Associate Director for Policy for the Council on Environmental Quality and then Associate Deputy Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Catanzaro became a lobbyist for the electric utilities company Pennsylvania Power and Light.

He then swung through the government-industry revolving door, working as Deputy Minority Staff Director of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under the watch of Inhofe.

After serving two and a half years under Inhofe, Catanzaro then landed a job for the next year and half working for then-Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), serving as Boehner’s top policy aide. Ever since, Catanzaro has worked as a lobbyist, with a client list featuring the likes of Koch Industries, America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA), and Halliburton, in addition to his current clients.

Before his present job as a lobbyist for CGCN Group and after leaving Boehner’s office, Catanzaro spent two years working as a managing director for FTI Consulting. FTI runs Energy in Depth, a front group funded by the oil and gas industry. Born during the rise of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in the U.S., Energy in Depth was created to fend off criticism from the media, grassroots activists, environmental groups, scientists, and others.

Climate Change Denier

While working for Inhofe from 2003-2005, he wrote several articles for the conservative website Human Events which conveyed a climate science denial posture. His articles had titles such as “Glaciers, ‘Global Warming,’ and NY Times Hysteria,” “Be Afraid!!! Global Warming and Malaria,” “More Leftist Enviro Scare Tactics,” and “No Global Warming Consensus.”

Catanzaro, formerly an assistant editor with Human Events before beginning his political career, has written that “there is no connection between global warming and extreme weather,” as well as “when it comes to the science of global warming, the alarmists, of course, think all the complexities and uncertainties have been settled.”

Image Credit: C-SPAN Screenshot

Further, Catanzaro’s name appears as the press contact for a 12,000-word floor speech given by Inhofe in 2003, in which the senator said, “Much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science,” and “I have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax.”

Devon’s First Victory

Catanzaro and his fellow lobbyists recently scored a victory on behalf of the Oklahoma City-based fracking giant Devon Energy when the U.S. House of Representatives voted to nix the Obama administration’s regulations on flaring methane during oil and gas drilling on BLM public lands. Larry Nichols, Devon co-founder and Board of Directors Chairman Emeritus, served as a Trump presidential campaign energy adviser and campaign donor.

Oklahoma Attorney General and EPA administrator nominee Scott Pruitt submitted a letter to the EPA in 2011, which was actually ghostwritten by Devon, calling for the EPA to halt its proposed regulations on methane at U.S. fracking sites. In November 2016 Nichols’ name was floated as a potential U.S. Secretary of Energy nominee.

Flaring is the process of burning off excess natural gas at oil and gas drilling sites, which is so prevalent in the U.S. that the flare fires are visible from satellites in outer space. A recent study published by the journal Nature concluded that flaring wastes 3.5 percent of the world’s natural gas.

Trump ran on an anti-regulations campaign platform for his energy policy and his White House website features a section titled “America First Energy Plan,” which promotes increased fracking and staving off “burdensome regulations on our energy industry.”

By adding such a prominent oil and gas industry lobbyist to his energy policy team, it looks like Trump is following through.