Global Research

Outside Southeast Asia, few people know of Palembang, a city on Sumatra, the sixth largest island in the world. A gloomy and immense city, with almost two million inhabitants, most of them living in cramped and squalid conditions.

Outside Southeast Asia, few people know of Palembang, a city on Sumatra, the sixth largest island in the world. A gloomy and immense city, with almost two million inhabitants, most of them living in cramped and squalid conditions.

The tropical River Musi bisects the city, a desperately polluted waterway, bordered by slums built on stilts and a few old colonial buildings.
Vessels of all types use the Musi, hauling everything that can be sold abroad or to the rest of Indonesia. The river is jammed with enormous barges filled with coal, oil tankers, makeshift boats carrying palm oil fruit bunches, as well as countless ships carrying timber.

Plunder is done openly; there is no attempt to conceal it.

Ms. Isna Wijayani, a Professor at Bina Darma University in Palembang, laments on the situation.

“There is no primary forest left in a wide area around Palembang,” she says. “However, illegal logging doesn’t get reported in the local media. It is because powerful forces, including police and the army (TNI) are involved or directly behind much of the illegal logging and other profitable commercial activities in South Sumatra.”

Bina Darma University invited me to speak on the manipulation of the Indonesian media by the West. I was asked to address some 100 selected students and lecturers from the region. What followed was an hour-long discussion, during which I clearly understood how little is known, even among the local students and teachers, about the dire environmental situation in their part of the world.

“We have no idea about the extent of deforestation around here,” explained Ms. Lina, a student.

Ms. Ayu Lexy, a graduate student, was somewhat more knowledgeable on the subject: “I think Donald Trump is crazy, claiming that there is no global warming. The effects of it are clearly felt here.”

Just as I had done several years ago, I rented a makeshift speedboat and instructed the captain to take me around the delta to Upang, a village more than one hour of literally ‘flying’ over the murky waters from Palembang.

For the first few kilometers, hellish-looking factories lined up along both shores. All of the plants appeared to be forming a grand coalition, serving a single goal: to destroy what remains of the once-pristine tropical paradise.

There was the Pusri plant, producer of fertilizers, one of the largest in Southeast Asia, belching smoke and spewing an unbearable stench into the air. Right across the water, surrounded by slums, a wood-processing plant was emitting yet another very distinct odor. Local children were swimming nearby, clearly oblivious to health hazards.

Later, a former top executive of Pusri, Mr. Reza Esfan, confessed to me: “We create pollution, of course, although we try to minimize it. I can’t deny that unsavory odor is emitted… Obviously, Pusri’s mistake was that they didn’t purchase the land surrounding their plants. Now, if we have a leak, then the community sues us… ”

Naturally, not a word about the suffering of the communities…

At Kapitan village, several women were washing their clothes in the filthy river water, and then brushing their teeth in it.

“Why shouldn’t we be washing ourselves and brushing our teeth in clean water,” a village woman said. “We can’t spend our money on such luxuries! Anyway, the river water is free, and it is clean.”

As the woman spoke, a grotesquely swollen carcass of a dog passed slowly by in the water just a few meters away.

Disaster in the making

Deforestation was essential for the construction of all local industries. But how ruthless is deforestation in Indonesia? How bad is its contribution to global climate change?

The simple answer is: it is not just bad; it is dreadful.

The Pan-Asian independent news network, Coconuts TV, reported in 2015:

“Deforestation is a major contributor to climate change, adding more carbon pollution to the atmosphere than all the world’s cars, trucks, ships, trains and airplanes combined each year. It’s also pushing many animal species to the brink of extinction, including the Sumatran rhinoceros, Sumatran tiger, Sumatran elephant, and the orangutan due to the destruction of their habitats.”

Indonesia has become the global leader in deforestation, and the reason is the world’s thirst for palm oil. Palm oil is the most widely used vegetable oil on the planet. It can be found in over half of all packaged products at the supermarket, including everything from cooking oil to lipstick.”

As early as in 2007, Greenpeace Philippines snapped at Indonesia’s unwillingness to deal with the disaster:

“Indonesia destroys about 51 square kilometers of forests every day, equivalent to 300 football fields every hour — a figure, which should earn the country a place in the Guinness Book of World Records as the world’s fastest destroyer of forests… These figures demonstrate a lack of political will and power by the Indonesian government to stop runaway deforestation rates. A series of natural disasters in recent years, floods, forest fires, landslides, droughts, massive erosion are all linked to the unprecedented destruction of our forests. Forest fires from concessions and plantations have already made Indonesia the world’s third biggest contributor of greenhouse gases,” Mr. Hapsoro (Greenpeace Southeast Asia Forest campaigner) said.”

Since 2007, not much has changed. The country has already lost well over 70 percent of its intact ancient forests, and commercial logging, forest fires and new clearances for palm oil plantations threaten half of what is left. The greed seems to know no boundaries.

According to ScienceDirect:

“Between 1970 and the mid-1990s, export-oriented log production and global demand were the primary pressures underlying deforestation. Cultivation of rice and other crops was also found to be associated with a growing population and transmigration policy. Moreover, deregulation of foreign investment in the 1980s appears to have led to the expansion of an export-oriented industry, including commercial crop and log production. Between the mid-1990s and 2015, the imbalance between global demand and production of Indonesian timber and oil palm led to illegal or non-sustainable timber harvest and expansion of permanent agricultural areas…”

The result: Sumatra and Kalimantan islands are now choking on their own pollution, although the agony spreads far into neighboring Malaysia and Singapore. Year after year, millions of people get affected, classes are cancelled, airplanes grounded, and regular activities averted. Hundreds of thousands of people are suffering from acute respiratory infections. Hundreds lose their lives.

Some even call the unbridled ‘export of pollution’ a ‘crime against humanity.’ Emotions are running high, and many citizens of Malaysia and Singapore protest by boycotting Indonesian products.

On several occasions, I witnessed thick smog covering the skyscrapers of the leading Malaysian cities, and of Singapore. In 2015, during the ‘big fires’ of Sumatra, life in Kuala Lumpur almost came to a standstill.

This time, landing in Palembang, the haze had been covering almost the entire runway. “Visibility six kilometers,” the captain of Indonesian flagship carrier, Garuda, informed us, not long before the touchdown. In fact, the visibility appeared to be no more than 200 meters. But in Indonesia, many ‘uncomfortable facts’ are denied outright.

Throughout the following days, my eyes became watery and my joints were aching. I kept coughing uncontrollably. When I was asked by the Italian ‘5 Star Movement’ to record my political message (I did it in a local slum), I could hardly speak.

The trouble didn’t just come from the forest fires: everything here seemed to be polluting the environment: the burning of garbage, traffic jams, emissions from unregulated factories, even cigarette smoking in almost all public places.

Along the Musi River, the original forests are gone, replaced by rice fields, palm oil, and rubber plantations.

I spoke to dozens of farmers and fishermen. Most of them have never heard about global warming, others didn’t care. In Indonesia, the struggle for bare survival is what propels most of the people – this, as well as the cynical chase for profit, pursued by the ‘elites’. I described it in detail in my damning book ‘Indonesia: Archipelago of Fear’.

At some point, the captain of my boat became hostile. Angry, frustrated and nationalistic, he began sabotaging my work, constantly rocking his boat in order to prevent me from photographing disaster areas.

Still, I prevailed. I had to. Millions of people were suffering; dozens of species were disappearing, including tigers and rhinos, elephants and orangutans.

Mr. Ahmad, a 55-year-old fisherman from Upang village, is aware of the tragedy: “In the last 20 years, the level of Musi River has risen on average by 50 centimeters. Here we have a badminton court. In the past, during high tides, the water would go up only to our ankles, but now it comes up to our thighs.”

Mr. Ahmad doesn’t understand that it is the destruction of tropical forests that has a direct impact on the rising levels of his river.

Local university students, who are accompanying me, know what’s happening, but they don’t seem to care. As I interview farmers and fishermen, they’re chatting on their phones, clearly indifferent.

“The environmental destruction around Musi River, particularly of the rainforest, is very bad, and it continues. The great fire of 2015 showed how bad the management of the rainforests is in Indonesia, particularly in Sumatra,” Ms. Khalisah Khalid working for WALHI (the Indonesian Forum for the Environment), told me over the phone.

However, for many different reasons, environmental disasters do not seem to be treated as emergencies: by the government, mainstream media, even by local people.

As my boat flew over the water, hitting waves created by monstrous coal barges, practically breaking my back, I realized the mainstream media hardly ever comes here, despite what takes place around Musi has a devastating impact on our entire planet. Abroad, the Sumatran environmental disaster is just one of those ‘abstract stories.’

For years, I worked in many parts of this enormous and once stunning island, from Aceh to Lampung. I also worked all over Oceania (‘Oceania’ is the title of my book covering that vast part of the world), the most affected area of the planet, where entire countries are now disappearing due to the climate change.

Global warming has an undeniably devastating impact on the whole world, including the Palembang area itself. In the short term, palm oil and rubber plantations may bring some profits to the companies, even to local people, but tens, maybe hundreds of millions of lives could be disrupted, even broken as a result. The price is too steep, but in Indonesia, there is hardly any discussion on the subject. Too many powerful individuals are involved, and too much money is being made.

Now those who claim that there is no climate change have a powerful ally in the White House. And so the silence reigns. The water is rising. Increasingly, smog is covering, like an endless and deadly duvet, this entire part of the world.

Photos: Andre Vltchek

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.

Half a tweet, half a tweet
A megabyte onward
All in the valley of Death
Chased by the hundreds
“Forward the Right Tirade!”
“Non-whites are the ones” he said
Into the valley of Death
They fled by the hundreds.

“Forward, the Right tirade!“
Was anyone dismayed?
Not tho’ the sane ones knew
‘twas fascists who thundered,
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to repeat the lies
While the poor of all nations die
Driven through the valley of Death
While liberals merely wondered.

Drones flew over them
Police cudgelled most of them
Marines killing the rest of them
Volley’d and thunder’d;
Stormed at with shot and shell
Cowardly taking out families
Weddings and birthdays
Turned into Hell.

Flashed all their simple homes
Flashed all by bombing drones
Blown into thin air
Villages once inhabited there
Charging with armies, while
All the world wonder’d:
Plunged into flames and smoke
For opium and a foreign yoke
Ignored every word they spoke
Afghan, Syrian, Libyan and Congolese
While sabres are sharpened
For Russians and Chinese

When can their glory fade?
When heals the mess they made?
Yet the world wondered.
Cowards and brigands all
Deaf to true freedom’s call
Ruled by the laws of Death
For the greed of the One Percent
Feigning pure innocence
Unlike the Light Brigade
No end to the Right tirade.

Dr T.P. Wilkinson writes, teaches History and English, directs theatre and coaches cricket between the cradles of Heine and Saramago. He is also the author of Church Clothes, Land, Mission and the End of Apartheid in South Africa (Maisonneuve Press, 2003). . Read other articles by T.P..

The Trump Administration’s rhetoric and actions have alarmed the world.  The protests in response to his visa ban have overshadowed and distracted from a darker threat: war with Iran.   Is the fear of the threat greater than the threat itself?  The answer is not clear.

Certainly Americans and non-Americans who took comfort in the fact that we would have a more peaceful world believing that ‘Trump would not start a nuclear war with Russia must now have reason to pause.  The sad and stark reality is that US foreign policy is continuous.    An important part of this continuity is a war that has been waged against Iran for the past 38 years⎯unabated.

The character of this war has changed over time.  From a failed coup which attempted to destroy  the Islamic Republic in its early days (the Nojeh Coup), to aiding Saddam Hossein with intelligence and weapons of mass destruction to kill Iranians during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war, helping and promoting the terrorist MEK group, the training and recruiting of the Jundallah terrorist group to launch attacks in Iran, putting Special Forces on the ground in Iran, the imposition of sanctioned terrorism, the lethal Stuxnet cyberattack,  and the list goes on and on, as does the continuity of it.

While President Jimmy Carter initiated the Rapid Deployment Force and put boots on the Ground in the Persian Gulf, virtually every U.S. president since has threatened Iran with military action.  It is hard to remember when the option was not on the table.  However, thus far, every U.S. administration has wisely avoided a head on military confrontation with Iran.

To his credit, although George W. Bush was egged on to engage militarily with Iran, , the 2002 Millennium Challenge, exercises which simulated war, demonstrated America’s inability to win a war with Iran.   The challenge was too daunting.  It is not just Iran‘s formidable defense forces that have to be reckoned with; but the fact that one of Iran’s strengths and deterrents has been its ability to retaliate to any attack by closing down the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow passageway off the coast of Iran.  Given that 17 million barrels of oil a day, or 35% of the world’s seaborne oil exports go through the Strait of Hormuz, incidents in the Strait would be fatal for the world economy.

Faced with this reality, over the years, the United States has taken a multi-prong approach to prepare for an eventual/potential military confrontation with Iran.  These plans have included promoting the false narrative of an imaginary threat from a non-existent nuclear weapon and the falsehood of Iran being engaged in terrorism (when in fact Iran has been subjected to terrorism for decades as illustrated above).   These ‘alternate facts’ have enabled the United States to rally friend and foe against Iran, and to buy itself time to seek alternative routes to the Strait of Hormuz.

Plan B: West Africa and Yemen

In early 2000s, the renowned British think tank Chatham House issued one of the first publications that determined African oil would be a good alternate to Persian Gulf oil in case of oil disruption. This followed an earlier strategy paper for the U.S. to move toward African oil⎯The African White Paper⎯that was on the desk May 31, 2000 of then U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, a former CEO of energy giant Halliburton. In 2002, the Israeli-based think tank, IASPS, suggested America push toward African oil.   In an interesting coincidence, in the same year, the Nigerian terror group, Boko Haram, was “founded”.

In 2007, the United States African Command (AFRICOM) helped consolidate this push into the region.  The 2011, a publication titled: “Globalizing West African Oil: US ‘energy security’ and the global economy” outlined ‘US positioning itself to use military force to ensure African oil continued to flow to the United States’.   This was but one strategy to supply oil in addition to or as an alternate to the passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.

Nigeria and Yemen took on new importance.

In 2012, several alternate routes to Strait of Hormuz were identified which at the time of the report were considered to be limited in capacity and more expensive.   However, collectively, the West African oil and control of Bab Al-Mandeb would diminish the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz in case of war.

In his article for the Strategic Culture Foundation, “The Geopolitics Behind the War in Yemen: The Start of a New Front against Iran” geo-political researcher Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya correctly states: “[T] he US wants to make sure that it could control the Bab Al-Mandeb, the Gulf of Aden, and the Socotra Islands (Yemen). Bab Al-Mandeb it is an important strategic chokepoint for international maritime trade and energy shipments that connect the Persian Gulf via the Indian Ocean with the Mediterranean Sea via the Red Sea. It is just as important as the Suez Canal for the maritime shipping lanes and trade between Africa, Asia, and Europe.”

War on Iran has never been a first option. The neoconservative think tank, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), argued in its 2004 policy paper “The Challenges of U.S. Preventive Military Action” that the ideal situation was (and continues to be) to have a compliant regime in Tehran.  Instead of direct conflict, the policy paper [a must read] called for the assassination of scientists, introducing a malware, covertly provide Iran plans with a design flaw, sabotage, introduce viruses, etc.  These suggestions were fully and faithfully executed against Iran.

With the policy enacted, much of the world sighed with relief when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA , or the “Iran Nuclear Deal” which restricts Iran’s domestic nuclear power in exchange for the lifting of sanctions on Iran) was signed in the naïve belief that a war with Iran had been alleviated.   Obama’s genius was in his execution of U.S. policies which disarmed and disbanded the antiwar movements.  But the JCPOA was not about improved relations with Iran, it was about undermining it.  As recently as April 2015, as the signing of the JCPOA was drawing near, during a speech at the Army War College Strategy Conference, then Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work elaborated on how the Pentagon plans to counter the three types of wars supposedly being waged by Iran, Russia, and China.

As previously planned, the purpose of the JCPOA was to pave the way for a compliant regime in Tehran faithful to Washington, failing that, Washington would be better prepared for war for  under the JCPOA, Iran would open itself up to inspections.  In other words, the plan would act as a Trojan horse to provide America with targets and soft spots.  Apparently the plan was not moving forward fast enough to please Obama, or Trump.  In direct violation of international law and concepts of state sovereignty, the Obama administration slammed sanctions on Iran for testing missiles.   Iran’s missile program was and is totally separate from the JCPOA and Iran is within its sovereign rights and within the framework of international law to build conventional missiles.

Trump followed suit. Trump ran on a campaign of changing Washington and his speeches were full of contempt for Obama; ironically, like Obama, candidate Trump continued the tactic of disarming many by calling himself a deal maker, a businessman who would create jobs, and for his rhetoric of non-interference.    But few intellectuals paid attention to his fighting words, and fewer still heeded the advisors he surrounded himself with or they would have noted that Trump considers Islam as the number one enemy, followed by Iran, China, and Russia.

The ideology of those he has picked to serve in his administration reflect the contrarian character of Trump and indicate their support of this continuity in US foreign policy.  Former intelligence chief and Trump’s current National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, stated that the Obama administration willfully allowed the rise of ISIS, yet the newly appointed Pentagon Chief “Mad Dog Mattis” has stated: “I consider ISIS nothing more than an excuse for Iran to continue its mischief.”  So the NSC (National Security Council) believes that Obama helped ISIS rise and the Pentagon believes that ISIS helps Iran continue its ‘mischief’.  Is it any wonder that Trump is both confused and confusing?

And is it any wonder that when on January 28^th Trump signed an Executive Order calling for a plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days the US, UK, France and Australia ran war games drill in the Persian Gulf that simulated a confrontation with Iran⎯ the country that has, itself, been fighting ISIS.   When Iran exercised its right, by international law, to test a missile, the United States lied and accused Iran of breaking the JCPOA. Threats and new sanctions ensued.

Trump, the self-acclaimed dealmaker who took office on the promise of making new jobs, slammed more sanctions on Iran. Sanctions take jobs away from Americans by prohibiting business with Iran, and they also compel Iranians to become fully self-sufficient, breaking the chains of neo-colonialism. What a deal!

Even though Trump has lashed out at friend and foe, Team Trump has realized that when it comes to attacking a formidable enemy, it cannot do it alone.   Although both in his book, Time to Get Tough, and on his campaign trails he has lashed out at Saudi Arabia, in an about face, he has not included Saudis and other Arab state sponsors of terror on his travel ban list.   It would appear that someone whispered in Mr. Trump’s ear that Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Qatar are fighting America’s dirty war in Yemen (and in Syria) and killing Yemenis.  In fact, the infamous Erik Prince, founder of the notorious Blackwater who is said to be advising Trump from the shadows, received a $120 million contract from the Obama Administration, and for the past several years has been working with Arab countries, UAE in particular, in the “security” and “training” of militias in the Gulf of Aden, Yemen.

So will there be a not so distant military confrontation with Iran?

Not if sanity prevails.  And with Trump and his generals, that is a big IF.  While for many years the foundation has been laid and preparations made for a potential military confrontation with Iran, it has always been a last resort; not because the American political elite did not want war, but because they cannot win THIS war. For 8 years, Iran fought not just Iraq, but virtually the whole world.   America and its allies funded Saddam’s war against Iran, gave it intelligence and weaponry, including weapons of mass destruction.  In a period when Iran was reeling from a revolution, its army was in disarray, its population virtually one third of the current population, and its supply of US provided weapons halted.  Yet Iran prevailed. Various American administrations have come to the realization that while it may take a village to fight Iran, attacking Iran would destroy the global village.

It is time for us to remind Trump that we don’t want to lose our village.

This article was first submitted to the print edition of Worldwide Women Against Military Madness (WAMM) newsletter.  

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on US foreign policy.

It has been several months since the barrage of nightmarish reports about the horrors in East Aleppo as the government army prepared to drive out the remaining rebels from the city in mid December. Purported “activists” posted their “goodbye” messages, claiming they feared they would be slaughtered by government forces.

Women were said to have chosen suicide over rape. And most widely disseminated of all were reports that regime soldiers had executed 82 civilians, including women and children. (See here, here, here, here and here.) None of these shocking reports were verified by journalists on the ground. Though none of the news media admitted it, there were no foreign journalists in East Aleppo because they feared being kidnapped and killed by the al Qaeda-aligned rebels, as American reporter James Foley had been in 2014. But after hostilities concluded in East Aleppo with the rebels being driven out of the city, the same organizations who propagated the doomsday narrative have shown no interest in examining it and setting the record straight.

But the purpose of media in the United States and Western democracies is not to report the truth but to reinforce the government’s position by accepting the fundamental validity of its narrative. As Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman write in Manufacturing Consent, “(a) propaganda model suggests that the ‘societal purpose’ of the media is to inculcate and defend the economic, social and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state.” [1]

It is evident that the political and military establishment is fixated on regime change in Syria, and thus has chosen to align with Syria’s local al-Qaeda affiliate — if not directly then indirectly by supporting groups that make common cause in fighting under their command. The propaganda model would predict that the media would portray the Assad government as uniquely cruel and savage, and the opponents of the regime as worthy victims of the Syrian government’s evilness.

Thus it should not be surprising that after the re-capture of East Aleppo actual evidence of a massacre was discovered, but was ignored.  Since the evidence pointed to atrocities by the rebels against the government, instead of vice versa, it went unreported in the Western press.

In late December, 100 government soldiers were found dead inside East Aleppo. Video by Syrian “activists” showed that at least some of the dead soldiers had been captured days earlier, suggesting they were executed rather than killed in battle. Despite photographic and video evidence, these deaths were not worthy of being covered by CNN, the New York Times, the BBC or other outlets who did report on unverified accusations of executions by the other side.

The Hue and Racak “Massacres”

Several historical examples are useful to see how stories that coincide with the government line are amplified by the media, no matter how little evidence exists. Later, when evidence emerges which calls into question the original narrative, the media simply ignore it and it is lost to history.

During the U.S. aggression against Vietnam, the brutality and viciousness of the “Communists” was exemplified in the American public imagination by the “Hue Massacre” in January 1968. The official narrative was that North Vietnamese troops, while retreating from the city of Hue after the Tet offensive, carried out indiscriminate massacres of civilians and buried them in mass graves.

London Times correspondent Stewart Harris reported in March 1968 that Hue Police Chief Doan Cong Lap claimed there had been 200 killings and a mass grave discovered with 300 bodies. The next month, the Saigon government’s propaganda agency put out a report claiming there were 1,000 victims of a Communist massacre, many of whom had been buried alive. After this was not picked up, the U.S. State Department put out the same report the following week. It was duly splashed across all the major American newspapers.

“The story was not questioned, despite the fact that no Western journalist had ever been taken to see the grave sites when the bodies were uncovered,” write Chomsky and Herman in The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism. “On the contrary, French photographer Marc Riboud was repeatedly denied permission to see one of the sites where the Province Chief claimed 300 civilian government workers had been executed by the Communists. When he was finally taken by helicopter to the alleged site, the pilot refused to land, claiming the area was ‘insecure.’ ” [2]

Subsequently, a purported “captured document” was found that allegedly showed Communists had admitted to killing 2,748 people. This was taken at face value and became the new official version of the incident.

In reality, a vicious U.S.-led assault to recapture Hue had resulted in massive casualties. Photographer Philip Jones Griffiths wrote that most of the victims were killed by the air assault. The dead were falsely designated as victims of a Communist massacre.

Gareth Porter, who thoroughly investigated the events in Hue, described his findings as follows:

The available evidence – not from NLF sources but from official U.S. and Saigon documents and from independent observers, indicates that the official story of an indiscriminate slaughter of those who were considered to be unsympathetic to the NLF is a complete fabrication. Not only is the number of bodies uncovered in and around Hue open to question, but more important, the cause of death appears to have been shifted from the fighting itself to NLF execution. And the most detailed and ‘authoritative’ account of the alleged executions put together by either government does not stand up under examination.

But there was never any attempt by the mainstream Western press who were so quick to amplify the U.S. government’s accounts to investigate what really happened and set the record straight if their findings did not match the initial story. Nor was there any interest in investigating casualties in Hue when there was substantial evidence that they were caused by the U.S. military and forces loyal to the military dictatorship they were supporting.

30 years later in Kosovo, the Western media reported the latest massacre by the evil forces of an official enemy. In this case, the Serbian military had allegedly murdered 45 unarmed Kosovo Albanians in the village of Racak. The first reports of a “massacre” and a “crime against humanity” in Racak were pronounced by Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) mission head William Walker.

On January 18, 1999, Chief International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia prosecutor Louise Arbour showed up at the border of Kosovo and demanded entry to investigate the incident. In March, U.S. President Bill Clinton would use the pretext of Racak to justify an illegal air war against Serbia when he declared, “(w)e should remember what happened in the village of Racak, where innocent men, women and children were taken from their homes to a gully, forced to kneel in the dirt, sprayed with gunfire — not because of anything they had done, but because of who they were.” [3]

Clinton’s version was created out of whole cloth. There were no women and children, and there was no evidence the dead had been marched from their homes and forced to kneel in the dirt. The Serbian government determined that there was only 22 men, and that the deaths had resulted from a fire fight during a police action to catch Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) fighters who had killed four policeman the week before.

While the Serb version, which was exculpatory to their own side, should not be accepted at face value either, it does raise possibilities worth examining. There was a context that could explain the dead bodies, i.e., heavy fighting between KLA and Serbian forces. As Michael Mandel writes in How America Gets Away with Murder: “to the extent that there was a massacre, it was provoked by the KLA as part of a deliberate and consistent pattern aimed at bringing on NATO’s military intervention.” Mandel notes that even NATO supporters such as Michael Ignatieff had written several months before that KLA tactics “were not a miscalculation, but a deliberate strategy” designed to force Serbian forces to overreact and force NATO to intervene on the KLA’s side. [4]

It is not hard to see the double standard by which the media operates when reporting alleged atrocities by enemies of the U.S. government. Actual massacres by the U.S. armed forces are portrayed as one-off cases attributable to low-level rogue offices, like My Lai in Vietnam, or as honest mistakes and collateral damage, like the Kunduz hospital bombing in Afghanistan. Even in the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent noncombatants, like the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the systematic carpet bombing of vast swaths of Cambodia and Laos, U.S. actions are never conceived of as evidence of barbarity and indiscriminate violence. Whereas atrocities by the other side are unfailingly portrayed as unprovoked mass murder, unconscionable examples of the enemy’s lack of humanity and indicative of the difference between us and them.

The mainstream media is best understood as an appendage of the government and ruling class interests, one which functions as part of a propaganda system that has nothing to do with providing with facts, but rather creating an acceptable ideological framework for its audience. This explains why the media exhibits such a blatant confirmation bias. In this light, it should be anything but surprising that the story about the Syrian government executing 82 civilians can become an official historical fact without any serious attempt to verify the actual course of events either at the time they happened, or after the fog of war has cleared.

References

[1] Chomsky, Noam and Edward S. Herman. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon, 2011. Kindle edition. (Loc. 7556)

[2] Chomsky, Noam and Edward S. Herman. The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism: The Political Economy of Human Rights: Volume 1. Boston: South End Press, 1979. (pp. 346)

[3] Quoted in Mandel, Michael. How America Gets Away with Murder: Illegal Wars, Collateral Damage and Crimes Against Humanity. Pluto Press, 2004. Kindle edition. (Loc. 1737)

[4] Mandel, Michael. How America Gets Away with Murder: Illegal Wars, Collateral Damage and Crimes Against Humanity. Pluto Press, 2004. Kindle edition. (Loc. 1820)

In an ironic twist, it appears it may not have been ‘The Russians’ that hacked America’s political system last year. As The Daily Caller reports, three brothers (Abid, Imran, and Jamal Awan) who managed office IT for members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other lawmakers were abruptly relieved of their duties on suspicion that they accessed congressional computer networks without permission.

Imran Awan seen below with Bill Clinton

As Luke Rosiak repoerts, the brothers were barred from computer networks at the House of Representatives Thursday, The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group has learned.

Three members of the intelligence panel and five members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs were among the dozens of members who employed the suspects on a shared basis. The two committees deal with many of the nation’s most sensitive issues, information and documents, including those related to the war on terrorism.

The brothers are suspected of serious violations, including accessing members’ computer networks without their knowledge and stealing equipment from Congress.

The three men are “shared employees,” meaning they are hired by multiple offices, which split their salaries and use them as needed for IT services. It is up to each member to fire them from working…

 Jamal handled IT for Rep. Joaquin Castro, a Texas Democrat who serves on both the intelligence and foreign affairs panels.

“As of 2/2, his employment with our office has been terminated,” Castro spokeswoman Erin Hatch told TheDCNF Friday.

Jamal also worked for Louisiana Democrat Rep. Cedric Richmond, who is on the Committee on Homeland Security.

Imran worked for Reps. Andre Carson, an Indiana Democrat, and Jackie Speier, a California Democrat. Carson and Speier are members of the intelligence committee. Spokesmen for Carson and Speier did not respond to TheDCNF’s requests for comments. Imran also worked for the House office of Wasserman-Schultz.

Then-Rep. Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat, employed Abid for IT work in 2016. She was a member of House committees dealing with the armed services, oversight, and Benghazi. Duckworth was elected to the Senate in November, 2016. Abid has a prior criminal record and a bankruptcy.

Abid also worked for Rep. Lois Frankel, a Florida Democrat who is member of the foreign affairs committee.

Also among those whose computer systems may have been compromised is Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Florida Democrat who was previously the target of a disastrous email hack when she served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 campaign.

Read more here…

A criminal investigation into five unnamed people began late last year related to serious and potentially illegal violations of House IT policies, Politico reported Thursday. Chiefs of staff for the members were briefed Thursday by the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Buzzfeed reported Friday that one of the affected members claimed:

 they said it was some sort of procurement scam, but now I’m concerned that they may have stolen data from us, emails, who knows.

While treading carefully here, and not wanting to hurt anyone’s feelings, is it just us or is the irony too perfect that having blamed ‘Russians’ for allegedly hacking their systems and manipulating the election, it was three IT staff they hired (with immigrant-sounding names – yes we said it) that in fact broke into the systems of various politicians and aides.

Radiation is at its highest since the 2011 meltdown.

The radiation levels inside Japan’s damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor No. 2 have soared in recent weeks, reaching a maximum of 530 sieverts per hour, a number experts have called “unimaginable“.

Radiation is now by far the highest it has been since the reactor was struck by a tsunami in March 2011 – and scientists are struggling to explain what’s going on.

Exactly what’s causing the levels to creep upwards again is currently stumping the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco). But the good news is that they say the radiation is safely contained within the reactor, so there’s no risk to the greater population.

The latest readings were taken near the entrance of the No. 2 reactor, immediately below the pressure vessel that contains the reactor core.

To get an idea of the radiation levels inside, the team used a remote-operated camera to take photos of the area – the deepest point in the reactor to date – and then analysed the electronic noise in the images to measure radiation levels.

The technique has an error margin of plus or minus 30 percent, which means that it’s not highly accurate. But even at the lowest end of the measurements, the levels would still be 370 sieverts per hour – and could be as high as 690 sieverts per hour.

These unexpectedly high levels are complicating Tepco’s plan to decommission the nuclear reactor. The most recent aim was to have workers find the fuel cells and start dismantling the plant by 2021 – a job that’s predicted to take up to half a century.

The Japanese National Institute of Radiological Sciences told Japan Times that medical professionals have no experience dealing with radiation levels this high – for perspective, a single dose of just 1 sievert of radiation could lead to infertility, hair loss, and sickness.

Four sieverts of radiation exposure in a short period of time would kill 50 percent of people within a month. Ten sieverts would kill a person within three weeks.

Even the remote-operated camera sent in to capture these images is only designed to withstand 1,000 sieverts of radiation, which means it won’t last more than two hours in the No. 2 reactor.

It’s not yet clear exactly what’s causing the high levels either. It’s possible that previous readings were incorrect or not detailed enough, and levels have always been this high. Or maybe something inside the reactor has changed.

The fact that these readings were so high in this particular location suggests that maybe melted reactor fuel escaped the pressure vessel, and is located somewhere nearby.

Adding to that hypothesis is the fact that the images reveal a gaping 1-metre (3.2-foot) hole in the metal grate underneath the pressure vessel – which could indicate that nuclear fuel had melted out of it.

Tepco

On Monday, Tepco also saw “black chunks” deposited on the grating directly under the pressure vessel – which could be evidence of melted fuel rods.

If confirmed, this would be a huge deal, because in the six years since the three Fukushima reactors went into meltdown, no one has ever been able to find any trace of the nuclear fuel rods.

Swimming robots were sent into the reactors last year to search for the fuel rods and hopefully remove them, but their wiring was destroyed by the high levels of radiation.

Naturally, Tepco is reluctant to jump to any conclusions on what the black mass in the images could be until they have more information.

“It may have been caused by nuclear fuel that would have melted and made a hole in the vessel, but it is only a hypothesis at this stage,” a Tepco spokesperson told AFP.

We believe the captured images offer very useful information, but we still need to investigate given that it is very difficult to assume the actual condition inside.

Given the new readings, Tepco is now putting their plans to further explore reactor No. 2 using remote operated camera on hold, seeing as the device will most likely be destroyed by the intense conditions.

But they will send a robot into reactor No. 1 in March to try to get a better idea about the internal condition of the structure, while they decide what to do next with reactor No. 2.

Trump denounces judge who lifted travel ban, as airlines begin allowing passengers back on US flights

A US federal appeals court early Sunday rejected a request by the Department of Justice to immediately reinstate President Donald Trump’s travel ban.

Trump’s administration had lodged the request with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as part of an appeal against a lower court order temporarily suspending the travel ban on citizens from seven mainly Muslim countries.

A rally outside the US consulate in Hong Kong organised by the International Migrants Alliance protests against US President Donald Trump and his recent immigration and refugee restrictions (AFP)

For now, the travel ban suspension remains in place. Both the State and Homeland Security Departments said Saturday they were resuming normal practices concerning travelers from the affected countries.

Judge William Canby, Jr. in Phoenix and Judge Michelle Friedland in San Francisco did not give a reason for their denial in a two-paragraph ruling.

However, they told the states of Washington and Minnesota, which had filed the original suit against Trump’s travel ban, to provide documents detailing their opposition to the government’s appeal by 11:59pm Sunday (0759 GMT Monday).

The Department of Justice was given a deadline of 3pm Monday to supply more documents supporting its position.

Major global airlines including British Airlines, Emirates and Air France began boarding passengers bound for the United States after the lifting of the court order.

Trump on Saturday denounced the judge who lifted the travel ban for citizens of seven mainly Muslim countries, vowing his government would reinstate it.

Seattle-based federal Judge James Robart late Friday issued a nationwide order blocking Trump’s ban in the most severe legal blow yet to the president’s executive order. The challenge was brought by the state of Washington and later joined by the state of Minnesota.

Although a few airlines said they were waiting to see how the situation developed, carriers including Air France, British Airways, Emirates, Etihad Airways, Lufthansa, Qatar Airways, Swiss Airways and United Airlines said they would allow nationals of the countries in question to board if they had a valid visa. “Since this morning we have applied with immediate effect the judicial decision taken overnight. All passengers presenting themselves will embark once their papers are in order to travel to the United States,” an Air France spokesman told AFP. Swiss Airlines said it was in touch with US customs and border services and that “at the present time all passengers with valid travel documents can travel on any Swiss flights bound for the United States”.

Germany’s Lufthansa also cited the court injunction and underscored that those “holding a valid immigrant or non-immigrant visa for the US are again allowed to travel to the US”.

The Washington state lawsuit was the first to test the broad constitutionality of Trump’s travel ban, which has been condemned by rights groups that consider it discriminatory.

“The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” Trump said on Twitter.

“When a country is no longer able to say who can, and who cannot, come in & out, especially for reasons of safety & security – big trouble!” Trump tweeted.

The political backlash for Trump has been severe, with the order fueling numerous mass protests and internal White House infighting. In Washington, demonstrators marched to Capitol Hill and the Supreme Court, chanting “Donald, Donald, can’t you see – we don’t want you in DC!” Some held signs that read “Brown is the new white” and “Love knows no borders”.

About 3,000 people rallied in New York, while an estimated 10,000 people turned out in London, and smaller gatherings took place in Paris, Berlin, Stockholm and Barcelona.

Trump was forced to defend a botched rollout of the plan, which called his government’s competence into question, and fired the government’s acting attorney general for refusing to defend the order in court.

His approval rating has sunk to the lowest level on record for any new president.

His latest rhetorical outburst is only likely to stoke the controversy.

Presidents from Thomas Jefferson to Barack Obama have criticized court rulings, but have rarely, if ever, criticized individual judges.

“I can’t think of anything like it in the past century and a half at least,” constitutional scholar and Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe said.

Because of the temporary restraining order, the US government said travelers with valid visas would be allowed to enter the country.

The State Department said almost 60,000 visas had been suspended because of Trump’s ban.

The Department of Homeland Security said on Saturday it would return to its normal procedures for screening travelers, but that the Trump administration would fight to overturn Friday’s ruling.

“At the earliest possible time, the Department of Justice intends to file an emergency stay of this order and defend the president’s executive order, which is lawful and appropriate,” DHS spokeswoman Gillian Christensen said a statement.

US Customs & Border Protection (CBP) informed US airlines late Friday that they could once again board travelers with proper visas, an airline official told Reuters.

Robart, a George W Bush appointee, made his ruling effective immediately, suggesting that travel restrictions could be lifted straight away. He is expected to issue a full written ruling over the weekend.

“It’s a wonderful day for the rule of law in this country,” said Washington state solicitor general Noah Purcell.

Trump’s order had set off chaos and moved thousands of people to protest at airports across the US last week.

“I am very happy that we are going to travel today. Finally, we made it,” said Fuad Sharef, an Iraqi with an immigration visa who was prevented from boarding a flight to New York last week.

“I didn’t surrender and I fought for my right and other people’s right,” Sharef told Reuters as he and his family prepared to fly from Erbil, the capital of the Kurdish region of northern Iraq, to Istanbul and then to New York, before starting a new life in Nashville, Tennessee.

Virtually all refugees also were barred, upending the lives of thousands of people who had spent years seeking asylum in the US.

On Saturday, a small group of immigration lawyers, some holding signs in English and Arabic, gathered at New York’s John F Kennedy International Airport, offering services to passengers arriving from overseas destinations. “This is an instance where people could really slip through the cracks and get detained and nobody would know,” said John Biancamano, 35, an attorney volunteering his services.

At Dulles International Airport outside Washington, volunteer lawyers also were in place to help travelers and monitor how visa holders and permanent residents were being treated as they arrived.

There are serious signs that the Trump administration will continue to seek better relations with Russia. It declines to get involved in the hustling in Ukraine. It is ready to give up on the catastrophic regime-change agenda the neocons implemented in Kiev with the help of Ukrainian Nazi organizations.

Let us recap. On New Year the neo-conservative Senators McCain and Graham were in Ukraine to fire up Ukrainian troops at the front lines for a new fight with Russia supported rebels in Donetsk and Lugansk. A few days later then Vice President Biden also dropped in on Kiev. The three are declared enemies of Trump’s more friendly position towards Russia. They obviously intended to reignite the conflict in Ukraine to sabotage Trump’s new foreign policy.

The former Georgian President Saakashvilli has once fallen for the Bush administration’s incitement and attacked Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia. When that war went badly he received none of the hoped for backup from Washington and NATO.

Poroshenko should have learned from that. Instead he fell for the incitement and assurances from the senators and restarted the war with the separatist. Multiple news outlets and even Ukrainian generals first admitted that it was the Kiev government that started the current round of fighting by “creeping” into the no-man’s zone that was supposed to separate the belligerents. But as usual the “western” media now try to change history and to put the guilt on Russia. They press for a U.S. “response” to the “Russian aggression”.

At first it looked that this impressed the Trump administration. The new U.S. ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley held a speech that might have been written by her “wailing banshee” predecessor Samantha Powers. It condemned Russia for about everything and promised that sanctions on Russia would stay. But two days later she visited the Russian UN ambassador Churkin in his private home in New York city to make nice. The speech was probably just a head-fake or some uncoordinated screw-up.

The Ukrainian President Poroshenko had tried for several days to get a phonecall scheduled with President Trump. But on Thursday Trump met, very shortly though, Poroshenko’s opposition in Ukraine Yuliya Tymoshenko. She is a former prime minister and – said mildly- a controversial figure: always scheming, lying and ready to be offered and take huge bribes. But with some help she could probably win an election in Ukraine should Poroshenko step down.

Only on Saturday Trump finally had a phonecall with Poroshenko. The very short readout is a blast. It speaks of “Ukraine’s long-running conflict with Russia” and adds:

“We will work with Ukraine, Russia, and all other parties involved to help them restore peace along the border,” said President Trump.

Ukraine’s conflict is not with Russia and the fighting is not along the border. It is a genuine civil war, ignited by a U.S. regime change operation in Kiev, in witch both side have external support. That Trump does not describes it that way leaves lots of room for interpretation. Is there a new “Russian border” along the current line of the ceasefire? What about the Minsk2 process which Ukraine has failed to implement? What about sanctions?

But the most important points: There is no mention of weapon or other support for Kiev. There is no blame on Russia for the renewed violence at the front-line.

My instant micro interpretation of the readout was:

Trump to Poroshenko (translated): I know you started this on order of McCain/Graham/Biden. Screw you. You will win nothing. You are out.

Poroshenko had fired up his troops and promised to fight the rebels throughout their autonomous area up to the Russian border. The intend behind that was to sabotage Trump’s policies. Poroshenke will now have to revise those plans.

Trump topped the above readout in an interview with Fox news a part of which was previewed last night (partitial transcript):

Bill O’Reilly: Do you respect Putin?President Trump: I do respect him but –

O’Reilly: Do you? Why?

President Trump: Well, I respect a lot of people but that doesn’t mean I’m going to get along with him. He’s a leader of his country. I say it’s better to get along with Russia than not. And if Russia helps us to fight against ISIS, which is a major fight, and Islamic terrorism all over the world – that’s a good thing. Will I get along with him? I have no idea.

O’Reilly: But he’s a killer though. Putin’s a killer.

President Trump: There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What do you think – our country’s so innocent?

Whoa – Trump is rejecting the U.S. national religion – exceptionalism. The Republicans would have eaten Obama alive had he ever said something like that. “Are you suggesting that Russia which is always killing civilians is morally equal to us who only kill terrorists?” Now the Republicans will be silent about this and the Democrats will howl.

Taken together the recent statements by the Trump administration are positive for renewed U.S.- Russian cooperation. The Ukraine case will be a non-issue. Poroshenko listened to the wrong master’s voice. He will (have to) see the light and leave immediately or he will be kicked out of the way.

Once again, US-led coalition targets local infrastructure in Syria causing damage to civil life instead of eliminating terrorism. Yet, marches worldwide continue to support redundant causes that ignore lives of millions besieged in their own homes because of terrorism.

The city under the terrorist colonization of DAESH for over three years now is disconnected from the entire country living under the mercy of the radical group.

According to SANA, Warplanes of the US-led “international coalition” destroyed the old and new Raqqa bridges and the drinking water lines causing the stopping of pumping water for the entire city of Raqqa.

Local and media sources said that warplanes affiliated to the US-led coalition on Friday morning launched a raid on the new and old Raqqa bridges in Raqqa city, destroying them totally.

The sources added that the airstrikes also targeted the main water line which supplies the city of Raqqa with drinking water which led to cutting off drinking water to the whole city.

In the northern countryside of the province, the sources said that the airstrikes also destroyed the bridges of al-Kalta and al-Abbara completely.

The short answer is it’s too soon to tell. His Office of the Press Secretary claims otherwise, saying “(i)n only two weeks, President Trump delivers on his promise to make America safe again.”

It cites Iranian sanctions along with putting Tehran on notice “for provocative action in violation of its international obligations.”

Fact: Its week ago ballistic missile test referred to was entirely legitimate, not provocative. Like all countries, it’s within its rights to develop and test weapons for self-defense. Iran poses no threat to any nation. Its military preparedness is vital to protect against clear external threats.

Fact: Actions by America, NATO and Israel threaten humanity, including possible thermonuclear annihilation. How does that reality keep the nation safe or any others?

Fact: US and Israeli hostility toward Iran threatens regional and world peace if it’s targeted by their belligerent action.

Trump’s press secretary office (PSO below) cited various presidential actions, speeches, White House meetings, approved administration appointees, and conversations with foreign leaders “promot(ing) an America first foreign policy” as ways he’s keeping the country safe.

Fact: All of the above largely constitute routine executive day-to-day business all heads of state engage in everywhere.

PSO: Trump signed an EO to enforce immigration laws, a separate one to suspend access to America from seven designated Muslim countries – on the pretext of protecting the nation “from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals…”

Fact: It’s unclear why an EO was needed to enforce current immigration laws. Banning the right of nationals from some countries to travel to America, not others, has nothing to do with public safety, everything to do with keeping Muslims the nation’s enemy of choice – the pretext for endless imperial wars.

PSO: An EO ordered the defense secretary to develop a plan to defeat ISIS.

Fact: America created and supports the terrorist group along with likeminded ones. It’s been US policy at least since the 1980s in Afghanistan.

Is Trump ending it? Is he sincere about defeating ISIS? Will he target or maintain support for likeminded groups, used as imperial foot soldiers?

Does he want to defeat international terrorism or is his EO and public comments hyperbole – intending to continue US imperial policies while pretending otherwise?

It’s too soon to know, though early signs aren’t encouraging – including irresponsibly challenging China and Iran,  bashing Russia’s Ukraine policy, one-sidedly supporting Israel, threatening Palestinians, continuing drone wars, staging provocative military exercises on Russia’s border, and massacring Yemeni civilians.

PSO: Trump’s EO “establish(ed) the organization of the National Security Council.”

Fact: It’s been around since 1947 during the Truman years. It advises the president on national security and foreign policies. It coordinates them with various government agencies. Trump’s geopolitical agenda won’t be known until it more fully unfolds.

PSO: He held a cybersecurity meeting to discuss how to deal with possible threats.

Fact: So did his predecessors, nothing unusual about this. It’s standard practice in the modern age.

PSO: Trump spoke to 16 foreign leaders, including hosting UK Prime Minister Theresa May at the White House.

Fact: It’s his job, not related to keeping America safe except when agreements on national security are reached.

Netanyahu is coming in mid-February. Other leaders will follow. Putin and Trump will likely meet later this year at a neutral venue.

All of the above ignores the most important way to keep America safe. The nation’s only enemies are ones it invents.

End US imperial madness and none will exist. World peace and stability will break out all over – including domestically if Trump serves all America’s equitably, not just its privileged few alone, standard practice throughout the nation’s history, unlikely to change.

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.

Canadian independent journalist Eva Bartlett is the object of a smear campaign by Canada’s mainstream media.

Listen to what she has to say and then decide who is telling the truth.

The mainstream media denies the existence of terrorists linked to Al Qaeda.

According to mainstream sources, there were no terrorists in Aleppo. 

Al Qaeda and the Islamic State are supported by US-NATO, Saudi Arabia and Israel. They are the state-sponsors of terrorism. We are dealing with a war of aggression. Eva Bartlett provides detailed evidence of  war crimes. (M.Ch, GR Editor)

Montreal Event, January 28, 2017

Last week Andrew Korybko gave an extensive interview to the leading Iranian news agency Mashregh (part I, part II). He talked about the Eurasian dimension of his Hybrid Warfare theory, Syria crisis, Obama’s latent agenda to overthrow Iranian regime and Trump’s ambitions to carry out “Green Revolution 2.0”. ORIENTAL REVIEW publishes its full original text in English, by the author’s courtesy.

• Please briefly explain the concept of Hybrid War and its most important components.

Hybrid War can be described as manufactured or provoked identity conflict with the aim of disrupting, controlling, or influencing multipolar transnational connective infrastructure projects through the methods of Regime Tweaking, Regime Change, and/or Regime Reboot in geostrategic transit states. This can be referred to as the Law of Hybrid War. The organizers exploit religious, ethnic, historical, socio-economic, and administrative & physical geographic differences in order to achieve political concessions (Regime Tweaking), leadership change (Regime Change), and/or constitutional reformation (Regime Reboot, usually from a unitary state to an internally partitioned “federal” one) against the targeted country in order to undermine China’s New Silk Roads and other Great Powers’ connective projects.

Infowars, social and structural preconditioning, and physical provocations are the tangible iterations of this stratagem, and their tactical escalation is usually marked by the transition from a failed Color Revolution to an Unconventional War in the event that the anticipated political objectives aren’t readily attained.

In practice, the War of Terror on Syria is a perfect example of a Hybrid War, whereby the US and its ‘Lead From Behind’ regional allies violently provoked regime change in order to punish President Assad for turning down the Qatari gas pipeline and to prevent the construction of its Friendship Pipeline replacement between Iran, Iraq, and Syria. The spree of urban terrorism popularly known as “EuroMaidan” is another such example of Hybrid War, as the US stoked identity conflict between the hyper-nationalist Ukrainians in the western half of the country and the multicultural Russian-affiliated ones in the eastern part as a means of subverting Russia’s Eurasian Union integration project with Ukraine.

Other less-discussed examples of Hybrid War are the back-to-back destabilizations which took place in the Republic of Macedonia from 2015-2016 in order to undermine Russia and China’s planned Balkan megaprojects through the country, as well as last year’s riots which broke out in Ethiopia and were intended to diminish the attractiveness of one of China’s chief economic partners in Africa and the recently completed Addis Ababa-Djibouti railway (the Horn of Africa Silk Road). Truth be told, however, many Eastern Hemispheric countries are vulnerable to Hybrid War, as the adaptive and patterned approach applied in the previous examples for fomenting identity conflict is relevant to most of them and could conceivably be deployed against them in the event that they align with a multipolar transnational connective infrastructure project which threatens the US’ unipolar hegemony in their given region.

• You’ve written that the United States is practically the only country (able to wage and) waging Hybrid Wars. Why has the US taken this new approach?

Hybrid Wars are indirect and therefore require less resources from the patron state than conventional conflicts, while simultaneously having a higher chance of achieving the envisioned political goals due to their unpredictable asymmetry which confuses the target’s military-security defenses. The US has a monopoly on Hybrid Wars because of its global strategic reach, preexisting and refined ‘toolkit’ (infowar capabilities, on-the-ground agents/”NGOs”, economic subversion through the petrodollar and sanctions, etc.), and global interests predicated on indefinitely sustaining its unipolar hegemony everywhere across the world.

The US started to depend more on Hybrid War after the expensive debacle that it experienced during the 2003 War on Iraq and subsequent occupation, which taught it the unforgettable lesson about why it’s important to ‘outsource’ conflicts to like-minded regional allies instead. In other words, the US decided to turn away from large-scale conventional warfare and embrace proxy wars, counting on its “Lead From Behind” regional partners to publicly ‘do the heavy lifting’ while the US discretely organized everything (logistics, training, arms, strategy, etc.) behind the scenes. The unique twist, however, is that instead of provoking a state-on-state conflict between the US’ ally and the targeted government, the incipient war takes place solely inside the victimized state’s borders and builds off of the manipulated perception that it’s “collapsing” or “imploding” because “rebels” and “freedom fighters” are “rising up” against “the regime”.

In short, Hybrid Wars are cost-effective, require less conventional commitment than ‘ordinary’ conflicts, and have the potential to rapidly reap astronomical rewards for the perpetrators. Their very essence is that they’re asymmetrical “internal/civil” wars which the targeted military-security services are usually unprepared for handling and would otherwise wish to avoid, as most governments would prefer to never be faced with the prospect of potentially ordering lethal force against their own citizens. Nevertheless, such an eventuality might ultimately prove inevitable if individuals are engaged in anti-state and terrorist activities, but foreign forces will assuredly try to turn any law enforcement operation into the trigger for sparking a self-sustaining cycle of violence fueled from abroad by information-narrative manipulation and covert aid to the “rebels”.

• Which countries constitute, as you put it, the “core” targets of US Hybrid Wars? What is the ultimate purpose in this new type of war? Regime change?

Returning to the Law of Hybrid War, the focus is on stoking identity conflict in order to prevent Eurasian integration, which nowadays is principally the Chinese-financed New Silk Roads that are being constructed all across the world, but are certainly not limited to those exclusively, Other multipolar Great Powers are trying to secure, stabilize, and develop their regional neighborhoods, and this in turn makes them and their partners targets for the US’ Hybrid Wars. The two most prominent examples of this are the commencement of the 2011 War of Terror on Syria which was indirectly waged against Iran’s Friendship Pipeline, and the 2013 “EuroMaidan” outbreak of urban terrorism which aimed to sabotage Russia’s Eurasian Union integration efforts with Ukraine.

Pertaining to Iran, the Islamic Republic is actually doubly susceptible to Hybrid War for both of the aforementioned reasons. It’s already been demonstrated to deadly effect how the US will deploy Hybrid War against Iran’s regional interests in Syria and elsewhere in the Mideast, but the country itself has yet to suffer from a full-fledged Hybrid War within its own borders aimed at interfering with China’s grand supercontinental ambitions of pan-Eurasian connectivity. Iran is the geostrategic gatekeeper linking West Asia (the Mideast) with Central, South, and even East Asia, so it obviously stands to fulfill an irreplaceable role in future Eurasian integration projects. China and Iran are already connected to one another via a circuitous rail network transiting along the peripheries of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, but plans have already been proposed for streamlining this route through the possible construction of a high-speed railway across the densely populated heartland of Central Asia.

If left to its own without any external interference, the discussed China-Iran high-speed railway project could eventually extend through Turkey and further afield to the Balkans and thenceforth the EU, thus making Iran one of only three transit states which absolutely must be involved in China’s trans-Eurasian infrastructure projects. Russia sits atop Northern Eurasia and is therefore the geostrategic gatekeeper in this part of the continent for any crisscrossing EU-China networks, while Iran and Turkey are its South Eurasian counterparts for the same.

To proactively prevent the actualization of these forecasted multipolar transnational connective infrastructure projects across the Mideast, the US must either co-opt or destroy the Islamic Republic of Iran, with the former being what the Obama Administration dreamed of doing after the nuclear deal while the latter is its Hybrid War “backup plan” in case the first one fails. Washington’s strategic infiltration plot failed to seduce Tehran, so it appears likely that Iran might be targeted by the US’ retributive Hybrid War intrigues sometime in the near future. In fact, the US has already been working on the necessary preparations and is presently arranging its forces in anticipation of waging this sort of conflict during the upcoming Trump Presidency.

For instance, there has already been a notable uptick of insurgent activity around Iran’s periphery (Kurds, Arabs, Baloch, etc.) whether for separatist or “federalist” (internal partition) purposes, while the threat of an internal Daesh attack is more relevant than ever. Similarly, the US has attempted to structurally precondition the Iranian state through its extended sanctions and other sorts of subversive economic activity, which is happening concurrently with the social preconditioning operation being waged through information warfare and the impossibly high hopes that the West has encouraged among the under-30 demographic (the majority of the Iranian population) after the nuclear deal. The US is plotting to influence and mislead the Iran’s young adults and youth in order to provoke a forthcoming “Green Revolution 2.0”, albeit one which this time will be bolstered by asymmetrical terrorist warfare along the country’s internal periphery and have the full “Lead From Behind” indirect support of the US’ Gulf allies.

The interplay of each of these aforementioned Hybrid War tools is expected to advance the goals of Regime Tweaking, Regime Change, and ultimately a Regime Reboot in Iran. To explain, the the first one refers to political concessions which the US wants to squeeze from Iran after placing it in a position of weakness, while the second one is the replacement of Iran’s multipolar government with unipolar pawns. Most disturbingly, however, is the third and final goal of a Regime Reboot, which would existentially obliterate the Islamic Republic of Iran by transforming it into the “Secular Federation of Persia” and a checkerboard of quasi-independent identity-centric statelets (i.e. “Kurdistan”, “South Azerbaijan”, “Balochistan”, “Arab Persia”, “Mountainous/Central Persia”, etc.).

Bernard Lewis plan of division of Iran (2011)

• How can Russia, Iran, and China push back against the US’ Hybrid Wars? How can and should a possible coalition be formed? Can economic measures such as using local currencies to fight the dollar’s dominance be of any help in this case?

There are three complementary categories of Hybrid War resistance that states can and should partake in, with these being internal efforts, external operations, and external structures.

As for the first one, the promotion of a patriotic education and its regular societal reinforcement are key to countering the corrosive anti-state ideologies promoted by the Hybrid War practitioners and their in-country cohorts (the latter of which could be doing this with treasonous intentions or because they’re brainwashed by the infowar). Relatedly, the state should embrace ‘Reverse-Color Revolution’ technology such as patriotic NGOs and public manifestations of state pride, as these are invaluable assets which can be deployed in confronting unexpected Hybrid War provocations.

For instance, the 2002 experience of Venezuelan patriots taking to the streets during the brief pro-American coup against then-President Chavez is a powerfully effective example that all other victimized states should try to emulate during times of externally provoked crisis. More recently, the 2015-2016 patriotic gatherings of the Macedonian people during the US’ two failed Color Revolutions against their government and the Turkish people’s supportive street rallies for President Erdogan during the failed pro-American coup against him can provide a lot of useful lessons for states that are willing to learn from them.

What’s exceptionally important is for governments to engage in preventative information campaigns exposing the US’ Hybrid War scenarios against their country, since this can educate the populace and make them more aware of the intrigue that’s being plotted against them. As such, it becomes ever less likely that well-intentioned civilians will be misled by the oncoming infowar onslaught against them and be tricked into taking part in a Color Revolution. It should always be remembered that Color Revolutions rely on crowd control psychology to manipulate and mislead masses of people into anti-state group provocations, and that while there’s undoubtedly a minority of conspirators organizing these events on the ground, many of the participants are usually unaware of the bigger picture and don’t realize that they’re being used as the US’ ‘useful idiots’.

The internal tactics described above will vary in practice based on how each civilization-state applies them in accordance to their unique conditions, but they all must follow these broad guidelines in order to be most effective at repelling the US’ asymmetrical warfare.

Moving along to the external aspect of counter-Hybrid War strategies, it’s important that there’s “deep state” coordination between multipolar countries’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has a particular mechanism called “RATS”, which stands for the “Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure”. This is a rapid-reaction force which fights against the organization’s shared threats of terrorism, separatism, and extremism. After all, Hybrid War is directly waged by non-state actors indirectly supported by state organizers, so prudent governments must pool their resources into cooperating against the individuals and groups which are the most immediate manifestation of these sorts of asymmetrical conflicts. In Iran’s case, they may be irredentists/separatists such as the Arab groups which Saddam Hussein supported during the 1980s war, or ideological extremists like Daesh and the “Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran” (KDPI). The last two are religious and political extremists, respectively, and all three examples and others like them become terrorists once they decide to pick up a weapon and fight against the state.

The last type of strategy which should be applied in defending against Hybrid War is the structural one of multilateral institutional cooperation among multipolar states. Closer integration between Russia, Iran, China, Pakistan, Turkey, and other such leading countries is essential in order to minimize the damage that the US can inflict on each of them through its economic machinations, and trading in local currencies would go a long way in diminishing Washington’s capability to carry out financial destabilization as part of its structural preconditioning. As such, alternative multipolar institutions such as the BRICS Bank, the BRICS currency reserve pool, the AIIB, and other emerging bodies fulfill a highly strategic role in proactively defending against this subversive structural scenario. The end goal of multipolar integration processes, however, should be the pioneering of continental trade routes all across Eurasia, as these are free from any potential US Navy blockade or related conventional blackmail and can only only be disrupted via Hybrid War, ergo the importance of the internal efforts and external operations which were previously discussed.

• The Syrian Crisis is probably the most significant development in the Middle East right now. There are also talks of a Russia-Iran-Turkey coalition on this. Do you see that coalition going anywhere, and why would such cooperation even matter?

I first wrote about the the Russian-Iranian-Turkish Tripartite over the summer immediately before and after the failed pro-US coup attempt in Turkey in a series of articles for the Moscow-based Katehon think tank, and my analysis was confirmed on 20 December when all three Foreign Ministers came to the Russian capital and issued the Moscow Declaration. To briefly sum up my ideas, all three countries have come to develop overlapping interests in stopping the War of Terror on Syria (Turkey has been progressively evolving on this front over the past year as Erdogan centralized his power and Islamified the state) and preventing Kurdish separatism/’federalism’, which in practice is equated with stopping the emergence of a “second geopolitical ‘Israel’ of ‘Kurdistan’” in the heart of the Mideast. The Tripartite represents a 21st-century Mideast ‘Concert of Great Powers’ united in their desire to remove the US as the regional kingmaker and replace its declining influence with their own.

Russia-Iran-Turkey talks in Moscow, December 2016

Bilateral challenges still exist between all three members, but each of them are surmountable and aren’t expected to pose a serious risk to their multilateral partnership. The issues that Russia and Iran have with Turkey are that it still hosts US nuclear missiles at the Incirlik airforce base, has been Washington’s chief “Lead From Behind” regional proxy in waging the War of Terror on Syria over the past six years, and wants President Assad to step down. As for Russia and Iran, considerably lesser problems are present in their relationship, with the only relevant one being that both countries are undeclared (but still friendly) rivals in the global energy marketplace. All three sides, however, realize that there is a heavy unipolar infowar campaign being waged against them in an effort to divide their game-changing Tripartite, and this has lately focused on the false narrative that Russia and Turkey are supposedly conspiring against Iran in Syria. Since all sides realize the game that’s being played against them by the US and its allies, none of them are taking the bait, and the Tripartite still has the potential to oversee an end to the War of Terror on Syria and the remaking of a new multipolar Mideast order by stabilizing and strengthening the region after the defeat of Daesh.

The long-term goal that’s in mind is to facilitate the integration of the Mideast into China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Roads, which would thus fulfill Iran and Turkey’s geostrategic destiny in becoming the South Eurasian bridges linking the EU with East Asia. As was previously discussed, Russia is the North Eurasian counterpart of this geopolitical construction, which therefore allows for the broadened reconceptualization of the Tripartite from a regional ‘Mideast Concert of Great Powers’ to a supercontinental pragmatic partnership of trans-Eurasian infrastructure bridges. If one accepts that the overarching narrative of the 21^st century will be of Eurasian integration, then this positions the Tripartite at the heart of this process and transforms it into the center of this century’s most important geopolitical developments. Accordingly, this naturally makes each of its members prime targets for the US’ upcoming Hybrid Wars.

• You’ve talked about regime change policy and the different tools for it. What are those tools? Are there examples of these tools being used today or recently?

Like I explained earlier, Hybrid War can be understood as manufactured or provoked identity conflict which progressively phases from a failed Color Revolution to an Unconventional War for the aim of Regime Tweaking, Regime Change, and/or Regime Reboot in geostrategic transit states participating in multipolar transnational connective infrastructure projects. The campaign is always preceded by a period of social and structural preconditioning whereby the US seeks to subtly weaken its adversary’s defenses through information and financial-economic warfare (including currency manipulations and sanctions). Once unleashed, Hybrid War takes the form of unarmed proxies (Color Revolution ‘protesters’ and ‘NGOs’)  cooperating with and ultimately transitioning into armed ones (terrorists, “rebels”, “freedom fighters”) which viciously fight to promote the previously mentioned strategic objectives. The specific nature and name of each destabilizing actor depends on the unique characteristics of the target, but the model remains the same no matter which country it’s applied to.

• Also in your book you wrote about the Iran Deal and a “Golden Age” of US-Iranian relations (obviously golden for the US). Kindly explain why this new age is golden for the US?
  

Obama’s superfluous outreach to Iran was never anything more than a charade. It was too good to be true that the US would engage in all sorts of “concessions” to Iran such as sanctions relief and the release of financial assets in exchange for Iran strictly sticking to its pursuit of nuclear energy, which is what it had been doing all along anyhow. The US’ disguised motives were to appeal to the Western-friendly “moderates” as represented by President Rouhani and to unrealistically spike the expectation of the sanctions-weary majority-youthful (under 30-years-old) Iranian population. The US endeavored to create a tangible split in Iran between the “deep state” elite (permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies) by dividing President Rouhani’s “moderates” from the Ayatollah’s “conservatives”, with the former appearing to the Western eye to have more economic and diplomatic influence while the latter seemingly dominate the military-security sphere.

President Rouhani himself is not to blame for anything and he was not “in on” any foreign plot, but it’s just that the US decided to target him and the citizens which he represents because Washington’s “deep state” thought that they could more easily be fooled and misled. However, the Ayatollah and his supporters caught onto this plan and the US’ hoped-for crisis was averted after the Iranian “deep state” smoothed over any significant differences in policy that could conceivably be exploited between the “moderates” and “conservatives”. This is seen most visibly through President Rouhani, the “moderate” icon, recently foregoing his previous Western-friendly and optimistic rhetoric by becoming more skeptical of the US and its motives, interestingly echoing the wise “conservative” advice regularly preached by the Supreme Leader. In many ways, the US tried  to do the same thing to Iran with President Rouhani after the nuclear deal that it failed to do to Russia with then-President Medvedev after the so-called “Reset”, and just like how the “conservative” Ayatollah sagaciously saved his country’s “moderate” President from falling for this trick, so too did the “conservative” Putin save his own political counterpart several years before that.

Had Iran not wised up to the US’ grand plan of strategic infiltration and non-militant disarmament of the country through asymmetrical discrete means and successfully overcome the planned “deep state” divide, then it may have been possible for the potential post-sanctions economic windfall to enrich and ‘buy off’ more Iranian elite, thereby neutralizing and possibly even co-opting some of them with the intent of weakening the country. The end goal was to either encourage conflict between Iran’s “moderate” and “conservative” civilian and “deep state” populations, or take control of the state by proxy and redirect its strategic focus away from the West and South (Palestine and the Gulf) and towards the North (the Caucasus and Central Asia) in order to lessen the pressure on the Zionist-Wahhabis and refocus it on preparing for a potential clash with Russia, just as the West sought to set Iran up to do prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution. From Washington’s perspective, this would be a return to the “Golden Age” of American-Iranian relations, while for Iran, it would be nothing more than the beginning of a Dark Age marked by a prolonged period of domestic and international troubles.

US-Iran Vienna talks, April 2015

• You predicted (correctly) in your book that the US will find ways to accuse Iran of violating the deal and to reimpose sanctions. This is the case now with the US not being cooperative in making the deal have tangible impacts on the lives of ordinary Iranians. Will what you’ve termed “failed hopes” after the deal increase as Trump takes the Presidency in a few weeks?

Since the Obama Administration’s original plan to co-opt, hijack, and divide Iran’s “deep state” and civil society has been derailed, the incoming Trump Administration is prepared to activate its predecessor’s Hybrid War “backup plan” (per the guidance of the US’ own “deep state” [permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies]). The failed hopes which I wrote about before are designed to increase anti-government sentiment among the majority-youthful (under 30-years-old) population with the expectation that this could help spark a “Green Revolution 2.0” around the time of the upcoming Iranian presidential election in May. There’s no doubt that ordinary Iranians will continue to have their unrealistically high hopes crushed if Trump carries through on his campaign promise to radically renegotiate or outright scrap the nuclear deal and its anti-sanctions provisions, so the authorities need to keep on eye on how the citizenry reacts to this development and monitor the role of foreign information campaigns in provoking ‘spontaneous’ anti-government demonstrations (the first stage of a Color Revolution).

• The 2009 Iranian presidential elections represent, in your book, an example of a US Hybrid War against Iran. Please explain what you meant by that, as well as what you’ve called a “Green Revolution 2.0”.

The 2009 “Green Revolution” was a proto-”Arab Spring” probing attempt. A deliberate decision was made by the US to not commit its maximum resources to its success, but to instead allow it to ‘naturally’ run its course in order to send a ‘shock wave’ through Iranian society which Washington thought would help to accentuate the “moderate”-”conservative” and youth-adult divisions. The “Green Revolution” was basically a large-scale social preconditioning operation designed to prepare the population for accepting a Western-friendly “moderate” successor to then-President Ahmadinejad, knowing that this would dramatically increase the chances that the US could eventually reach a nuclear deal with Iran and subsequently attempt to infiltrate it during the aftermath per the aforementioned strategy which I explained earlier.

Additionally, there was also a more immediate tactical purpose behind the “Green Revolution”, which in hindsight was to identify the Iranian response to this incipient asymmetrical destabilization and pinpoint the state’s structural vulnerabilities. The lessons learned from this exercise would be applied to perfecting the Hybrid War techniques which would then be unleashed across the Mideast a year and a half later during the so-called “Arab Spring”, which was in reality just a theater-wide Color Revolution predicated on fulfilling the 1982 Yinon Plan. The American “deep state” followed the strategic logic that if Iran, the strongest Mideast state, could be rattled by the “Green Revolution” and low-intensity Hybrid War, then comparatively weaker states such as Syria, Egypt, and Libya could be even more disproportionately destabilized as well.

To address my forecast about a potential “Green Revolution 2.0” which might be brewing, it’s likely that this sort of scenario is in the cards for the new future and might be one of Trump’s first major foreign policy moves just like the original “Green Revolution” was for Obama eight years ago. The unrealistically high failed hopes associated with the nuclear deal could catalyze a sustained anti-government movement within the country, while the Hybrid War proxies of Daesh, the KDPI, and others are lurking around the Iranian periphery and waiting for an opportune moment to strike. The twofold trigger for commencing the prospective Hybrid War would be Trump timing an announcement about his intent or decision to freeze the nuclear deal to coincide with the run-up to the upcoming presidential elections. The population’s failed hopes would hit their peak near the eve of the election, and many of them might be caught up in irrational emotions which make them more susceptible to foreign information warfare and anti-government suggestions.

The scenario of a “Green Revolution 2.0” can be avoided, however, so long as the advice mentioned in response to Question 4 is put into immediate practice and the population is preemptively made aware of the US’ Hybrid War designs on their civilization-state. While that might counteract the Color Revolution, other actions still need to be taken in order to respond to and neutralize the Unconventional Warfare threat being posed by terrorist, separatist, and extremist non-state actors around the country’s periphery.

• As we get closer to another Iranian election, the topic of “fake news” is becoming more and more important. Germany even recently considered creating a “center of defense against fake news” before their own upcoming elections. How important is it that Iran, too, does something like this? And why?

It should be expected that an intense US-Saudi infowar will be launched against Iran to coincide with its upcoming presidential elections, and that the purpose of this campaign will be to spark identity conflict within society in advance of a potentially forthcoming Hybrid War. Naturally, fake, misleading, and provocative news will play a key component in this and Iran must be prepared for countering it. Responding to the German example which was included in the question, Berlin is exaggerating the threat of “fake news” supposedly being used against it by Russia, as it’s not Moscow which is employing this tactic, but Washington. Rather, the German authorities want to fear monger about this phantasmal ‘threat’ against them in order to politicize it as a means of suppressing freedom of speech and reversing rising Euroskepticism throughout the continent. Iran, however, is legitimately targeted by actual fake news as part of the joint US-Saudi Hybrid War and information campaign against it (which are also supported by the Zionists).

To reiterate what was said at the beginning of this interview, Iran’s enemies want to divide the country according to its various ethnic, religious, historic, socio-economic, and administrative & physical geographic differences in order to widen what they believe to be the societal-generational ‘split’ between the “moderates” and “conservatives”. The best approach that Iran can take to dealing with this danger is not just to censor foreign-originating fake, misleading, and provocative news, but to proactively combat it by countering the false narratives per the broad suggestions given in the response to Question 4. Censorship itself is sometimes a necessity when dealing with terrorist and anti-state propaganda, but in the Information Age, many people (especially younger ones) view it as suspicious and reactively ask themselves what the state is “so afraid of” that they instantly feel inclined to censor whatever the given message or outlet might be. Instead, it’s much more effective to confidently fight information warfare head-on by regaining control over the narrative.

Iran should thus prioritize informing its population of the upcoming inforwar attacks and the motivations behind them. By explaining how the purpose behind these foreign-originating operations is to divide the Iranian people and weaken them from within by their own hand, the state can then counter this attempt by creatively reinforcing the patriotic message that Iran is an inclusive civilization. Preparing patriotic NGOs, information campaigns, and street rallies can convincingly bolster the effectiveness of this narrative by demonstrating to citizens that their fellow peers truly believe in this message and that it’s not just “government propaganda” like Iran’s enemies allege it to be. Finally, strategic advisory support can and should be sought from Iran’s Russian and Chinese partners, which have already proven the success of their own anti-Hybrid War initiatives and would more than likely be willing to share their valuable experiences with Tehran.

Andrew Korybko is the American political commentator currently working for the Sputnik agency. He is the author of the monograph “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime Change” (2015).

The Government also promises Aboriginal people they will be welcome in their own land, with clean water, health care, safe places to live, a future. These are not forthcoming. Many Aboriginal people remain less well treated than refugees. So many Indigenous people suicide, their lives and assets squandered for the enrichment of people who live far away. Settler youth commit suicide as well. So many settler peoples die from drug overdose, as if they would all prefer to be somewhere else.

It is better to say something honest about this Québec City murder of Muslims in their place of worship. Islamophobia in North America is one result of the dehumanization of Muslims. The dehumanization comes from U.S. and NATO policies. The U.S. Coalition has dehumanized Muslim peoples by bombing their civilian populations. It dehumanizes Muslims to torture them at Abu Graib and Guantanamo. Illegal acts against innocent peoples and particularly women and children, deprives entire groups of their humanity. The dehumanization is intentional.

Canada’s cooperation with U.S. government policies in unprovoked wars on Islamic countries shows an ambivalence toward Islam, inhumanity, fear of the U.S., and greed. Canada helps in the killing. Domestically the “war on terrorism” periodically strips Muslim people of their human rights.

Five Muslim men arrested in Canada from 2000 to 2003 under Canadian Security Certificates were incarcerated and after some years were all released because the government was repeatedly taken to court to free them. There was no proof adequate to hold them. The lives of these men and their families were badly damaged when mastered by the country they came to for refuge. It is hard to argue that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service treats Muslim peoples with an even hand.

While some human rights and relief were demanded by Canadian courts, simple compassion by government for any of the Security Certificate defendants wasn’t evident and isn’t evident: Mohamed Harkat, arrested in 2002, held in solitary confinement for three years was released to a restrictive form of house arrest; never charged with a crime, he lives with his wife under continuing threat of deportation to Algeria where they fear he will be tortured.

The government’s care for Canadian citizen Omar Khadr as a Muslim child left him in Guantanamo to be tortured. He was only freed after years of citizen protest and the pro bono efforts of a private lawyer, Dennis Edney.

Canada repeatedly abandoned if not encouraged the torture of Muslim citizens abroad, among these Abousfian Abdelrazik and Maher Arar.

Canada’s military handed over Muslim prisoners to American forces in Afghanistan when it was known they would be subject to torture.

In Québec, on Feb. 27, 2010, Said Namouth a Muslim, was sentenced to life imprisonment – no crime of violence was committed – for conspiring to commit an act of violence in a foreign country, facilitating terrorism, and editing a threatening video.

Of the “Toronto 18,” as the media called the young Muslims presented the public as homegrown terrorists in 2008, several were sentenced to extreme sentences without committing a crime of violence, not knowing how to commit the crimes they were led toward, without the assistance of police informants. Their individual cases are arguable. What isn’t arguable is that all were Muslims and saw no love in the destruction without cause of Muslim countries. If these wars were criminal would these men be guilty for trying to resist? Is Islamophobia simply a transference to Muslims of people’s self hatred for U.S. and Canadian crimes against essentially defenceless Muslim nations?

The pressure for Muslims to be “good” Canadians is immense. Within Muslim communities some fleeing to North America from countries destabilized, bombed, obliterated, by U.S. foreign policy, were on U.S./NATO payroll and have closer government connections than most citizens. Government searches for terrorists behind every bush increases the fidelity of perfectly normal middle class Muslims who are guilty of nothing. Those who might break the mold and try to resist criminal policies illegally are targeted by highly paid informants as with the “Toronto 18.” If they help the victims of foreign policy legally, they are criminalized as was the Iraqi-American doctor, Dr. Rafil Dhafir in the U.S.: his foundation sent medical supplies to the children of Iraq; Dr. Dhafir was labeled a suspected terrorist by politicians and is serving 22 years in an American supermax prison for breaking sanctions, medicare fraud and tax evasion.

Of Muslims speaking their truths to power, Imam Anwar al-Aulaki was an American citizen placed on the U.S. President’s killing list and murdered without a trial, as were two of his children subsequently.

Islamophobia is implanted in U.S. and Canadian government policies. It is implanted because it’s of tactical use in taking over the resources of predominantly Muslim countries. Resistance to the hatred comes from the people.

In response to the fire-bombing of the Masjid al-Salaam mosque in Peterborough Ontario, November 14, 2015, the town’s Beth Israel synagogue voted unanimously to invite the mosque’s congregation to worship in the synagogue.

In response to the burning of the Victoria Islamic Centre in Victoria Texas (January 28th) worshippers were given keys to the local Jewish Synagogue by the members of Temple Bnai Israel. The Temple president explained -“We got a lot of building for a small amount of Jews” (Independent). Nearly a million dollars was raised online in the first three days after the fire.

In Toronto, responding to the carnage in Québec City, a multi-faith group formed rings of protection around at least six mosques during worship: “For, though we are grieving and many in our communities are afraid and feeling victimized, the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not come to teach us to be paralyzed by our fears or to wallow in self-pity, or to be mouthpieces for grievances. He came to teach us how to heal and how to be healers, how to respond to ugliness with beauty, how to be fully human in times of ease and in hardship.” — Imam Abdul Aziz Suraqah, Imdadul Islamic Centre, North York. (thestar.com).

Amid this great sleep of North American middle classes there’s intelligence among all who have known oppression.

Partial sources online: “Jewish people give Muslims key to their synagogue after town’s mosque burns down,” Jon Sharman, Feb. 1, 2017,Independent; “In wake of Québec mosque attack comes amazing gesture with rings of peace: Paradkar,” Shree Paradkar, Feb. 3, 2017, thestar.com; “Canadian synagogue invites Muslims to pray in building after local mosque is fire-bombed,” Nov. 28, 2015, The Independent.

“Canada and the politics of Islamophobia” by John Bart Gerald, image by Julie Maas .First posted: nightslantern.ca February 5, 2017

This post is a follow-up to my previous article on the refugee situation in the United States. For me, this is not about Trump. The fact that I even have to say this shows how anti-intellectual and devoid of rational dialogue our society has become, especially among the so-called left. Accusing someone of being a “Trump supporter” simply for being analytical is not a PC scare tactic I respond to.

It is because the majority of so-called progressives were sleep walking in an identity politics, feel good la la land during the foreign policy disasters of the Obama administration—which the mainstream media was completely silent on—that the current situation has come as such a rude awakening to so many.

But for those of us that have a political memory longer than nine weeks, the refugee situation can be interpreted within the context of a much broader geopolitical and foreign policy landscape that includes several previous administrations, including and most notably the Obama administration.

At the risk of feeding into the false and diversionary duality of good administration/bad administration, I wish to point out the following two things. First, in the wake of the arrest of two Iraqis in Kentucky on terrorism charges in May 2011, the FBI suggested that dozens of terrorists might have entered the US posing as refugees. This led the Obama administration to reexamine the records of 58,000 Iraqis that had been settled in the US and to impose more extensive background checks on Iraqi refugees, limiting intake for up to six months, according to the Washington Post. I do not mention this simply to point out that previous administrations were already scrutinizing and limiting refugees from certain Muslim countries—that is just a side note and something that has already been noted by others.

The larger point I wish to make—and this is the second point—is that US officials and agencies are likely aware that US misadventures aboard, which includes arming and supporting terrorist groups, could come back to affect them at home (blowback). This is probably why the Obama administration restricted Iraqi refugees in 2011 and why the current administration has temporarily banned all refugees (for 120 days) and is calling for “extreme vetting” in the future.

If there is a “Muslim terrorist problem” it is reasonable to say that the US is largely contributing to, if not creating, it. Following a recent four-day fact finding mission to Syria, U.S. congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard told the US media that the United States is arming and supporting terrorists in the country and urged for it to stop. Speaking to CNN, Rep. Gabbard said:

“We must stop directly and indirectly supporting terrorists—directly by providing weapons, training and logistical support to rebel groups affiliated with al-Qaeda and ISIS; and indirectly through Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey, who, in turn, support these terrorist groups…. From Iraq to Libya and now in Syria, the U.S. has waged wars of regime change, each resulting in unimaginable suffering, devastating loss of life, and the strengthening of groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS.”^[1]

All this from a state that claims to be fighting a ‘global war on terrorism.’ Interesting.

Connecting the Dots/Seeing the Bigger Picture

To understand what is happening today we should be cognizant and critical of the decades-long imperial agenda in the Middle East and how that has shaped, for better or worse, the present reality. In 2007 retired US general Wesley Clark stated that the US was planning to take out seven countries in five years in that region. Six of these seven countries (with the addition Yemen) are now the objects of Donald Trump’s executive order on Muslim entry to the US: Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Sudan, Iran and Yemen. ^[2] Most of these countries are ones in which the US (and its NATO and Middle Eastern allies and proxies) has unleashed its imperial agenda—through invasion, intervention, regime change, destabilization, proxy wars and/or funding and arming of terrorists and ‘rebels.’ If US officials are calling for stricter refugee controls on individuals from these Muslim counties—whether it’s under the Trump administration presently or as has happened with the Obama administration in the past—it may be largely because they know that those countries are crawling with terrorist mercenaries that the US has, and continues to, assist in creating. It is this issue that ought to be at the centre of the present protest movement.

Perhaps the FBI currently has “inside information,” as it did back in May 2011 during the Obama administration, about terrorists from certain countries—that may or may not have worked for the US in these countries—currently entering or trying to enter or planning to enter the US. If so, then perhaps the new administration is trying to undo some of the blowback created by previous administrations.

But “banning” Muslim refugees from countries that the US meddled in, destroyed, and/or fostered terrorism in, in the first place, is not a long-term solution. The current executive order does not ban Muslims. It suspends all refugees for 120 days, Syrian refugees indefinitely, and restricts US-bound travel from the aforementioned countries for 90 days. ^[3] It is similar to but more extensive than the Obama administration’s restriction of Iraqi refugees in 2011. Still, whether it is under Obama or Trump, refugee-vetting measures that do not address the larger and far greater problem of US foreign policy in the Middle East, miss the mark. What is needed is a drastic change of course in US Middle East policy as well as the cessation of the western fostering of terrorism, globally. While the Trump administration seems intent on changing course in the areas of international trade (with the recent withdraw from the TPP), and while Trump continues to make claims about improving US-Russia relations, his administration’s Middle East policy intentions are not clear or fully known at this time.

While it remains to be seen how the current administration’s Mid East policy will play out, ^[4] limiting refugees from war-torn countries is not a comprehensive solution to the (US-facilitated) problem of terrorism. The US should be willing to address its role in creating this problem as well as move towards ending its policy of endless wars, imperial interventions and meddling in the region. I do not believe that any US administration is prepared to do this, though some may be more willing to take basic steps. To begin to solve the current crisis, the US must acknowledge and alter the deeply flawed foreign policy trajectory that helped to create it in the first place.

The Failure of the Contemporary “Left”

And the people have to be willing to both recognize it and call it out. While so-called progressives are up in arms over the current executive order, where was this “left” flank of the establishment during the eight years of the brutal escalation of the imperial war and devastation machine during the previous administration? They were supporting this agenda in the name of ‘humanitarian intervention.’ The sad reality is that the US-imperial project has been able to successfully exploit and/or co-opt liberal progressives’ concerns for human rights in order to gain “left-wing” support for self-serving western interventions and wars aboard—in Libya, Syria; places where the Arab Spring went rogue—by presenting it as a “duty to intervene” in the name of so-called human rights.

This co-optation is possible because the contemporary “left” lacks a basis in anti-imperialist politics and a broader, historical critique of Empire that properly situates such interventions within the larger agenda and interests of militarized neoliberal/economic imperialism, ^[5] which was never more robust than under the previous administration.

Ironically, what passes for the Left these days (i.e., identity politics-based reactionaries), actively contributed to a problem they are now reacting to. As I have argued elsewhere, US-led ‘humanitarian interventions’ often involve western backing of and collusion with Islamic extremists and terrorists against secular Muslim regimes and leaders. Supporting these so-called humanitarian interventions ironically indirectly throws liberal social justice warriors—that back initiatives such as western intervention and ‘regime change’ in states like Syria—in bed with violent Muslim extremists and terrorists like ISIS, in that they both support the ouster of Bashar al-Assad, albeit for different reasons.

The modern “Left” is too caught up in clichés and feel good sound bites (i.e., “Assad must go”) and also lacks the traditional-left analytical /ideological faculties to see the irony and contradictions of their actions. ^[6] The naïve notion that all power is bad everywhere lacks a critical awareness of proportionality; meaning in politics, size absolutely matters. Not all powers/governments exist on par, and are equally able to abuse their power on a global scale, effectively terrorizing the rest of the planet.

If one takes all of the above into consideration, and understands the larger regional and geopolitical contexts, then we begin to see that the current refugee restriction is not an indiscriminate ban generally targeting Muslims. It is a tragic, ironic and predictable outcome of the US’ never ending war on terror—that later morphed into the R2P (right to protect) narrative—which seems to have ultimately and ironically created and/or inflated the phenomenon of global terrorism. For instance, in the not too distant past, Afghanistan and Somalia were two of the few—if not only—terrorist hotbeds that anyone may have had to be concerned about. But since the inception of the US-led global war on terror, and more so since the “humanitarian” interventionist policies of the Obama administration, there seems today to be an ISIS terror cell in every corner of the world. This includes secular Muslim countries such as Iraq, Libya and Syria, where there was no substantial Islamist or terrorist presence prior to western interventions.

In closing, current and previous US refugee restrictions might reflect efforts to try and contain a situation that has gotten completely out of hand. But the bigger monster that should be contained is US foreign policy and imperial wars and meddling abroad, which analysis shows to be the true root of the problem. Thus, efforts to protest the current refugee ban and vilify its proponents would, ironically, be totally unnecessary if as much effort had gone into protesting US foreign policy under the previous two administrations.

And I say all of this as a Muslim immigrant in North America that is clearly not a proponent of banning Muslims.

Dr. Ghada Chehade is an independent analyst, writer and performance poet. She holds a PhD from McGill University. She blogs at https://soapbox-blog.com/

Notes

[1] http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-why-is-the-us-helping-al-qaeda-and-other-terrorist-groups-rep-tulsi-gabbard/5571358

[2] http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/28/trump-immigration-ban-syria-muslims-reaction-lawsuits

[4] Trump’s renewed commitment to countries like Israel does not bode well. As Chandra Muzaffar states: “his endorsement of the expansion of illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank; his stated intention to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; and his opposition to the Iran six power nuclear deal, all indicate that Trump is strongly wedded to the Israeli agenda”. http://www.globalresearch.ca/trumps-entry-ban-against-muslims-linked-to-global-warfare-and-the-neo-con-agenda/5571905

[5] In reality the neo-con and neo-liberal agenda are two face of the same coin and are symptomatically related (i.e., interventionist, sanctioning, war mongering, boosting the military industrial complex, lop-sided trade agreements, etc.)

[6] For instance, the “left” focuses on human rights abuses in countries/by governments that just so happen to be targeted by the US—such as Syria or Libya—while ignoring abuses perpetrated by countries that are allied with and/or benefiting from US policy, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia and their attacks on the people of Palestine and Yemen, respectively. 

Triumphalism followed the election of US President Donald Trump, particularly among those opposed to US foreign policy under US President Barack Obama. In particular, hope was rekindled that America would withdraw from the many, provocative conflicts it was cultivating, ranging from the Middle East to East Asia.

However, triumphalism and hope are now dashed, as the new US administration moves clearly and in earnest to not only continue on with these confrontations, but expand them.

For students of history, particularly those following events in Asia Pacific, the prospect of the US moving its confrontation with China forward for control over the region is hardly a surprise.

A Quick History Lesson of US Imperialism in Asia 

The United States had occupied the Philippines, declaring it a US territory from 1898-1946. It had also been involved in the military occupation and several armed clashes in China with Chinese forces, including during the Second Opium War and the Boxer Rebellion. Such conflicts saw Chinese fighters attempt to remove by force foreign influence, including supposedly Christian missionaries used to impose US and European sociopolitical control over China.

During this period of overt American colonisation throughout Asia Pacific, the annexation of Taiwan was also considered, as an American analogue of Britain’s annexation of Hong Kong.

In Thomas Cox’ 1973 book, “Harbingers of Change: American Merchants and the Formosa [Taiwan] Annexation Scheme,” published by the University of California Press, Cox wrote:

Since it appeared unlikely that Taiwan would long remain a part of the Chinese empire and there was ample justification for action by the United States, [US Commissioner in China, Peter] Parker argued that the United States should move quickly. “I believe Formosa and the world will be better for the former coming under a civilized power,” he wrote.

It should be noted that Parker’s advocacy of the US annexation of Taiwan was backed not by political ideology, though it was certainly presented as such publicly, but by US business interests at the time, particularly those of the Nye Brothers, merchants involved heavily in US-Chinese trade, including the movement of opium across the region.

Regional dynamics would change just before, during, and immediately after World War 2, with a resurgence of localised power and independence movements ousting Western colonial powers. This included the ousting of British and French holdings across the region such as in Myanmar, Malaysia, Indonesia and across Indochina which included Laos, Cambodia and of course Vietnam.

The ousting by force of French administrators from Vietnam brought the United States back into the region more directly and on an unprecedented scale.

And while the United States would claim its reasons for intervening in Southeast Asia were predicated on preventing a “domino effect” of spreading communism, leaked documents known as the “Pentagon Papers” made it abundantly clear that America was simply continuing its hegemonic pursuits vis-a-vis China in an effort to encircle, contain and eventually subdue a rising Beijing.
The US State Department’s own Office of the Historian, in a section titled, “189. Draft Memorandum From Secretary of Defense McNamara to President Johnson,” dated 1965, states explicitly:

The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain Communist China.

The papers openly advocate US global hegemony, stating:

…the role we have inherited and have chosen for ourselves for the future is to extend our influence and power to thwart ideologies that are hostile to these aims and to move the world, as best we can, in the direction we prefer. Our ends cannot be achieved and our leadership role cannot be played if some powerful and virulent nation—whether Germany, Japan, Russia or China—is allowed to organize their part of the world according to a philosophy contrary to ours. 

And again, just like during deliberations over the possible annexation of Taiwan during the 19th century, US ambitions in Asia Pacific may be rhetorically presented as pursuit of a particular ideology, but are in reality underpinned by economic interests which seek to move into and subsequently dominate markets globally, displacing anything and everything preexisting, through coercive diplomacy, or through indirect or direct military force.

21st Century American Hegemony 

Fast-forward to the 21st century. During the administration of former US President Barack Obama, the US “pivoted” toward Asia in an attempt to reassert itself in a region quickly escaping out from under what remained of over a century of US-European hegemony.

The pivot failed, with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) being categorically resisted and rejected across Asia, and feigned US rapprochement with several of China’s neighbours turned into confrontations across Southeast Asia as Washington attempted to replace governments friendly with Beijing with those that would toe an anti-Beijing line.

In an attempt to conceal what is a decades-long agenda, and the continuation of Obama’s “pivot,” US President Donald Trump’s counsellor Steven Bannon, as revealed by a Guardian article titled, “Steve Bannon: ‘We’re going to war in the South China Sea … no doubt’,” would claim that China, along with “Islam,” presented a menace to the “Judeo-Christian” West.

This ideological rhetoric is aimed at distracting the public, convincing them that US policy toward China is now determined by Trump’s ideological, xenophobic tendencies, rather than merely the latest logical iteration of Obama’s “pivot,” and the Vietnam-era’s full-scale military containment strategy.

Also noteworthy in Bannon’s incomplete thought is his omission of so-called Christian missionaries in China and the role they played in the attempted invasion, occupation and subjugation of China during the 19th century by US-European interests.

The Guardian would report:

Bannon’s sentiments and his position in Trump’s inner circle add to fears of a military confrontation with China, after secretary of state Rex Tillerson said that the US would deny China access to the seven artificial islands. Experts warned any blockade would lead to war. Advertisement 

Bannon is clearly wary of China’s growing clout in Asia and beyond, framing the relationship as entirely adversarial, predicting a global culture clash in the coming years. 

“You have an expansionist Islam and you have an expansionist China. Right? They are motivated. They’re arrogant. They’re on the march. And they think the Judeo-Christian west is on the retreat,” Bannon said during a February 2016 radio show.

And while the Guardian attempts to pose as sounding the alarm over the Trump administration’s seemingly xenophobic and confrontational stance, its own omission of America’s longstanding attempts to encircle, contain and subjugate China regardless of who occupies the White House or what rhetoric accompanies each iteration of US policy toward China, serves as complicity.

For policymakers across Asia, understanding history and the special interests that have and still do drive American foreign policy is key to seeing through inflammatory rhetoric, and essential in analysing and preparing solutions for continued attempts by Washington to reassert itself in a region an ocean away from its own shores, in a modern-day continuation of Western colonialism the nations of Asia Pacific have fought hard to escape and rise above over the past generation.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Triumphalism followed the election of US President Donald Trump, particularly among those opposed to US foreign policy under US President Barack Obama. In particular, hope was rekindled that America would withdraw from the many, provocative conflicts it was cultivating, ranging from the Middle East to East Asia.

However, triumphalism and hope are now dashed, as the new US administration moves clearly and in earnest to not only continue on with these confrontations, but expand them.

For students of history, particularly those following events in Asia Pacific, the prospect of the US moving its confrontation with China forward for control over the region is hardly a surprise.

A Quick History Lesson of US Imperialism in Asia 

The United States had occupied the Philippines, declaring it a US territory from 1898-1946. It had also been involved in the military occupation and several armed clashes in China with Chinese forces, including during the Second Opium War and the Boxer Rebellion. Such conflicts saw Chinese fighters attempt to remove by force foreign influence, including supposedly Christian missionaries used to impose US and European sociopolitical control over China.

During this period of overt American colonisation throughout Asia Pacific, the annexation of Taiwan was also considered, as an American analogue of Britain’s annexation of Hong Kong.

In Thomas Cox’ 1973 book, “Harbingers of Change: American Merchants and the Formosa [Taiwan] Annexation Scheme,” published by the University of California Press, Cox wrote:

Since it appeared unlikely that Taiwan would long remain a part of the Chinese empire and there was ample justification for action by the United States, [US Commissioner in China, Peter] Parker argued that the United States should move quickly. “I believe Formosa and the world will be better for the former coming under a civilized power,” he wrote.

It should be noted that Parker’s advocacy of the US annexation of Taiwan was backed not by political ideology, though it was certainly presented as such publicly, but by US business interests at the time, particularly those of the Nye Brothers, merchants involved heavily in US-Chinese trade, including the movement of opium across the region.

Regional dynamics would change just before, during, and immediately after World War 2, with a resurgence of localised power and independence movements ousting Western colonial powers. This included the ousting of British and French holdings across the region such as in Myanmar, Malaysia, Indonesia and across Indochina which included Laos, Cambodia and of course Vietnam.

The ousting by force of French administrators from Vietnam brought the United States back into the region more directly and on an unprecedented scale.

And while the United States would claim its reasons for intervening in Southeast Asia were predicated on preventing a “domino effect” of spreading communism, leaked documents known as the “Pentagon Papers” made it abundantly clear that America was simply continuing its hegemonic pursuits vis-a-vis China in an effort to encircle, contain and eventually subdue a rising Beijing.
The US State Department’s own Office of the Historian, in a section titled, “189. Draft Memorandum From Secretary of Defense McNamara to President Johnson,” dated 1965, states explicitly:

The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain Communist China.

The papers openly advocate US global hegemony, stating:

…the role we have inherited and have chosen for ourselves for the future is to extend our influence and power to thwart ideologies that are hostile to these aims and to move the world, as best we can, in the direction we prefer. Our ends cannot be achieved and our leadership role cannot be played if some powerful and virulent nation—whether Germany, Japan, Russia or China—is allowed to organize their part of the world according to a philosophy contrary to ours. 

And again, just like during deliberations over the possible annexation of Taiwan during the 19th century, US ambitions in Asia Pacific may be rhetorically presented as pursuit of a particular ideology, but are in reality underpinned by economic interests which seek to move into and subsequently dominate markets globally, displacing anything and everything preexisting, through coercive diplomacy, or through indirect or direct military force.

21st Century American Hegemony 

Fast-forward to the 21st century. During the administration of former US President Barack Obama, the US “pivoted” toward Asia in an attempt to reassert itself in a region quickly escaping out from under what remained of over a century of US-European hegemony.

The pivot failed, with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) being categorically resisted and rejected across Asia, and feigned US rapprochement with several of China’s neighbours turned into confrontations across Southeast Asia as Washington attempted to replace governments friendly with Beijing with those that would toe an anti-Beijing line.

In an attempt to conceal what is a decades-long agenda, and the continuation of Obama’s “pivot,” US President Donald Trump’s counsellor Steven Bannon, as revealed by a Guardian article titled, “Steve Bannon: ‘We’re going to war in the South China Sea … no doubt’,” would claim that China, along with “Islam,” presented a menace to the “Judeo-Christian” West.

This ideological rhetoric is aimed at distracting the public, convincing them that US policy toward China is now determined by Trump’s ideological, xenophobic tendencies, rather than merely the latest logical iteration of Obama’s “pivot,” and the Vietnam-era’s full-scale military containment strategy.

Also noteworthy in Bannon’s incomplete thought is his omission of so-called Christian missionaries in China and the role they played in the attempted invasion, occupation and subjugation of China during the 19th century by US-European interests.

The Guardian would report:

Bannon’s sentiments and his position in Trump’s inner circle add to fears of a military confrontation with China, after secretary of state Rex Tillerson said that the US would deny China access to the seven artificial islands. Experts warned any blockade would lead to war. Advertisement 

Bannon is clearly wary of China’s growing clout in Asia and beyond, framing the relationship as entirely adversarial, predicting a global culture clash in the coming years. 

“You have an expansionist Islam and you have an expansionist China. Right? They are motivated. They’re arrogant. They’re on the march. And they think the Judeo-Christian west is on the retreat,” Bannon said during a February 2016 radio show.

And while the Guardian attempts to pose as sounding the alarm over the Trump administration’s seemingly xenophobic and confrontational stance, its own omission of America’s longstanding attempts to encircle, contain and subjugate China regardless of who occupies the White House or what rhetoric accompanies each iteration of US policy toward China, serves as complicity.

For policymakers across Asia, understanding history and the special interests that have and still do drive American foreign policy is key to seeing through inflammatory rhetoric, and essential in analysing and preparing solutions for continued attempts by Washington to reassert itself in a region an ocean away from its own shores, in a modern-day continuation of Western colonialism the nations of Asia Pacific have fought hard to escape and rise above over the past generation.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The U.S. Army has been plagued with costly acquisition failures in recent decades, chief amongst them the Future Combat System (FCS) program. This $200 billion program initiated in 2000, the largest U.S. military acquisition program ever attempted, failed to produce results on a multitude of levels and was abandoned by 2009.

The Armored Ground Vehicle (AGV) and Armored Gun System (AGS) programs also wasted tens of billions of dollars before being cancelled without achieving their intended goals. These programs were chiefly defeated by an overly bureaucratic Army acquisition system, and the fact that the Army had asked for far too much from the defense industry, demanding many new and unproven technological advancements.

The FCS was the most expensive, most ambitious, and most transformative modernization program ever undertaken by the U.S. Army. It is often hypothesized that the U.S. experience in the first Gulf War of 1991 and in the NATO Kosovo intervention of 1999, led to the desire for a more rapidly deployable U.S. Army expeditionary force. FCS envisioned a highly mobile new Army, light enough to be air-deployable, yet lethal enough to survive on the modern battlefield. This survivability would be provided through the leveraging of new technologies, as well as superior command and control capabilities that would tie together all the various armed forces in a seamless information sharing and communications network.

The Army set very high deployment goals as part of FCS, which would prove to be unattainable. The U.S. Army would strive to attain the ability to deploy a combat brigade anywhere in the world within 96 hours, a full division within 120 hours, and no less than five divisions in 30 days. Often referred to as “18+1+1”, FCS envisioned 20 different components integrated together to form the new warfighting system. Eighteen new manned and unmanned vehicles were planned, one computer network integrating all components, communications, information and services, and most importantly, the fighting soldier.

Currently, the U.S. Army relies overwhelmingly on armored vehicle systems that were developed in the 1970s. These systems proved their worth over the last two decades. These “legacy” systems have been repeatedly improved since their introduction. These improvements have consisted of more powerful and efficient engines and drivetrain, modernized communications equipment, targeting and sensory upgrades, improved armor and improved weapons systems

The U.S. Army currently fields the M1A2 SEP (System Enhancement Package) MBTs which are a significant improvement over older models. The latest improvement on the design is the SEPv.3 (version 3). The SEPv.3 achieves notable improvements in its fire control system, ballistics computer and thermal imaging sights. The SEPv.3 has been strengthened against IED attacks, and has additional layers of graphite coated depleted uranium added to its composite armor. It is considered one of the best protected MBTs in the world, despite the fact that it currently lacks an Active Protection System (APS).  It has been proposed that the M1A2 SEPv.3 can be retrofitted with the Israeli Trophy APS, or the Quick Kill APS system being developed by Raytheon.

The M2A2 Bradley (see video blow, deployed in Eastern Europe) has proven quite reliable and agile on the modern battlefield. One weakness that was exhibited in its early combat history, was its low level of armor protection. The M2A3 incorporates a number of upgrades which will theoretically extend its life span out to 2030.

 Pre-positioned Bradley Fighting Vehicles conduct live-fire exercises at Grafenwoehr Training Area in Germany on 5/5/2014. The gunnery exercise is the first time U.S. Army Forces have used a set of armored vehicles and equipment prepositioned in Grafenwoehr, including the most up-to-date versions of the M2/M3 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles, for live-fire training in Europe. Film Credit: Gertrud Zach and Markus Rauchenberger

An improved fire control system and thermal sights adds to the vehicle’s lethality. The greatest weakness of the vehicle design was remedied by including roof fragmentation protection and mounts for additional armor for use against shaped charge anti-armor munitions. The Bradley Urban Survivability Kit (BUSK) was also developed by the manufacturer BAE Systems, so that the vehicle can be tailored to combat in urban environments.

First adopted in 1960 and first used in combat during the Vietnam War, the M113 APC is the most numerous and widely used armored vehicle in the U.S. military. Over 15 different variants have been produced, some of which still form the backbone of the mechanized formations of the U.S. Army. Although replaced by the M2A3 Bradley and Stryker in most frontline combat roles, the M113 is still used in a support role.

The most widely used self-propelled artillery vehicle in the U.S. Army inventory is the M109 Paladin 155mm howitzer. It is a fully tracked vehicle with a fully traversable turret. The most modern version of the M109 is the M109A6 variant. The M109A6 is equipped with an automatic fire control system, ballistic computer, and inertial positioning system which allows for great accuracy out to a range of 40km when Excalibur guided munitions are employed.

Further development of the M109A7 Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) by BAE Systems was approved by the Defense Acquisition Board in 2013. This program envisions the reworking of the vehicle chassis to incorporate as many components of the M2A3 Bradley as possible. This will lower logistics, inventory and maintenance costs considerably.

The M270A1 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) is a 12 rocket, surface-to-surface rocket artillery system. The M270 tracked chassis is based on an elongated M2 Bradley vehicle. The M270A1 can launch the entire family of Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles, some out to a range of 165km. Lockheed Martin developed the Guided MLRS in 2002 and it is now a standard armament for the system. The GLMRS utilizes a GPS and inertial guidance system fitted in the nose of the XM30 rocket, which turns the rocket into a guided projectile with a range of 70km.

The main U.S. Army mobile air defense artillery systems are the short range FIM-92 Stinger and the long range MIM-104 Patriot. Both systems are highly mobile, and are flexible enough to be fielded in a number of different configurations. Although not normally mounted on armored vehicles, both systems are capable of being mounted to existing armored platforms. The Stinger has been mounted on the M2 Bradley IFV; however, the most common vehicle mounted manifestation of the Stinger is the Avenger, which is equipped with 8 missiles in two quad launchers in a turreted housing mounted of the HMMWV.

Originally adopted as an interim substitute while the armored vehicles envisioned by the FCS were developed, the Stryker has served the U.S. Army as a front line combat vehicle for approximately 16 years, and has been modified and improved periodically over that time span. General Dynamics of Canada developed the vehicle based on their existing LAV III vehicle. There are eleven different variants of the Stryker, with a variant to cover all eight of the manned vehicle systems envisioned by FCS. The M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS) mounts a 105mm cannon, which is a light weight version of the original gun utilized in the M1A1 Abrams and M60 MBTs.

The Stryker is a light armored vehicle. Although providing all around protection from small arms fire, the Stryker can be fitted with both slat armor and explosive reactive tiles for added protection. Although there are anti-tank Strykers in each Brigade Combat Team with an added anti-armor capability, the main variant is lightly armed with a crew-serviced machine gun, or a Mk19 40mm grenade launcher. The U.S. Army is currently planning to equip a small number of Strykers with a 30mm autocannon, which will provide greater offensive capability against light armored vehicles, structures and infantry.

Although its legacy systems are quite capable today, the U.S. Army has recognized the need to dispense with its overly bureaucratic weapons acquisition process of past decades in an attempt to stay one step ahead of its closest peers, Russia and China. Both Russia and China have made great strides in recent years to gain parity with the United States on the modern battlefield.

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

The new boss is now starting to look extremely similar to the old boss. Today, February 2, Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor, rabid anti-Iran warmonger, Michael Flynn, delivered a stern and open warning to Iran, officially “putting Iran on notice.” Thus, it seems that the United States is setting its sights on the next piece of the geopolitical puzzle before the ultimate goal of Russia and world hegemony is to be recognized. 

Flynn cited only two justifications for his threat, neither of which are logical or anything but unproven allegations. First, Flynn is attributing an alleged attempted missile attack on U.S. Naval ships parked off the coast of Yemen supposedly committed by Houthi Rebels. Second, Flynn argues that a recent ballistic missile test conducted by Iran violates the P5+1 and United Nations backed nuclear deal.

Flynn claimed that Iran has recently become “emboldened” because the Obama administration, the same administration which forced Iran to decimate their nuclear power program at the barrel of a gun, was “weak and ineffective.”

“In these and other similar activities, Iran continues to threaten US friends and allies in the region,” Flynn stated. Translation: Iran’s existence and refusal to knuckle under to foreign dictates represents a threat to the impunity of Saudi Arabia and Israel.

In regards to Flynn’s statements, it is important to note that the Iranophobic warmonger leaves out a number of points. First, Flynn lays the blame of Houthi missile attacks at the feet of Iran because, according to him, Iran somehow controls the Houthis or, at the very least, supports them. While it would be naïve to believe that the Houthis are receiving no support from outside forces, the fact is that there is absolutely no evidence that Iran is doing so. Indeed, the alleged missile attacks themselves are highly questionable, with some believing that they were actually a false flag on the part of the United States in order to justify a bombing campaign in Yemen on a flimsy basis of self-defense. This basis is flimsy because the United States does, after all, have its ships right off the coast of Yemen and it is supporting the Saudi war of aggression.

Second, if the Iranians are now guilty because of unproven claims of support for Houthi rebels who are themselves only acting in self-defense against a brutal and horrific Saudi campaign of terror, murder, and starvation against the people of Yemen, then the United States is officially complicit in the beheading of young children, rape, torture, starvation, and cannibalism as a result of their support for “moderate” terrorists in Syria. Of course, the latter statement is actually true since it is the United States who funds, trains, supplies, and directs the terrorist proxies in Syria to this day.

Not only that, even if the Houthis did fire on American boats, it must be remembered that the United States is aiding the country who is invading theirs and thus makes itself a reasonable military target when stationed so close to Yemeni shores.

Still, one must pay attention to the logic: “We supported a country in a war of aggression against a rag tag group of rebels and those rebels attempted (possibly) to fight back. Therefore, we must threaten a third party whom we cannot even prove supports the rebels.”

In regards to the ballistic missile test, the new aggression is being based upon tests conducted by Iran over the weekend on a medium-range ballistic missile.

Yet, for all the brow-beating of the United States since the Iranian nuclear deal was signed, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 does not prohibit Iran from testing a missile or a ballistic missile. There is a provision which “calls on” Iran not to undertake any activity that relates to ballistic missiles but “calling on” and “prohibiting” are two different things. As Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute writes, “There are no specific provisions in the nuclear deal that explicitly prevent Iran from testing a missile.”

Flynn has been so anti-Iran in the past that his subordinates were both confused and alarmed. In 2012, after the Benghazi attack, Flynn began demanding that those under his command at the Defense Intelligence Agency immediately produce evidence that Iran was behind the attack. If that kind of frantic framing of false intelligence sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered a similar intelligence agency initiative in the wake of 9/11 in order to blame Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Flynn was even fired from the DIA in 2014 for being too anti-Iran even for the Obama administration, a truly amazing feat in its own right.

“Adding together President Trump’s call to the Saudi king, where they discussed Iran’s “destabilizing” actions, and a pre-emptive war authorization bill languishing in the US House, the current danger of a US strike on Iran is just an accident — or a false flag – away,” writes McAdams.

Flynn was head of the DIA at the time when the now famous memo was produced explaining the fact that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other Gulf States as well as the United States were supporting terrorism in Syria and Iraq and that Russia, Syria, and Iran were fighting it. The memo also described the plan and support for creating a “salafist principality” in the east of Syria and West of Iraq, the precise location where ISIS created its caliphate. For this reason, Flynn cannot claim ignorance as to whom is actually supporting terrorism and who is fighting it.

Researcher Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer Report makes Flynn’s bizarre statements clearer by writing,

As Flynn furiously flipped through the pages of his statement, he was signifying the predictable betrayal of the so-called “Iran deal,” meant before it was even introduced the public – as early as 2009 – to serve as a pretext not for peace, but for war with Iran.
US corporate-financier funded think tank, the Brookings Institution, in a 2009 policy paper titled, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran” (.pdf) would lay out in detail various means of provoking war and regime change against Iran.

In it, Brookings explicitly revealed how a “superb offer” would be given to Iran, only to be intentionally revoked in a manner portraying Iran as ungrateful:

…any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

The so-called “Iran deal,” introduced during the administration of US President Barack Obama, represents precisely this “superb offer,” with Flynn’s accusations serving as the “turn down” ahead of the “sorrowful” war and attempted regime change the US had always planned to target Tehran with.

In fact, Flynn would seemingly draw almost verbatim from the ploy described by Brookings in 2009, by stating:

Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, Iran is now feeling emboldened … As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice.

Flynn’s statement is particularly surreal – considering Yemeni fighters are only targeting Saudi warships because Saudi Arabia is currently waging full-scale war on Yemen. Accused on all sides of war crimes, and with the US itself even restricting weapon sales to Riyadh – if only symbolically – in response to Saudi Arabia’s aggression – Flynn still claims that the attack on Saudi Arabia’s warship constitutes justification for putting Iran “on notice.”

Claiming that Iran is “sponsoring terrorism” throughout the region, when it is currently a major member of the coalition fighting the DIA’s “Salafist principality” in both Iraq and Syria is also surreal.

While the goal was originally to topple Syria as Libya was destroyed previously before moving on to Iran and then to Russia, it appears now that perhaps, with Syria so significantly weakened, the country no longer provides an immediate military resistance to the NATO war machine and Iran, having been weakened by its necessary involvement in the Syrian crisis, can be moved up on the chopping block. [1]

In the past, it was assumed that, with a Republican President, the American people get a new war and an anti-war movement but, with a Democrat, Americans just get a new war. While many in the real anti-war community have expected anti-war protesters to pop up out of the blue with the election of a Republican President, this time might be different. This time, American “leftist” protesters are so concerned with continuing abortions, sex changes, and racial identity that they are less likely to find the time to protest wars overseas, even if it is an attempt to be trendy as opposed to a real moral conviction. The right-wing, however, never seeing a war it didn’t like and already so radicalized against “Islam” and Iran, will be primed to support the war effort in full.

Flynn’s warning represents two possibilities. At best, Trump has no control over his own military. At worst, the Trump administration is nothing but a clear continuation of the Obama and Bush regime’s agenda of Anglo-American world hegemony. Judging by Trump’s appointments to cabinet positions, we are not hopeful. Unfortunately, judging by today’s threats, we are also not filled with hope in our desire for peace and reason to prevail.

[1] Brzezinski, Zbigniew. “The Grand Chessboard: America Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives.” Basic Books. 1st Edition, 1998.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 andvolume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 850 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” – Alice in Wonderland

“Since Yalta, we have a long list of times we’ve tried to engage positively with Russia. We have a relatively short list of successes in that regard.” – General James Mattis, the new Secretary of Defense

If anyone knows where to find this long list please send me a copy.

This delusion is repeated periodically by American military officials. A year ago, following the release of Russia’s new national security document, naming as threats both the United States and the expansion of the NATO alliance, a Pentagon spokesman declared: “They have no reason to consider us a threat. We are not looking for conflict with Russia.”

Meanwhile, in early January, the United States embarked upon its biggest military buildup in Europe since the end of the Cold War – 3,500 American soldiers landed, unloading three shiploads, with 2,500 tanks, trucks and other combat vehicles. The troops were to be deployed in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary and across the Baltics. Lt. Gen. Frederick Hodges, commander of US forces in Europe, said, “Three years after the last American tanks left the continent, we need to get them back.”

The measures, General Hodges declared, were a “response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the illegal annexation of Crimea. This does not mean that there necessarily has to be a war, none of this is inevitable, but Moscow is preparing for the possibility.” (See previous paragraph.)

This January 2017 buildup, we are told, is in response to a Russian action in Crimea of January 2014. The alert reader will have noticed that critics of Russia in recent years, virtually without exception, condemn Moscow’s Crimean action and typically nothing else. Could that be because they have nothing else to condemn about Russia’s foreign policy? At the same time they invariably fail to point out what preceded the Russian action – the overthrow, with Washington’s indispensable help, of the democratically-elected, Moscow-friendly Ukrainian government, replacing it with an anti-Russian, neo-fascist (literally) regime, complete with Nazi salutes and swastika-like symbols.

Ukraine and Georgia, both of which border Russia, are all that’s left to complete the US/NATO encirclement. And when the US overthrew the government of Ukraine, why shouldn’t Russia have been alarmed as the circle was about to close yet tighter? Even so, the Russian military appeared in Ukraine only in Crimea, where the Russians already had a military base with the approval of the Ukrainian government. No one could have blocked Moscow from taking over all of Ukraine if they wanted to.

Yet, the United States is right. Russia is a threat. A threat to American world dominance. And Americans can’t shake their upbringing. Here’s veteran National Public Radio newscaster Cokie Roberts  bemoaning Trump’s stated desire to develop friendly relations with Russia: “This country has had a consistent policy for 70 years towards the Soviet Union and Russia, and Trump is trying to undo that.” Heavens! Nuclear war would be better than that!

Fake news, fake issue

The entire emphasis has been on whether a particular news item is factually correct or incorrect. However, that is not the main problem with mainstream media. A news item can be factually correct and still be very biased and misleading because of what’s been left out, such as the relevant information about the Russian “invasion” of Crimea mentioned above. But when it comes to real fake news it’s difficult to top the CIA’s record in Latin America as revealed by Philip Agee, the leading whistleblower of all time.

Agee spent 12 years (1957-69) as a CIA case officer, most of it in Latin America. His first book, Inside the Company: CIA Diary, published in 1974 revealed how it was a common Agency tactic to write editorials and phoney news stories to be knowingly published by Latin American media with no indication of the CIA authorship or CIA payment to the particular media. The propaganda value of such a “news” item might be multiplied by being picked up by other CIA stations in Latin America who would disseminate it through a CIA-owned news agency or a CIA-owned radio station. Some of these stories made their way back to the United States to be read or heard by unknowing North Americans.

The Great Wall of Mr. T

So much cheaper. So much easier. So much more humane. So much more popular. … Just stop overthrowing or destabilizing governments south of the border.

And the United States certainly has a moral obligation to do this. So many of the immigrants are escaping a situation in their homeland made hopeless by American intervention and policy. The particularly severe increase in Honduran migration to the US in recent years is a direct result of the June 28, 2009 military coup that overthrew the democratically-elected president, Manuel Zelaya, after he did things like raising the minimum wage, giving subsidies to small farmers, and instituting free education. The coup – like so many others in Latin America – was led by a graduate of Washington’s infamous School of the Americas.

As per the standard Western Hemisphere script, the Honduran coup was followed by the abusive policies of the new regime, loyally supported by the United States. The State Department was virtually alone in the Western Hemisphere in not unequivocally condemning the Honduran coup. Indeed, the Obama administration refused to even call it a coup, which, under American law, would tie Washington’s hands as to the amount of support it could give the coup government. This denial of reality continued to exist even though a US embassy cable released by Wikileaks in 2010 declared: “There is no doubt that the military, Supreme Court and National Congress conspired on June 28 [2009] in what constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup against the Executive Branch”. Washington’s support of the far-right Honduran government has continued ever since.

In addition to Honduras, Washington overthrew progressive governments which were sincerely committed to fighting poverty in Guatemala and Nicaragua; while in El Salvador the US played a major role in suppressing a movement striving to install such a government. And in Mexico, over the years the US has been providing training, arms, and surveillance technology to Mexico’s police and armed forces to better their ability to suppress their own people’s aspirations, as in Chiapas in 1994, and this has added to the influx of the oppressed to the United States, irony notwithstanding.

Moreover, Washington’s North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), has brought a flood of cheap, subsidized US agricultural products into Mexico, ravaging campesino communities and driving many Mexican farmers off the land when they couldn’t compete with the giant from the north. The subsequent Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) brought the same joys to the people of that area.

These “free trade” agreements – as they do all over the world – also resulted in government enterprises being privatized, the regulation of corporations being reduced, and cuts to the social budget. Add to this the displacement of communities by foreign mining projects and the drastic US-led militarization of the War on Drugs with accompanying violence and you have the perfect storm of suffering followed by the attempt to escape from suffering.

It’s not that all these people prefer to live in the United States. They’d much rather remain with their families and friends, be able to speak their native language at all times, and avoid the hardships imposed on them by American police and other right-wingers.

Mr. T., if one can read him correctly – not always an easy task – insists that he’s opposed to the hallmark of American foreign policy: regime change. If he would keep his Yankee hands off political and social change in Mexico and Central America and donate as compensation a good part of the billions to be spent on his Great Wall to those societies, there could be a remarkable reduction in the never-ending line of desperate people clawing their way northward.

Murders: Putin and Clintons

Amongst the many repeated denunciations of Russian president Vladimir Putin is that he can’t be trusted because he spent many years in the Soviet secret intelligence service, the KGB.

Well, consider that before he became the US president George HW Bush was the head of the CIA.

Putin, we are also told, has his enemies murdered.

But consider the case of Seth Rich, the 27-year-old Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot dead on a Washington, DC street last July.

On August 9, in an interview on the Dutch television program Nieuwsuur, Julian Assange seemed to suggest rather clearly that Seth Rich was the source for the Wikileaks-exposed DNC emails and was murdered for it.

Julian Assange: “Our whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often face very significant risks. A 27-year-old that works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons, as he was walking down the street in Washington, D.C.”

Reporter: “That was just a robbery, I believe. Wasn’t it?”

Julian Assange: “No. There’s no finding. So … I’m suggesting that our sources take risks.” (See also Washington Post, January 19, 2017)

But … but … that was Russian hacking, wasn’t it? Not a leak, right?

If you’ve been paying attention over the years, you know that many other murders have been attributed to the Clintons, beginning in Arkansas. But Bill and Hillary I’m sure are not guilty of all of them. (Google “murders connected clintons.”)

America’s frightening shortage of weapons

President Trump signed an executive order Friday to launch what he called “a ‘great rebuilding of the Armed Forces’ that is expected to include new ships, planes, weapons and the modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.”

This is something regularly advocated by American military and civilian leaders.

I ask them all the same question: Can you name a foreign war that the United States has ever lost due to an insufficient number of ships, planes, tanks, bombs, guns, or ammunition, or nuclear arsenal? Or because what they had was outdated, against an enemy with more modern weapons?

That tired old subject

Senator Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump’s pick for Attorney General, declared two years ago: “Ultimately, freedom of speech is about ascertaining the truth. And if you don’t believe there’s a truth, you don’t believe in truth, if you’re an utter secularist, then how do we operate this government? How can we form a democracy of the kind I think you and I believe in … I do believe that we are a nation that, without God, there is no truth, and it’s all about power, ideology, advancement, agenda, not doing the public service.”

So … if one is an atheist or agnostic one is not inclined toward public service. This of course is easily disproved by all the atheists and agnostics who work for different levels of government and numerous non-profit organizations involved in all manner of social, poverty, peace and environmental projects.

Who is the more virtuous – the believer who goes to church and does good deeds because he hopes to be rewarded by God or at least not be punished by God, or the non-believer who lives a very moral life because it disturbs him to act cruelly and it is in keeping with the kind of world he wants to help create and live in? Remember, the God-awful (no pun intended) war in Iraq was started by a man who goes through all the motions of a very religious person.

Christopher Hitchens, in 2007, in response to conservative columnist Michael Gerson’s article, “What Atheists Can’t Answer”, wrote: “How insulting is the latent suggestion of his position: the appalling insinuation that I would not know right from wrong if I was not supernaturally guided by a celestial dictatorship … simply assumes, whether or not religion is metaphysically ‘true’, that at least it stands for morality. … Here is my challenge. Let Gerson name one ethical statement made or one ethical action performed by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.”

Gerson, it should be noted, was the chief speechwriter for the aforementioned very religious person, George W. Bush, for five years, including when Bush invaded Iraq.

Phil Ochs

I was turning the pages of the Washington Post’s Sunday (January 29) feature section, Outlook, not finding much of particular interest, when to my great surprise I was suddenly hit with a long story about Phil Ochs. Who’s Phil Ochs? many of you may ask, for the folksinger died in 1976 at the age of 35.

The Post’s motivation in devoting so much space to a symbol of the American anti-war left appears to be one more example of the paper’s serious displeasure with Donald Trump. The article is entitled “Phil Ochs is the obscure ’60s folk singer we need today”.

My favorite song of his, among many others, is “I ain’t marching anymore”:

Oh I marched to the battle of New Orleans
At the end of the early British war
The young land started growing
The young blood started flowing
But I ain’t marchin’ anymore

For I’ve killed my share of Indians
In a thousand different fights
I was there at the Little Big Horn
I heard many men lying, I saw many more dying
But I ain’t marchin’ anymore

(chorus)
It’s always the old to lead us to the war
It’s always the young to fall
Now look at all we’ve won with the saber and the gun
Tell me is it worth it all?

For I stole California from the Mexican land
Fought in the bloody Civil War
Yes I even killed my brothers
And so many others
But I ain’t marchin’ anymore

For I marched to the battles of the German trench
In a war that was bound to end all wars
Oh I must have killed a million men
And now they want me back again
But I ain’t marchin’ anymore

(chorus)
For I flew the final mission in the Japanese sky
Set off the mighty mushroom roar
When I saw the cities burning I knew that I was learning That I ain’t marchin’ anymore

Now the labor leader’s screamin’
when they close the missile plants,
United Fruit screams at the Cuban shore,
Call it “Peace” or call it “Treason,”
Call it “Love” or call it “Reason,”
But I ain’t marchin’ any more,
No, I ain’t marchin’ any more

–

Ironically, very ironically, Donald Trump may well be less of a war monger than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

Notes

1. Washington Post, January 13, 2017
2. Agence French Presse, January 4, 2016
3. NPR, January 9, 2017
4. Washington Post, January 28, 2017

5. The Daily Beast, January 12, 2017, reporting on remark made November 14, 2014

In a famous exchange between a high official at the court of George W. Bush and journalist Ron Susskind, the official – later acknowledged to have been Karl Rove – takes the journalist to task for working in “the reality-based community.” He defined that as believing “that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” Rove then asserted that this was no longer the way in which the world worked.

“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” (Ron Suskind, NYTimes Magazine, Oct. 17, 2004).

This declaration became popular as an illustration of the hubris of the Bush-Cheney government. But we could also see it as fulfilled prophecy. Fulfilled in a manner that no journalist at that time would have deemed possible. Yes, the neoconservatives brought disrepute upon themselves because of the disaster in Iraq. Sure, opposition to the reality Rove had helped create in that devastated country became a first rung on the ladder that could lead to the presidency, as it did for Barack Obama. But the neocons stayed put in the State Department and other positions closely linked to the Obama White House, where they became allies with the liberal hawks in continuing to ‘spread democracy’ by overthrowing regimes.

America’s mainstream news and opinion purveyors, without demurring, accommodated the architects of reality production overseen by Dick Cheney. This did not end when Obama became president, but in fact with seemingly ever greater eagerness they gradually made the CIA/neocon-neoliberal created reality appear unshakably substantial in the minds of most newspaper readers and among TV audiences in the Atlantic basin. This was most obvious when attention moved to an imagined existential threat posed by Russia supposedly aimed at the political and ‘Enlightenment’ achievements of the West. Neoconservatives and liberal hawks bent America’s foreign-policy entirely to their ultimate purpose of eliminating a Vladimir Putin who had decided not to dance to Washington’s tune so that he might save the Russian state, which had been disintegrating under his predecessor and Wall Street’s robber barons. With President Obama as a mere spectator, the neocon/liberals could – without being ridiculed – pass off the coup d’état they had fomented in the Ukraine as a popular revolution. And because of an unquestioned Atlanticist faith, which holds that without the policies of the United States the world cannot be safe for people of the Atlantic basin, the European elites that determine policy or comment on it joined their American counterparts in endorsing that reality.

As blind vassals the Europeans have adopted Washington’s enemies as their own. Hence the ease with which the European Union member states could be roped into a system of baseless economic sanctions against Russia, much to the detriment of their own economic interests. Layers upon layers of anti-Russian propaganda have piled up to bamboozle a largely unsuspecting public on both sides of the Ocean. In the Netherlands, from where I have been watching all this, Putin was held personally responsible in much of the media for the shooting down of a Malaysian airliner flying over the Ukraine, which killed 298 people. No serious investigation was undertaken. The presentation of ‘almost definitive’ findings by the joint investigation team under Dutch leadership has neither included clues supplied by jet fighter cannon holes in the wrecked fuselage nor eyewitness stories, which would make the government in Kiev the prime suspect. Moscow’s challenging the integrity of the investigation, whose agreed-upon rules allowed publication of findings only if Kiev agreed with them, were met with great indignation by the Dutch Foreign and Prime Ministers.

As the fighting in Syria reached a phase when contradictions in the official Washington/NATO story demanded a stepping back for a fresh look, editors were forced into contortions to make sure that the baddies stayed bad, and that no matter how cruel and murderously they went about their occupation in Aleppo and elsewhere, the jihadi groups fighting to overthrow the secular Assad government in Damascus remained strictly labeled as moderate dissidents worthy of Western support, and the Russians as violators of Western values.

Architects of an official reality that diverges widely from the facts you thought you knew must rely on faits accompli they achieve through military or police violence and intimidation, in combination with a fitting interpretation or a news blackout delivered by mainstream media. These conditions have been widely obtained in the Atlantic basin through a gradual loss of political accountability at top levels, and through government agencies protected by venerated secrecy that are allowed to live lives of their own. As a result American and European populations have been dropped into a fantasy world, one under constant threat from terrorists and an evil dictator in Moscow. For Americans the never ending war waged by their own government, which leaves them with no choice but to condone mass murder, is supposedly necessary to keep them safe.

For Europeans, at least those in the northern half, the numerous NATO tanks rolling up to the border of the Russian Federation and the massing of troops in that area are an extra guarantee, on top of the missiles that were already there, that Vladimir Putin will restrain his urges to grab a European country or two. On a smaller scale, when every May 4th the 1940-45 war dead are remembered in the Netherlands, we must now include the fallen in Afghanistan as if they were a sacrifice to defend us against the Taliban threat from behind the Hindu Kush.

Ever since the start of this millennium there has been a chain of realities as prophesied by Karl Rove, enhanced by terrorist attacks, which may or may not have been the work of actual terrorists, but whose reality is not questioned without risking one’s reputation. The geopolitical picture that they have helped build in most minds appears fairly consistent if one can keep one’s curiosity on a leash and one’s sense of contradiction sufficiently blunt. After all, the details of the official reality are filled in and smoothed out all the time by crafty campaigns produced in the PR world, with assistance from think tanks and academia. But the question does reappear in one’s thoughts: do the politically prominent and the well-positioned editors, especially those known for having once possessed skeptical minds, actually believe it all? Do those members of the cabinet or parliament, who can get hot under their collar as they decry the latest revelation about one or other outrage committed by Putin, take seriously what they’re saying?

Not all of them are believers.  I know this from off the record conversations. But there appears to be a marked difference between the elite in government, in the media, in prominent social positions, and ordinary people who in these recent times of anguish about populism are sometimes  referred to as uneducated. Quite a few among the latter appear to think that something fishy is going on. This could be because in my experience the alert ones have educated themselves, something that is not generally understood by commentators who have made their way through the bureaucracy of standard higher education. A disadvantage of being part of the elite is that you must stick to the accepted story. If you deviate from it, and have your thoughts run rather far away from it, which is quite inevitable once you begin with your deviation, you can no longer be trusted by those around you.

If you are a journalist and depend for your income on a mainstream newspaper or are hired by a TV company, you run the risk of losing your job if you do not engage in self-censorship. Consequently, publications that used to be rightly known as quality newspapers have turned into unreadable rags. The newspaper that was my employer for a couple of decades used to be edited on the premise that its correspondents rather than authorities were always correct in what they were saying. Today greater loyalty to the reality created in Washington and Langley cannot be imagined. For much of northern Europe the official story that originates in the United States is amplified by the BBC and other once reliable purveyors of news and opinion like the Guardian, the Financial Times and the (always less reliable) Economist.

Repetition lends an ever greater aura of truth to the nonsense that is relentlessly repeated on the pages of once serious publications. Detailed analyses of developments understood through strings of false clues give the fictions ever more weight in learned heads and debates in parliament. At the time of writing, the grave concern spread across the opinion pages on my side of the Atlantic is about how Putin’s meddling in upcoming European elections can be prevented.

The realities Rove predicted have infantilized parliamentary debates, current affairs discussion and lecture events, and anything of a supposedly serious nature on TV. These now conform to comic book simplicities of evil, heroes and baddies. They have produced a multitude of editorials with facts upside-down. They force even those who advise against provoking Moscow to include a remark or two about Putin being a murderer or tyrant, lest they could be mistaken for traitors to Enlightenment values or even as Russian puppets, as I have been. Layers of unreality have incapacitated learned and serious people to think clearly about the world and how it came to be that way.

How could Rove’s predictions so totally materialize? There’s a simple answer: ‘they’ got away with momentous lies at an early stage. The more authorities lie successfully the more they are likely to lie again in a big way to serve the purposes of earlier lies. The ‘they’ stands for those individuals and groups in the power system who operate beyond legal limits as a hydra-headed entity, whose coordination depends on the project, campaign, mission, or operation at hand. Those with much power got away with excessive extralegal use of it since the beginning of this century because systems of holding the powerful to account have crumbled on both sides of the Atlantic. Hence, potential opposition to what the reality architects were doing dwindled to almost nothing. At the same time, people whose job or personal inclination leads them to ferret out truth were made to feel guilty for pursuing it.

The best way, I think, to make sense of how this works is to study it as a type of intimidation. Sticking to the official story because you have to may not be quite as bad as forced religious conversion with a gun pointed at your head, but it belongs to the same category. It begins with the triggering of odd feelings of guilt. At least that is how I remember it. Living in Tokyo, I had just read Mark Lane’s Rush To Judgment, the first major demolishing in book form of the Warren Report on the murder of John F. Kennedy, when I became aware that I had begun to belong to an undesirable category of people who were taking the existence of conspiracies seriously. We all owe thanks to writers of Internet-based samizdat literature who’ve recently reminded us that the pejorative use of the conspiracy label stems from one of the greatest misinformation successes of the CIA begun in 1967.

So the campaign to make journalists feel guilty for their embarrassing questions dates from before Dick Cheney and Rove and Bush. But it has only reached a heavy duty phase after the moment that I see as having triggered the triumph of political untruth.

We have experienced massive systemic intimidation since 9/11. For the wider public we have the absurdities of airport security – initially evidenced by mountains of nail-clippers – reminding everyone of the arbitrary coercive potential that rests with the authorities. Every time people are made to take off their belts and shoes – to stick only to the least inane instances – they are reminded: yes, we can do this to you! Half of Boston or all of France can be placed under undeclared martial law to tell people: yes, we have you under full control! For journalists unexamined guilt feelings still play a major role. The serious ones feel guilty for wanting to ask disturbing questions, and so they reaffirm that they still belong to ‘sane’ humanity rather than the segment with extraterrestrials in flying saucers in its belief system. But there is a confused interaction with another guilty feeling of not having pursued unanswered questions. Its remedy appears to be a doubling down on the official story. Why throw in fairly common lines like “I have no time for truthers” unless you feel that this is where the shoe pinches?

You will have noticed a fairly common response when the 9/11 massacre enters a discussion. Smart people will say that they “will not go there”, which brings to mind the “here be dragons” warning on uncharted bits of medieval maps. That response is not stupid. It hints at an understanding that there is no way back once you enter that realm. There is simply no denying that if you accept the essential conclusions of the official 9/11 report you must also concede that laws of nature stopped working on that particular day. And, true enough, if you do go there and bear witness publicly to what you see, you may well be devoured; your career in many government positions, the media and even academia is likely to come to an end.

So, for the time being we are stuck with a considerable chunk of terra incognita relating to recognized political knowledge; which is an indispensable knowledge if you want to get current world affairs and the American role in it into proper perspective.

Mapping the motives of those who decide “not to go there” may be a way to begin breaking through this disastrous deadlock. Holding onto your job is an honorable motivation when you have a family to maintain. The career motivation is not something to scorn. There is also an entirely reasonable expectation that once you go there you lose your voice publicly to address very important social abuse and political misdeeds. I think it is not difficult to detect authors active on internet samizdat sites who have that foremost in mind. Another possible reason for not going there is the more familiar one, akin to the denial that one has a dreadful disease. Also possible is an honorable position of wishing to preserve social order in the face of a prospect of very dramatic political upheaval caused by revelations about a crime so huge that hardly anything in America’s history can be compared to it. Where could such a thing end – civil war? Martial law?

What I find more difficult to stomach is the position  of someone who is worshiped by what used to be the left, and who has been guiding that class of politically interested Americans as to where they can and cannot go. Noam Chomsky does not merely keep quiet about it, but mocks students who raise logical questions prompted by their curiosity, thereby discouraging a whole generation studying at universities and active in civil rights causes. One can only hope that this overrated analyst of the establishment, who helps keep the most embarrassing questions out of the public sphere, trips over the contradictions and preposterousness of his own judgments and crumples in full view of his audience.

The triumph of political untruth has brought into being a vast system of political intimidation. Remember then that the intimidator does not really care what you believe or not, but impresses you with the fact that you have no choice. That is the essence of the exercise of brute power. With false flag events the circumstantial evidence sometimes appears quite transparently false and, indeed could be interpreted as having been purposeful. Consider the finding of passports or identity papers accidentally left by terrorists, or their almost always having been known to and suspected by the police. And their deaths through police shooting before they can be interrogated. Could these be taunting signals of ultimate power to a doubting public: Now you! Dare contradict us! Are the persons killed by the police the same who committed the crime? Follow-up questions once considered perfectly normal and necessary by news media editors are conspicuous by their absence.

How can anyone quarrel with Rove’s prophecy. He told Susskind that we will forever be studying newly created realities. This is what the mainstream media continue to do. His words made it very clear: you have no choice!

A question that will be in the minds of perhaps many as they consider the newly sworn in president of the United States, who like John F. Kennedy appears to have understood that “Intelligence” leads a dangerously uncontrolled life of its own: At what point will he give in to the powers of an invisible government, as he is made to reckon that he also has no choice?

Today’s America is a mockery of it. Lady Liberty weeps now. So, let’s ship her back from whence she came, and maybe Europeans will like the symbolism of it.  After all: we got it from Europe, just like we got the immigrants from there.

Donald Trump might not be able to get Mexicans to pay for his wall that the U.S. is building to keep Mexicans out, but would Europeans pay to receive back this symbolic statue, which France gave to an America that deserved it, but that no longer does?

This monument for compassion, and against bigotry, is now merely a metaphorical sore thumb here, but maybe France would be happy to receive her back, and perhaps millions of Europeans will proudly pay to see her, touch her, and stand at her base, to welcome her back to Europe, which ironically consists of the same countries from which almost all of America’s immigrants used to come, before France had gifted the U.S. with Lady Liberty, back on 28 October 1886.

America’s Department of Homeland Security reports that, for the latest available data-year, 2015, the U.S. granted asylum to 69,920 people. By law since 2012, an annual limit had been established for refugees into the U.S.: 70,000.

During that same year in Europe, there were 1,322,825 applicants for asylum, and 69% of them were granted asylum.

Eurostat’s asylum statistics display vastly bigger figures than America’s, for the vast majority of the vastly smaller countries of Europe, as Eurostat described:

For first instance decisions, some 75% of all positive decisions in the EU-28 in 2015 resulted in grants of refugee status, while for final decisions the share was somewhat lower, at 69%. …

The highest share of positive first instance asylum decisions in 2015 was recorded in Bulgaria (91%), followed by Malta, Denmark and the Netherlands. Conversely, Latvia, Hungary and Poland recorded first instance rejection rates above 80%. …

The highest shares of final rejections were recorded in Estonia, Lithuania and Portugal where all final decisions were negative…

The number of first time asylum applicants in Germany increased from 173 thousand in 2014 to 442 thousand in 2015… Hungary, Sweden and Austria also reported very large increases (all in excess of 50 thousand more first time asylum applicants) between 2014 and 2015. In relative terms, the largest increases in the number of first time applicants were recorded in Finland (over nine times as high), Hungary (over four times) and Austria (over three times), while Belgium, Spain, Germany, Luxembourg, Ireland and Sweden all reported that their number of first time asylum applicants more than doubled. By contrast, Romania, Croatia, Lithuania, Slovenia and Latvia reported fewer first time asylum applicants in 2015 than in 2014.

Germany’s share of the EU-28 total rose from 31% in 2014, to 35% in 2015, while other EU Member States that recorded a notable increase in their share of the EU-28 total included Hungary (up 6.6 percentage points to 13.9%), Austria (up 2.2 percentage points to 6.8%), and Finland (up 1.9 percentage points to 2.6%). Conversely, France and Italy’s shares of the EU-28 total each fell nearly 5 percentage points between 2014 and 2015, to 5.6% and 6.6% respectively. …

Syrians accounted for the largest number of applicants in 12 of the 28 EU Member States, including 159 thousand applicants in Germany (the highest number of applicants from a single country to one of the EU Member States in 2015), 64 thousand applicants in Hungary and 51 thousand in Sweden. Some 46 thousand Afghan applicants were recorded in Hungary, 41 thousand in Sweden and 31 thousand in Germany. A further 54 thousand Albanians, 33 thousand Kosovans and 30 thousand Iraqis also applied for asylum in Germany; no other EU Member State received 30 thousand or more asylum applicants in 2015 of a single citizenship. …

In 2015, there were 593 thousand first instance decisions in all EU Member States. By far the largest number of decisions was taken in Germany, … constituting more than 40% of the total first instance decisions in the EU-28 in 2015. In addition, there were 183 thousand final decisions, with again the far largest share (51%) in Germany.

The much larger country, United States, under its new President Donald Trump, is promising to cut sharply the number of annually admitted refugees, downward from its present meager 70,000.

On a per-capita basis, Europe is taking in seven times as many refugees as the U.S. does. Both America and Europe are widely expected to reduce, not to increase, the acceptance of refugees.

So: Does the Statue of Liberty still represent America — or does it instead represent only an America that once was, but no longer is?

When considering this question, one might also consider what precisely caused the refugees to become refugees. Syria was the largest source of 2015’s refugees into Europe. What have they been fleeing from? According to Western-sponsored polls of Syrians throughout that country, they have been fleeing mainly from U.S. bombs and bombers, which were supporting Al-Qaeda-backed jihadist groups that have been trying to take over their country. Of course, as was being reported in the Western press, they were fleeing mainly from Syrian government and its allied bombs and bombers that have been trying to kill ‘moderate rebels’ against that government.

Those were figures from 2015, when the U.S. was bombing throughout the year in Syria (where it was, in fact, an invader), and when Russia (which was no invader, but instead was invited in by Syria’s government, to help it prevent an overthrow by that U.S.-Saudi alliance) started bombing there only late, on September 30th of 2015. Mainly, Syrians were fleeing both from jihadists who were trying to take over their country, and from American bombs that were supporting those Saudi-financed jihadists. (And, overwhelmingly, the residents there were fleeing from what Obama euphemistically called ‘rebel controlled areas’, to the areas that were still under the Syrian government’s control.)

The second and third largest sources of refugees into Europe during that year were Iraq and Afghanistan, two countries that America started bombing in 2001 in retaliation for the Saudi royal family’s 9/11 attacks inside America. The new Trump Administration is retaliating against refugees from seven countries, on account of the 9/11, and also other, jihadist attacks, which likewise weren’t perpetrated by people from any of these seven: Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. In fact, at the very moment of that U.S. announcement about those seven countries, the Saud family were not only supporting both Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria, but were dropping American-made bombs onto Shiites in Yemen. And Trump was terminating refugees both from Syria and from Yemen, thus cutting off any escape to the U.S. for those victims of U.S. aggression against those two countries that the Saud family and the U.S. aristocracy want to conquer. Will Europe take these refugees in?

U.S. aggression combines now with a tightening closed-door policy, and neither reality fits the Western myth. So, might Lady Liberty be crying also because of Western lying? She has become alien to this country as a misfit here, as being both a refuge and a model for the world. She no longer belongs in this country, in spirit. She might as well be officially included on President Trump’s banned list, a resident alien that’s being returned to sender. Maybe if Trump sends her back to France, he’ll try to negotiate with France’s leaders, some sort of price that they will be billed — not, of course for creating the statue (since it was created by the French), but, like he plans to get Mexicans to pay for building his wall to keep them out.

How far will Trump go in his ‘politically incorrect’ new form of ‘Americanism’?

The great tedium of history is that those who refuse to acknowledge its immemorial works tend to see exceptional events everywhere.  The next event of terror is singular; the next act of technology inspired hacking is remarkable.

Listening to the crackling consternation of the airwaves this Friday morning, the sense of a dark, sulphuric fog, not unlike the polluted air of London descending upon the UK, is palpable. There is a terror that the UK is escaping the bosom of the European family, a painful process of separation involving a mixture of exhilaration and bile filled disgust.

With equal terror is the sense that the wily and resourceful Russians have gotten the upper hand everywhere, closing in on their opponents in what has been termed, erroneously, a fake information age. They do not do so with tanks, with missiles, and with garrisons so much as what is incongruously called weaponised information.

The UK Defence Secretary, Sir Michael Fallon, goes so far as to call it weaponised mis-information, and flattering the Kremlin with its provenance:

Today we see a country that, in weaponising misinformation, has created what we might now see as the post-truth age.  Part of that is the use of cyber-weaponry to disrupt critical infrastructure and disable democratic machinery. [1]

The literature is now being peppered less by clinical analysis than a fear about losing current and coming battles: the Russian menace, as every, must be exaggerated. Budgets must be financed; personnel hired and fed.  An example of such fears is found in an Institute of Modern Russia paper by Peter Pomerantsev and Michael Weiss unmistakably entitled The Menace of Unreality: How the Kremlin Weaponizes Information, Culture and Money.[2]

A salient point is that the Russian information corps have simply done better than their opponents. If there is a market place of gristle and ideas, Moscow seems to be prizing others out of it – or so it is being assumed by the likes of Fallon. Big boys and girls have become subtler and more sophisticated in manipulating the obvious, in chancing their digital arm.  This is not so much the world of the lie as the world of the alternative.  The UK, by way of contrast, finds itself lagging in staff and skills in the cyber security department.[3]

In terms of elections, the world of make believe starts becoming an addiction. Before long, Pygmalion’s statue comes alive, and one wants to believe it has fleshy lips and a comely mouth. But for all that, it still remains information, to be either consumed without critique, as much news is, or questioned with indigestible refrain.

The plethora of charged assessments and allegations of Russian meddling, first in the US election, and now the forthcoming French, Dutch and German elections, only points to an age old practice of wanting a more favourable position in diplomacy.  Gone are the days when this was traditionally done by traditional gun boat diplomacy, emissaries, delegations and envoys. The modern hyper-networked world has made reach and scope childishly simple, enabling a deep burrowing into information systems at a fraction of the cost.  This is not so much soft power as seductive power.

The mistake is to then assume that one man, a certain President Vladimir Putin, controls this creation, the puppet master in charge of the information warfare machine. This confuses operational matters – the prosaic sort that agencies engage in across the globe – with actual matters of direct influence and causation.  In the ideological scrap, proportionality is lost, and equivalence sets in: all Russiadoes is  deemed faking and fakery, the orgasm that never was.

It has been said that the Kremlin, as other governments, have had spectacular moments of disrupting infrastructure.  The frontier of the cyber war was already well and truly crossed in the battles with Estonia in 2007 in a dispute over a war memorial.  As we only have the words of spooks to go on, always making this a hazardous line of inquiry, subsequent incidents have been noted where broadcast networks have received interest.

British security officials, for instance, claimed last year that the group known as APT28 and Sofacy (Fancy Bears being another name) was thwarted in its efforts against the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky.  The same group was supposedly linked to the disruptive incidents with the bringing down of French international broadcaster TV5 Monde in April 2015.

There is another line at play here.  To take out and control information systems is one thing; to hack a system – the servers of the Democratic National Committee, for instance – and reveal gold dust and candy to be couriered over to such an organisation as WikiLeaks, is another. Individuals like Fallon fail to make the distinction.  All is fake in the post-truth world, and Russia refuses to play with clean hands.

Little is done to actually confront the information directly.  The hacking of the DNC, the Podesta emails and Hillary Clinton’s email indiscretions are all grouped under the category of propaganda – weaponised as battalions of facts and realities, the tactic on the part of those caught with their pants down is to accuse your assailant of removing the belt.

The same goes for how one views such media outlets as RT.  The constructively minded individual will profit from the discussions of such programs as the financially minded Keiser Report or The Hawks, the latter paying tribute to the passing of mainstream news. There is much worthy crankiness in all of it.

But all subject matter is blurred into a series of forces that trouble critics in the West rather than illuminate.  All “weaponised” information, which shape a counter-narrative, is thereby ignored for what it says, dismissed as counterfeit rather than a way of assessing its merits.  One does not examine the blade approaching you in a darkened street as a fact to be admired but a threat to be deflected.

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

 Notes

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/02/nato-must-do-more-to-counter-russias-cyber-weaponry-says-fallon

[2] http://www.interpretermag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The_Menace_of_Unreality_Final.pdf

[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38850907

The negative development impact of the International Finance Corporation’s (IFC, the World Bank’s private sector arm) investments in financial intermediaries (FIs) has once again been brought to light (see Observer Spring 2014). An October 2016 report, Disaster for us and the planet, by US-based NGO Inclusive Development International (IDI) and partners, provided evidence that  “IFC-supported financial institutions have funded at least 41 new coal projects …  since the World Bank announced its coal ban in 2013”. While the IFC has claimed that the concerns of civil society organisations have largely been addressed through its response to previously highlighted harmful projects that it funds, the report demonstrates that the IFC remains exposed to highly damaging projects.

The report highlighted the IFC’s involvement in the Mahan plant in India, where it provided millions of dollars in funding to two banks, IDFC and ICICI, which are “major players in India’s infrastructure and industrial sectors”. It noted that “in total, these two IFC-supported banks helped provide approximately $1.9 billion in financing to build the Mahan coal plant”. The report also disclosed that “the IFC’s support for the project did not end there” as it enabled the development of a nearby mine which Greenpeace found “would displace or otherwise harm 50,000 people who lived in the forest or depended on it for their livelihoods”.

The report also detailed IFC’s involvement in Rampal in Bangladesh, which it calls “one of the most potentially destructive coal plants in the world”. The plant sits very close to the world’s largest mangrove, which supports the lives of two million people in India and Bangladesh, is a UNESCO World Heritage site and home to numerous endangered and threatened species. The report stressed that “the World Bank was initially approached to fund Rampal. However, the Bank declined … Three French banks, Credit Agricole, BNP Paribas and Societe Generale, were also approached but refused to get involved”. In April 2016, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund placed the company charged with building the plant, the National Thermal Power Corporation, on its exclusion list.  The report emphasised that while “these institutions distanced themselves from the projects, six IFC-funded commercial banks arranged billions of dollars in financing for the National Thermal Power Corporation”, noting that “between 2005 and 2014, the IFC provided $520 million in funding to the six banks”. Considering the impact of IFC’s involvement in these and other similar projects, the report stressed that “these projects have also decimated the world’s forests. Coal plants, and the mines that feed them, are a leading cause of deforestation globally, further contributing to climate change.”

The World Bank Group has ended up fuelling and profiting from business activities responsible for enormous human suffering, environmental devastation and in some cases serious crimes –
DAVID PRED

Behind the fumes – the hidden story of IFC’s investment in coal

IFC’s involvement in coal power generation lies in stark contrast to the World Bank Group’s (WBG) position on coal, as outlined in its 2013 Energy sector directions paper, which states that “the WBG will provide financial support for greenfield [new] coal power generation projects only in rare circumstances”(see Bulletin December 2013). The Bank’s position was reiterated by World Bank president Jim Yong Kim in November 2016 when, in celebration of the entry into force of the Paris Climate Change Agreement, he stressed that “without climate action at scale, more than 100 million people could fall back into extreme poverty by 2030”, and that “we need to focus special attention and action on Asia, where energy demand is growing and some countries continue to look to coal as the solution.”

IDI’s report forms part of a four-part series titled Outsourcing development: Lifting the veil on the World Bank Group’s lending through financial intermediaries and contributes to evolving evidence of the negative development impacts of IFC investments in FIs. During a months-long investigation following the trail of IFC money, IDI uncovered 121 harmful projects that the IFC is funding through FIs. Despite some positive initiatives taken by the IFC, such as the disclosure of it private equity investments and a stated commitment to “strengthen and deepen the quality and coverage of IFC’s E&S [environmental and social] risk management of FIs”, the report demonstrated that the opaque nature of IFC investments in FIs and its inability or unwillingness to adequately screen and monitor FI sub-projects persist to the detriment of communities and the environment (see Observer Summer 2015).

The report’s reliance on expensive proprietary market information, unavailable to often marginalised communities affected by IFC-funded projects or their supporters, demonstrates that concerns about the lack of disclosure of sub-projects funded by IFC FI clients remain unaddressed (see Bulletin Nov 2014). The lack of disclosure prevents communities and CSOs from holding the IFC to account by bringing cases to light and accessing the IFC’s grievance mechanism, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO). This contravenes the IFC’s performance standards which oblige the IFC to ensure that communities are aware of the existence of the CAO.

An October letter to the IFC’s CEO Philippe H. Le Houérou, sent by six organisations, including the Philippines Movement for Climate Justice, a coalition of 130 environmental groups in the Philippines, and Machimar Adhikar Sangharsh Samiti (MASS), pleaded with him to respond to the call of those working to avoid a “climate catastrophe by ensuring that the IFC’s new FI investments are coal-free”.

Meanwhile, Owning the outcomes, a joint briefing by Oxfam and IDI also released in October 2016, challenged five arguments that the IFC has put forward to repudiate responsibility for harms caused by its financial-sector investments. David Pred, Managing Director of IDI commented “While the IFC has tried to distance itself from the projects funded by its intermediaries, the fact is that these banks are brazenly disregarding the IFC’s environmental and social requirements. As a result, the World Bank Group has ended up fuelling and profiting from business activities responsible for enormous human suffering, environmental devastation and in some cases serious crimes”.

The negative development impact of the International Finance Corporation’s (IFC, the World Bank’s private sector arm) investments in financial intermediaries (FIs) has once again been brought to light (see Observer Spring 2014). An October 2016 report, Disaster for us and the planet, by US-based NGO Inclusive Development International (IDI) and partners, provided evidence that  “IFC-supported financial institutions have funded at least 41 new coal projects …  since the World Bank announced its coal ban in 2013”. While the IFC has claimed that the concerns of civil society organisations have largely been addressed through its response to previously highlighted harmful projects that it funds, the report demonstrates that the IFC remains exposed to highly damaging projects.

The report highlighted the IFC’s involvement in the Mahan plant in India, where it provided millions of dollars in funding to two banks, IDFC and ICICI, which are “major players in India’s infrastructure and industrial sectors”. It noted that “in total, these two IFC-supported banks helped provide approximately $1.9 billion in financing to build the Mahan coal plant”. The report also disclosed that “the IFC’s support for the project did not end there” as it enabled the development of a nearby mine which Greenpeace found “would displace or otherwise harm 50,000 people who lived in the forest or depended on it for their livelihoods”.

The report also detailed IFC’s involvement in Rampal in Bangladesh, which it calls “one of the most potentially destructive coal plants in the world”. The plant sits very close to the world’s largest mangrove, which supports the lives of two million people in India and Bangladesh, is a UNESCO World Heritage site and home to numerous endangered and threatened species. The report stressed that “the World Bank was initially approached to fund Rampal. However, the Bank declined … Three French banks, Credit Agricole, BNP Paribas and Societe Generale, were also approached but refused to get involved”. In April 2016, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund placed the company charged with building the plant, the National Thermal Power Corporation, on its exclusion list.  The report emphasised that while “these institutions distanced themselves from the projects, six IFC-funded commercial banks arranged billions of dollars in financing for the National Thermal Power Corporation”, noting that “between 2005 and 2014, the IFC provided $520 million in funding to the six banks”. Considering the impact of IFC’s involvement in these and other similar projects, the report stressed that “these projects have also decimated the world’s forests. Coal plants, and the mines that feed them, are a leading cause of deforestation globally, further contributing to climate change.”

The World Bank Group has ended up fuelling and profiting from business activities responsible for enormous human suffering, environmental devastation and in some cases serious crimes –
DAVID PRED

Behind the fumes – the hidden story of IFC’s investment in coal

IFC’s involvement in coal power generation lies in stark contrast to the World Bank Group’s (WBG) position on coal, as outlined in its 2013 Energy sector directions paper, which states that “the WBG will provide financial support for greenfield [new] coal power generation projects only in rare circumstances”(see Bulletin December 2013). The Bank’s position was reiterated by World Bank president Jim Yong Kim in November 2016 when, in celebration of the entry into force of the Paris Climate Change Agreement, he stressed that “without climate action at scale, more than 100 million people could fall back into extreme poverty by 2030”, and that “we need to focus special attention and action on Asia, where energy demand is growing and some countries continue to look to coal as the solution.”

IDI’s report forms part of a four-part series titled Outsourcing development: Lifting the veil on the World Bank Group’s lending through financial intermediaries and contributes to evolving evidence of the negative development impacts of IFC investments in FIs. During a months-long investigation following the trail of IFC money, IDI uncovered 121 harmful projects that the IFC is funding through FIs. Despite some positive initiatives taken by the IFC, such as the disclosure of it private equity investments and a stated commitment to “strengthen and deepen the quality and coverage of IFC’s E&S [environmental and social] risk management of FIs”, the report demonstrated that the opaque nature of IFC investments in FIs and its inability or unwillingness to adequately screen and monitor FI sub-projects persist to the detriment of communities and the environment (see Observer Summer 2015).

The report’s reliance on expensive proprietary market information, unavailable to often marginalised communities affected by IFC-funded projects or their supporters, demonstrates that concerns about the lack of disclosure of sub-projects funded by IFC FI clients remain unaddressed (see Bulletin Nov 2014). The lack of disclosure prevents communities and CSOs from holding the IFC to account by bringing cases to light and accessing the IFC’s grievance mechanism, the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO). This contravenes the IFC’s performance standards which oblige the IFC to ensure that communities are aware of the existence of the CAO.

An October letter to the IFC’s CEO Philippe H. Le Houérou, sent by six organisations, including the Philippines Movement for Climate Justice, a coalition of 130 environmental groups in the Philippines, and Machimar Adhikar Sangharsh Samiti (MASS), pleaded with him to respond to the call of those working to avoid a “climate catastrophe by ensuring that the IFC’s new FI investments are coal-free”.

Meanwhile, Owning the outcomes, a joint briefing by Oxfam and IDI also released in October 2016, challenged five arguments that the IFC has put forward to repudiate responsibility for harms caused by its financial-sector investments. David Pred, Managing Director of IDI commented “While the IFC has tried to distance itself from the projects funded by its intermediaries, the fact is that these banks are brazenly disregarding the IFC’s environmental and social requirements. As a result, the World Bank Group has ended up fuelling and profiting from business activities responsible for enormous human suffering, environmental devastation and in some cases serious crimes”.

During 1967-8 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. sought to articulate a deeper program for the movement against national oppression and economic injustice

Just three weeks prior to the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on March 14, 1968, the co-founder and President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) honored an invitation from the Grosse Pointe Human Relations Council to speak on the topic of “The Other America.” He was to examine the-then debate over “open housing” for African Americans amid an unprecedented wave of urban rebellions across the United States.

On July 23, 1967, seven months prior to Dr. King’s visit to Grosse Pointe High School, an affluent suburb on the border with Detroit– the city had exploded in a five day rebellion led by the African American community which resulted in 43 deaths, hundreds of injuries, 7,200 arrests, with estimates of property damage ranging into the tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars. The issues which sparked the social unrest were related to the abysmal conditions fostered by police brutality, labor discrimination, overcrowded housing districts contained through de facto segregationist policies, and inadequate schools with bulging classroom sizes and declining infrastructure.

Dr. King had been developing his views on the concept of the “Other America” for at least one year when he addressed the same subject in a major speech at Stanford University in California on April 14, 1967. After the enormous gains of the Civil Rights Movement between 1955 and 1965, the focus of SCLC and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) shifted substantially to the municipalities in the Northern and Western states where huge swaths of depressed neighborhoods housed millions of African Americans, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Native Americans and poor whites.

The White Backlash and Opposition to the Vietnam War

Not only had SCLC moved into the city of Chicago during 1966 in an effort to test its evolving program centered around jobs, housing and income, the organization in early 1967 had come out solidly in opposition to the U.S. bombing and occupation of Vietnam. Dr. King saw the war as an enemy of the African American people as well as the poor people in general.

In Chicago, white working and middle class people resisted the demands of the Freedom Movement. They were supported and encouraged by the-then administration of Mayor Richard Daley, who rejected the call for drastic action to eliminate slums, housing discrimination and poverty in the nation’s second largest city.

The eruption of a rebellion on July 12 which lasted four days was blamed on the work of SCLC even though the organization maintained its ideological commitment to a nonviolent methodology of struggle. Although the outcome of the Chicago Freedom Movement won limited results for the people of the city, it portended much for the developments over the next three years.

At Grosse Pointe High School Dr. King was met by 2,700 people who crowded the gymnasium where he was to deliver his talk. Nonetheless, there was a completely hostile response to his presence in the suburb as well. Members of the ultra-conservative racist organization called Breakthrough along with the Grosse Pointe Property Owners Association argued that his presence could prompt violence and consequently should be banned. A vote by the Grosse Pointe School Board in favor of allowing the meeting by a 5-2 margin was accompanied by the requirement of taking out a one million dollar insurance policy in the event that people were injured or killed. (Grosse Pointe News, Jan. 5, 2017)

Breakthrough, which was headed by a City of Detroit Recreation Department employee Donald Lobsinger, led a picket line outside of the school. Approximately 200 Breakthrough members and supporters chanted against Dr. King’s appearance denouncing him as a “traitor” and “communist” for his stance in opposition to the Vietnam War among other issues.

Later members of the neo-fascist group infiltrated the audience at Grosse Pointe High School and repeatedly interrupted the speech. Dr. King said that they would never discourage him from doing the important work of linking the Civil Rights and Peace movements together. He clearly identified the African American struggle as having a decisively class character due to the economic exploitation of the people.

One of the most important sections of the address came when Dr. King observed: “Now let me get back to the point that I was trying to bring out about the economic problem. And that is one of the most critical problems that we face in America today.  We find in the other America unemployment constantly rising to astronomical proportions and Black people generally find themselves living in a literal depression. All too often when there is mass unemployment in the Black community, it’s referred to as a social problem and when there is mass unemployment in the white community, it’s referred to as a depression. But there is no basic difference. The fact is that the Negro (word used to describe people of African descent in the U.S. at the time) faces a literal depression all over the U.S.  The unemployment rate on the basis of statistics from the labor department is about 8.8 per cent in the Black community. But these statistics only take under consideration individuals who were once in the labor market, or individuals who go to employment offices to seek employment. But they do not take under consideration the thousands of people who have given up, who have lost motivation, the thousands of people who have had so many doors closed in their faces that they feel defeated and they no longer go out and look for jobs, the thousands who’ve come to feel that life is a long and desolate corridor with no exit signs. These people are considered the discouraged and when you add the discouraged to the individuals who can’t be calculated through statistics in the unemployment category, the unemployment rate in the Negro community probably goes to 16 or 17 percent.  And among Black youth, it is in some communities as high as 40 and 45 percent.

The SCLC then went on to say: “the problem of unemployment is not the only problem. There is the problem of under-employment, and there are thousands and thousands, I would say millions of people in the Negro community who are poverty stricken – not because they are not working but because they receive wages so low that they cannot begin to function in the main stream of the economic life of our nation. Most of the poverty stricken people of America are persons who are working every day and they end up getting part-time wages for full-time work. So the vast majority of Negroes in America find themselves perishing on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. This has caused a great deal of bitterness. It has caused a great deal of agony. It has caused ache and anguish. It has caused great despair, and we have seen the angered expressions of this despair and this bitterness in the violent rebellions that have taken place in cities all over our country. Now I think my views on non-violence are pretty generally known. I still believe that non-violence is the most potent weapon available to the Negro in his struggle for justice and freedom in the U.S.”

Towards a Principled United Front in Opposition to Racism and Fascism

During Labor Day weekend in the previous year 1967, Dr. King was a featured speaker at the National Conference for New Politics (NCNP) held in Chicago. Thousands attended the event which sought to draft anti-nuclear weapons activist and Vietnam War opponent, Dr. Benjamin Spock, the renowned pediatrician and writer, as a presidential candidate for 1968, with Dr. King as his running mate.

The concept of the NCNP was to build a broad-based alliance purportedly independent of the Democratic Party which took a position against the Vietnam War. Nonetheless, there were other issues that hampered the smooth operation of such a united front strategy.

Paralleling the NCNP was the Black Congress, also held in Chicago, which demanded that the question of African American liberation be not only placed on the NCNP agenda but also the granting of the nationally oppressed delegates to the conference veto power over all resolutions and platforms. Elements of the Black Congress program were manifested in the NCNP Black Caucus demands. These issues related to taking a principled stand against Zionism, support for armed struggle in the liberation of Southern Africa, recognition of African Americans as the vanguard of the people’s movement in the U.S., and other questions.

In addition, there were grave concerns that the appeals to adopt this agenda supporting African American liberation, the question of Palestine self-determination, opposition to Israeli aggression against Egypt, Jordan and Syria and a halt to support for the State of Israel by Washington, were conveniently left off of the NCNP agenda. James Forman, who was serving at the time as the SNCC International Affairs Director, addressed the NCNP Black Caucus raising the demands for veto power and solidarity with the struggle of the oppressed.

Forman emphasized in his address to the NCNP Black Caucus that: “I hardly need to talk about the exploited labor of all us who are Black and who tilled the fields without pay while the white man reinvested the capital from our labor. Therefore, even today, here in the United States we are the lowest class on the economic ladder.” (Sept. 2, 1967)

The SNCC leader went on to note: “There can be no new concept of politics, no new coalitions unless those of us who are the most disposed assume leadership and give direction to that new form of politics. If this does not happen we are going to see the same old liberal-labor treachery of very rich white folks and Democratic Party oriented whites and Negroes trying to determine what they can do for us.”

These words are quite useful to the current developing struggle in 2017 in the aftermath of the assumption of power by President Donald Trump. Millions have taken to the streets in support of women’s and immigrant rights, the question of self-determination for the indigenous people at Standing Rock, against police brutality, the suppression of the African American vote, etc.

However, unless the alliances that are forming are based upon principled political positions, these efforts will inevitably lead right back into the Democratic Party with its betrayal of the working class, poor and nationally oppressed. A revolutionary leadership must emerge to provide a programmatic thrust aimed at exposing and defeating the exploitative and dictatorial system of capitalism and imperialism.

Note: The author covered the 49^th anniversary commemoration of Dr. King’s speech at Grosse Pointe High School South (as it is now known) on January 14, 2017. An audio file of the actual address was played to the audience before a discussion on the historic event. This program was sponsored by the newly-formed Grosse Pointe Chapter of the NAACP.

Analysts fear mixed signals from Trump administration may conceal a plan allowing the US ambassador to work out of Jerusalem 

From the windows of the grey, cube-shaped building that houses the US embassy in Tel Aviv, staff enjoy an undisturbed view out over the Mediterranean and a beach adorned in the summer with sunbeds and parasols.

Most days the only evidence of activity is outside on the pavement: A queue of Israelis snake out of a side door, clutching their documents and watched over by Israeli soldiers as they wait expectantly for a US travel visa.

The drab exterior offers no clues of the incendiary battle raging behind the scenes over whether the embassy’s days are numbered. Israel, and its allies in Donald Trump’s new administration, want to relocate the embassy to Jerusalem, 70km away.

The distance may be short but the move risks a political and diplomatic earthquake, according to most analysts.

Move ‘war crime’

If the Trump’s White House approves the relocation, it would overturn decades of international consensus on Jerusalem.

The message to the Palestinians and Arab world would be clear and provocative, said Nabil Shaath, a senior Palestinian official and former Palestinian foreign minister.

“Moving the embassy is the same as recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s united capital. It’s a war crime,” he told Al Jazeera.

There’s no way we or the Arab world could accept it. It would mean the end of the US as the broker of the peace process. We would fight back and mobilise the rest of the world against the move.

The Israeli army has been advising the government of Benjamin Netanyahu on the possible fallout too, according to a report last week in the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth. A change of address would be seen as a US green light for Israel to extend its sovereignty over the city and its holy places, including the al-Aqsa mosque, in the view of Israeli military intelligence.

Reactions could include mass protests from the Islamic movements inside Israel; riots in the occupied Palestinian territories and neighbouring states such as Jordan, which is the official guardian of al-Aqsa; and the collapse of Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority.

The Israeli army believes the move also risks inflaming the wider Muslim world and increasing the threat of terror attacks against Israeli and Jewish sites around the world.

UN protected zone

Tensions over Jerusalem have been high since the United Nations announced a partition plan in late 1947. It treated the city as an internationally protected zone, separate from the Jewish and Arab states it proposed in the rest of historic Palestine.

But months later, in a war that created Israel on the Palestinian homeland, Jerusalem was divided in two, under separate Israeli and Jordanian control.

In that period, Israel worked strenuously to pressure countries to set up embassies in West Jerusalem over stiff opposition from the US, said Nimrod Goren, the author of a book in Hebrew on the battles over the US embassy’s location.

“Initially, Washington stuck by the international consensus so strictly that its diplomats refused even to travel to Jerusalem for political meetings and ceremonies,” Goren, who heads Mitvim, a think-tank on Israeli foreign policy, told Al Jazeera.

But US resolve weakened through the 1950s as Israel’s main institutions, from the parliament to the president’s office, relocated to West Jerusalem.

Illegal annexation

A further turning point came in the early 1960s. “The US started to cultivate much closer ties with Israel, especially in defence matters,” he said. Washington turned a blind eye as Israel offered aid to poor, newly independent states in Africa and others in Latin America in return for establishing their embassies in Jerusalem.

By the time Israel invaded and occupied East Jerusalem in 1967, Goren observed, more than a third of the 54 diplomatic missions in Israel were located in the city.

When Israel formally annexed East Jerusalem in 1980, in violation of international law, declaring the entire city its “eternal, united capital”, the US again pressured states to move out of West Jerusalem. Only El Salvador and Costa Rica remained, until they too pulled out in 2006.

Another significant shift in Washington’s attitude followed the signing of the Oslo accords in 1994. Israel’s lobbyists worked hard to erode the significance of the accords, which, it was widely assumed, would entail the creation of a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem.

In 1995, the US Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which recognised Jerusalem as the “capital” of Israel and required a change in the embassy’s location by May 1999 at the latest.

Daunting ramifications

Like Trump, Bill Clinton and George W Bush promised during their presidential campaigns to implement the Jerusalem Embassy Act. Yet, once in office, they baulked at the daunting ramifications.

The US president, as the chief broker in the Oslo process, could not afford to be seen pre-judging the outcome of negotiations on Jerusalem, the most contentious of the final-status issues.

The continuing sensitivity was evident during Barack Obama’s presidency.

He turned to the US Supreme Court in 2015 to strike down another Congressional measure designed to confer implicit US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The legislation would have entitled American parents of children born in Jerusalem to list “Israel” as the birthplace on their passports.

Last October, the White House also made a point of publicly correcting the dateline on a press release concerning an eulogy delivered by Obama at Shimon Peres’ funeral in Jerusalem. The press release was re-issued with the word “Israel” struck through.

Confusing signals

Will Trump take a different tack, or will he too relent on his embassy pledge now he is in office?

In an interview late on Thursday, Trump indicated that he was not in a hurry to approve the move. “I don’t want to talk about it yet. It’s too early,” he told Fox News.

The confusing signals from his officials since his inauguration more than a week ago have hinted at a clash behind the scenes, said Nathan Thrall, a Jerusalem-based analyst with the International Crisis Group, a conflict resolution think-tank.

“The truth is no one really knows what Trump will do, even veteran US diplomats,” he told Al Jazeera.

On the one hand, Trump and his closest advisers on the Middle East have gone out of their way to raise expectations. Trump has invested more political capital on the move taking place than his predecessors.

The difference in approach was underscored by his choice of ambassador to Israel. David Friedman, a former bankruptcy lawyer, is more an ideological partisan – an ally of the settlers – than a diplomat, noted Yossi Alpher, who served as an adviser to former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak.

Fear of backlash

At the same time, however, Trump is certain to face strong institutional resistance from the US state department, said Thrall. Its officials have long opposed moving the embassy, fearing the consequences for US relations with the Arab world.

Last month, citing national security considerations, Obama signed a presidential waiver included in the Jerusalem Embassy Act to postpone for another six months the law’s implementation – as has happened without fail since it passed 22 years ago.

Trump could use Obama’s waiver to save face by delaying a decision until at least June, observed Goren.

It is possible too that, despite Israeli celebrations over Trump’s promise on the embassy, Netanyahu may prefer in the end to let the matter lie for a while.

“There seems to be an ambivalence among Netanyahu’s circle,” said Thrall. “On the one hand, he has a lot of problems on his plate at the moment [with a series of corruption investigations] and doesn’t need the possibility of triggering a conflagration in the region. And on the other, there’s no great gain for him. If the US moves the embassy, European states will not follow.”

That is how Palestinian officials and diplomats in Jerusalem appear to be reading recent comments from the administration. Shaath said: “We have signs that the administration has retreated a little. But it may simply be a delay. We can’t be sure.”

Hunt for work-around

A European diplomat based in Israel, speaking to Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity, said: “It looks like Trump’s bark may have been worse than his bite. But there’s still a danger that [US ambassador] Friedman and Netanyahu will find a work-around.”

Morton Klein, the head of the Zionist Organisation of American, one of Israel’s key Israel lobby groups in Washington, told the Haaretz daily last week that Friedman had told him he would work out of US offices in Jerusalem.

Alpher suggested a possible scenario might be for Friedman to take over a section of the US consulate in Jerusalem, which serves the occupied territories. The US embassy could then function separately in Tel Aviv.

“If American Jewish leaders are insistent that the embassy moves, I could see the [Trump] administration choosing that as a compromise,” he said.

Shaath said such a manoeuvre should fool no one. “We would not accept any sort of so-called compromise along those lines. If the ambassador is working from Jerusalem, then the embassy has moved – and we will fight it.”

The Russian-proposed constitution for Syria is raising a storm in Media. Not only the opposition but the governmental circles are discussing it. Many forums are endlessly debating its 85-controversial articles. Some Syrians feel insulted by a charter authored by one outside power and approved by two others, Turkey and Iran.

The Islamists are furious, because the draft constitution scraps Article 3, which specifies Islam as the religion of the president of the republic. This is a long-standing article since 1920 which several Syrian leaders, including Hafez Al Assad, tried to change, with little luck.

Arab nationalists are also very unhappy with the new charter, because it changes the name of the country from “Syrian Arab Republic” into “Syrian Republic.” This was proposed in order to please non-Arab components of Syrian society, like the Turkmen, Armenians, Circassians, and Kurds. It is how the republic was called between 1932-1958; the word “Arab” was only injected into its name as late as 1961, in response to a character slaughter campaign waged by then-Egyptian President Jamal Abdul Nasser, accusing Syrians of being “bad Arabs” for supporting a coup against the short-lived Syrian-Egyptian Union.

But in fact the Russian-authored constitution gives a little bit to everybody — keeping everybody satisfied, and equally furious. For example, in order to please the opposition, it slashes some of the Syrian presidency’s legislative powers, taking away 23 authorities currently vested in the Office of the President.

Such powers include the right to name judges on the Higher Court of Justice, the right to name governor of the Central Bank, and to appoint the prime minister and his deputies. To please Damascus officialdom, it keeps the president in full-control of the army and the security apparatus.

What are the main differences???

Stay tuned and you will find out.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer asserted at Thursday’s press briefing that Iran had attacked a U.S. naval vessel, as part of his argument defending the administration’s bellicose announcement that Iran is “on notice.”

National Security Adviser Michael Flynn on Wednesday said he was  “officially putting Iran on notice” following the country’s ballistic missile test and an attack on a Saudi naval vessel by Houthi rebels in Yemen (the Houthis are tenuously aligned with Iran’s government but are distinct from it).

The White House press corps wanted to know what being put “on notice” entailed, and Spicer responded by claiming that Iran’s government took actions against a U.S. naval vessel, which would be an act of war. “I think General Flynn was really clear yesterday that Iran has violated the Joint Resolution, that Iran’s additional hostile actions that it took against our Navy vessel are ones that we are very clear are not going to sit by and take,” he said. “I think that we will have further updates for you on those additional actions.”

Major Garrett of CBS News quietly corrected him, saying “a Saudi vessel,” and Spicer then responded almost inaudibly: “Sorry, thank you, yes a Saudi vessel. Yes, that’s right.” He did not in any way address his false claim that it was an Iranian attack, however.

Watch Spicer’s remarks:

Pentagon spokesman Christopher Sherwood confirmed to The Intercept that the attack was in fact conducted against a Saudi warship, and that the Pentagon suspects Houthi rebels. “It was a Saudi ship – it was actually a frigate” said Sherwood. “It was [conducted by] suspected Houthi rebels off the coast of Yemen.”

Fox News initially misreported that a U.S. ship was somehow the target — which is perhaps where some of the confusion in the White House originated

This, of course, is how American wars start. In the infamous 1964 “Gulf of Tonkin incident,” as it is often referred to, the White House and the Pentagon accused North Vietnamese forces of attacking two Navy destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin off Vietnam on August 4. President Lyndon Johnson used the attacks to coax Congress into approving a resolution, known as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, that authorized military action in Vietnam. As the New York Times noted a few years ago, the “attack never happened.”

And way back in February 1898, a U.S. warship, the Maine, was moored in Havana’s harbor when a huge explosion blew it apart, killing most of its crew. The explosion was blamed on Spain, and led to a rallying cry particularly in U.S. newspapers of “Remember the Maine!” In April of that year, the United States declared war on Spain, even though there was no proof of Spanish responsibility for the explosion, and much reason to doubt it. As the Washington Post reported, an official Navy inquiry concluded in the 1970s that “a mine or torpedo could not have been responsible for the blast. The likely cause was a coal bunker fire that ignited the ship’s magazine.”

The U.S. and Iran both have ships in the Gulf area. The U.S. dispatched ships to the Bab-el Mandeb strait off the coast of Yemen in October to reinforce a Saudi-led naval blockade that has devastated the country and left 14 million people going hungry. At the time, an anonymous government official told Fox News that “this is a show of force.” Later that month, after rockets fired from Houthi-controlled territory appeared to target a U.S. warship, the Obama administration authorized strikes on three radar sites in Western Yemen.

In early January, a U.S. Navy ship fired warning shots at Iranian vessels the Pentagon said were approaching it in the Strait of Hormuz, on the opposite side of the Arabian peninsula.

Update: February 2, 2017

This story has been updated to include Spicer’s comments partially correcting himself.

Trump has a blind spot when it comes to China, Iran and long-suffering Palestinians, apparently bent on continuing hostile policies – not a good thing. There’s no good ending to this scenario if it persists.

He warned Palestinians against suing Israel in the International Criminal Court (ICC) or International Court of Justice (ICJ) – threatening severe steps, including cutting off aid, closing PLO offices in Washington, even restoring the organization to terrorist group status, contemptuous of their fundamental rights, one-sidedly supporting Israeli state terror.

He’s using the power of his presidency to cow Palestinians into submission, making a mockery of claiming he aims to achieve “the ultimate deal,” unattainable for half a century – Israeli/Palestinian peace at last.

His message to Palestinians was sent by phone through the US consulate, not the White House or State Department.

He signed an executive order to execute a congressional resolution drafted during Obama’s tenure. In 2015, a clause was added to foreign aid legislation – cutting off US aid if the PLO or dominant Fatah faction sues Israel in an international tribunal.

According to an unnamed Palestinian source, “(d)espite that resolution by Congress, the Palestinian leaders were counting on petitioning the court as a means of halting the settlements.”

“But the messages arriving from Washington in recent days made clear that any such step by the Palestinians would lead to a severe American reaction, so much so that some talked about returning the PLO to the list of terrorist organizations.”

“The American threat is significant.” It shows Palestinians have no friends in Washington, Trump the latest example of one-sided executive support for Israel – along with the entire senate and nearly all House members. The power of Israel and its key US lobby AIPAC can’t be underestimated, representing pure evil.

Despite decades of Israeli high crimes, Palestinians largely refrained from seeking justice in international tribunals. In April 2012, the ICC rejected the PA’s request to investigate Israeli war crimes during its December 2008/January 2009 Cast Lead aggression – on the bogus pretext of claiming only “recognized states can join the court.”

Palestinian statehood is recognized by over 140 nations. On November 15, 1988, the Palestine National Council (PNC) adopted Francis Boyle’s Memorandum of Law. It “proclaimed the existence of the new independent state of Palestine.”

A de facto UN member as an observer state, it lacks de jure status because of Abbas won’t seek it – easily gotten if sought. It satisfies all essential membership criteria.

In July 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled Israel’s Separation Wall illegal – saying its West Bank route and associated gate and permit system violated Israel’s obligations under international law.

 It ordered completed sections dismantled, and “all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto” repealed or rendered “ineffective forthwith.”

It also mandated reparations for the “requisition and destruction of homes, businesses, and agricultural holdings (and) return (of) land, orchards, olive groves, and other immovable property seized.”

It obligated member states to reject illegal construction and demand Israel comply with international law.

Most nations ignored the ruling, notably America and EU ones. Israel continues committing high crimes with impunity because the world community won’t hold it accountable.

On Wednesday, Palestinians got more bad news. Netanyahu announced preliminary steps to establish a new Israeli settlement, the first one in over two decades – on stolen Palestinian land, he didn’t explain.

He pledged unlimited East Jerusalem settlement construction, along with escalated expansion of West Bank ones, approving over 6,000 new housing units this year so far, many more to come.

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.

This isn’t the first time that the US has been in the grip of an anti-immigrant fever. Twenty year ago, for example, then-California Gov. Pete Wilson announced that undocumented pregnant women should be denied prenatal care. His underlying message then was clear, brutal and similar to what we’re hearing today: If you’re “illegal,” get out of our country!

That was also a dangerous time for immigrants, marked by resurgent racism, increased police brutality, vigilante violence, and rationalization of virtually any attack. In other words, we’ve been here before.

Anti-immigrant activists predictably deny charges of racism. But the facts tell a different story. Almost unlimited numbers of immigrants from mostly white, European countries are allowed into the US, while Latin Americans and Africans rarely even get tourist visas. And although sweatshops that employ undocumented workers are condemned, they aren’t often shut down. They’re merely raided, resulting in deportations. The owners may be fined but they still come out ahead. After all, deported workers can’t collect back wages.

In the early 1980s, low intensity conflict (LIC) theorists constructed a Los Angeles insurrection scenario requiring a military response and sealing the nearby border. A decade later, the Border Patrol played a key role in the L.A. riots of 1992, deployed in Latino communities and arresting more than 1,000 people. Afterward, the INS began work with the Pentagon’s Center for Low-Intensity Conflict. The line between civilian and military operations was largely erased.

Throughout the 1990s, Human Rights Watch accused the US Border Patrol of routinely abusing people, citing a pattern of beatings, shootings, rapes, and deaths. In response, INS detainees in a private jail rioted in June 1995 after being tortured by guards. After 9/11, the federal government considered placing US soldiers along the Mexican border.

This isn’t the first time that the US has been in the grip of an anti-immigrant fever. Twenty year ago, for example, then-California Gov. Pete Wilson announced that undocumented pregnant women should be denied prenatal care. His underlying message then was clear, brutal and similar to what we’re hearing today: If you’re “illegal,” get out of our country!

That was also a dangerous time for immigrants, marked by resurgent racism, increased police brutality, vigilante violence, and rationalization of virtually any attack. In other words, we’ve been here before.

Anti-immigrant activists predictably deny charges of racism. But the facts tell a different story. Almost unlimited numbers of immigrants from mostly white, European countries are allowed into the US, while Latin Americans and Africans rarely even get tourist visas. And although sweatshops that employ undocumented workers are condemned, they aren’t often shut down. They’re merely raided, resulting in deportations. The owners may be fined but they still come out ahead. After all, deported workers can’t collect back wages.

In the early 1980s, low intensity conflict (LIC) theorists constructed a Los Angeles insurrection scenario requiring a military response and sealing the nearby border. A decade later, the Border Patrol played a key role in the L.A. riots of 1992, deployed in Latino communities and arresting more than 1,000 people. Afterward, the INS began work with the Pentagon’s Center for Low-Intensity Conflict. The line between civilian and military operations was largely erased.

Throughout the 1990s, Human Rights Watch accused the US Border Patrol of routinely abusing people, citing a pattern of beatings, shootings, rapes, and deaths. In response, INS detainees in a private jail rioted in June 1995 after being tortured by guards. After 9/11, the federal government considered placing US soldiers along the Mexican border.

But efforts to curtail immigration through tighter security did little but redirect the flow into the most desolate areas of the border, increasing the mortality rate of those crossing. Between 1998 and 2004, at least 1,900 people died trying to cross the US-Mexico border. Arizona became the main entry point for undocumented immigrants and an estimated 460,000 lived in the state. Since then, however, that total has dropped by at least 100,000.

Since the 2007-2009 Great Recession, more Mexican immigrants have returned to their homeland than have migrated to the US, according to the Pew Research Center. The decline results from factors including weakened job opportunities, tougher border enforcement, a long-term decline in Mexico’s birth rates, and an improving Mexican economy.

More than 150 years ago, at the end of a two-year war between Mexico and the US, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed. Many Latinos still feel that the treaty, accepted under pressure by a corrupt dictator, was an act of theft violating international law. Mexico surrendered half its territory — now the Southwestern US — and most of the Mexicans who stayed in the ceded region ultimately lost their land.

In a sense, that war never ended. Throughout the remainder of the 19th century, US officials, working closely with white settlers and elites, used often-violent means to subdue Mexicans in the region.

Once the region was “pacified,” border enforcement became a tool to regulate the flow of labor into the US. With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, the Border Patrol emerged as gatekeeper of a “revolving door,” sometimes processing immigrant labor, sometimes cracking down. The Bracero Program, which brought in Mexican agricultural laborers, was followed (and overlapped by) Operation Wetback, an INS-run military offensive against immigrant workers.

The border is still a battlefield. During recent decades, government strategies for combating undocumented immigration and drug trafficking have re-militarized the region. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) meshed neatly with more obvious aspects of low-intensity conflict doctrine. The definition of immigration and drug trafficking as “national security” issues brought state-of-the-art military approaches into domestic affairs.

But just as the projection of a “communist menace” was a smokescreen for post-war expansionism, a “Brown wave,” the “Drug War,” and “radical Islamic” terrorism have been used as pretexts for military-industrial penetration.

LIC doctrine uses diverse tactics — from the subtle and psychological (“winning hearts and minds”) to the obvious and brutal. Such flexibility requires the most sophisticated tools available, and the integration of police, paramilitary, and military forces. It also requires a plausible “enemy” — in this case, immigrants who can be accused of almost anything.

In this kind of war, borders are ultimately unimportant. Battles are waged everywhere, even in communities far from a frontier. This blurs the line between police and the military, and further threatens basic rights.

Nevertheless, Latinos will soon be the largest minority group in the US, according to Census Bureau predictions: at least 44 million, or 15 percent of the nation’s population. Although the biggest expansion will occur in states that draw the most immigrants — California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey — the spill-over will reach from Atlanta to Minneapolis and Washington state. California is expected to undergo the most dramatic transformation — to at least 50 percent Latino and possibly only 32 percent white by 2040.

Overall, immigration is fueling US population growth, and the Census Bureau predicts a tripling of the Hispanic and Asian populations in less than 50 years. While the number of whites may increase by seven percent, the three largest minorities — Hispanic, Black, and Asian — are expected to rise by 188, 71, and 213 percent respectively. The bottom line is that these three groups are expected to constitute at least 47 percent of total US population by 2050. While such forecasts certainly have much to do with the current anti-immigrant climate, the trend won’t be reversed by race-motivated legislation or even a wall.

Low-intensity war against non-white immigrants is expanding,  especially along the US-Mexico border, and takes many forms: militarization, criminalizing the undocumented, repressive legislation, human rights violations, and cruel, discriminatory attacks on children and the poor.

With the rise of Donald Trump and a renewed anti-immigrant movement, the choice facing the nation has become stark, between what Mexican author Jose Vasconcelos once called Universopolis – a place in which all the peoples of the world are melded into a “cosmic race” – and the Blade Runner scenario.

In Blade Runner, a prescient 1982 film, Los Angeles in the 21st century has become an ominous “world city” marked by cultural fusion and economic stratification, a sunless and polluted place, overcrowded with Asian and Latino drones who barely look up at the metal fortresses of the rich. That option is basically an advanced imperialist state.

Like Vasconcelos, author Salman Rushdie envisions a more optimistic, multicultural alternative. Immigrants may not so much assimilate as leak into one another, he suggests, “like flavors when you cook.”

Of course, this is precisely what frightens many Trump supporters. For them the USA is hot dogs and apple pie, and they show little interest in expanding their diets.

But efforts to curtail immigration through tighter security did little but redirect the flow into the most desolate areas of the border, increasing the mortality rate of those crossing. Between 1998 and 2004, at least 1,900 people died trying to cross the US-Mexico border. Arizona became the main entry point for undocumented immigrants and an estimated 460,000 lived in the state. Since then, however, that total has dropped by at least 100,000.

Since the 2007-2009 Great Recession, more Mexican immigrants have returned to their homeland than have migrated to the US, according to the Pew Research Center. The decline results from factors including weakened job opportunities, tougher border enforcement, a long-term decline in Mexico’s birth rates, and an improving Mexican economy.

More than 150 years ago, at the end of a two-year war between Mexico and the US, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed. Many Latinos still feel that the treaty, accepted under pressure by a corrupt dictator, was an act of theft violating international law. Mexico surrendered half its territory — now the Southwestern US — and most of the Mexicans who stayed in the ceded region ultimately lost their land.

In a sense, that war never ended. Throughout the remainder of the 19th century, US officials, working closely with white settlers and elites, used often-violent means to subdue Mexicans in the region.

Once the region was “pacified,” border enforcement became a tool to regulate the flow of labor into the US. With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, the Border Patrol emerged as gatekeeper of a “revolving door,” sometimes processing immigrant labor, sometimes cracking down. The Bracero Program, which brought in Mexican agricultural laborers, was followed (and overlapped by) Operation Wetback, an INS-run military offensive against immigrant workers.

The border is still a battlefield. During recent decades, government strategies for combating undocumented immigration and drug trafficking have re-militarized the region. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) meshed neatly with more obvious aspects of low-intensity conflict doctrine. The definition of immigration and drug trafficking as “national security” issues brought state-of-the-art military approaches into domestic affairs.

But just as the projection of a “communist menace” was a smokescreen for post-war expansionism, a “Brown wave,” the “Drug War,” and “radical Islamic” terrorism have been used as pretexts for military-industrial penetration.

LIC doctrine uses diverse tactics — from the subtle and psychological (“winning hearts and minds”) to the obvious and brutal. Such flexibility requires the most sophisticated tools available, and the integration of police, paramilitary, and military forces. It also requires a plausible “enemy” — in this case, immigrants who can be accused of almost anything.

In this kind of war, borders are ultimately unimportant. Battles are waged everywhere, even in communities far from a frontier. This blurs the line between police and the military, and further threatens basic rights.

Nevertheless, Latinos will soon be the largest minority group in the US, according to Census Bureau predictions: at least 44 million, or 15 percent of the nation’s population. Although the biggest expansion will occur in states that draw the most immigrants — California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey — the spill-over will reach from Atlanta to Minneapolis and Washington state. California is expected to undergo the most dramatic transformation — to at least 50 percent Latino and possibly only 32 percent white by 2040.

Overall, immigration is fueling US population growth, and the Census Bureau predicts a tripling of the Hispanic and Asian populations in less than 50 years. While the number of whites may increase by seven percent, the three largest minorities — Hispanic, Black, and Asian — are expected to rise by 188, 71, and 213 percent respectively. The bottom line is that these three groups are expected to constitute at least 47 percent of total US population by 2050. While such forecasts certainly have much to do with the current anti-immigrant climate, the trend won’t be reversed by race-motivated legislation or even a wall.

Low-intensity war against non-white immigrants is expanding,  especially along the US-Mexico border, and takes many forms: militarization, criminalizing the undocumented, repressive legislation, human rights violations, and cruel, discriminatory attacks on children and the poor.

With the rise of Donald Trump and a renewed anti-immigrant movement, the choice facing the nation has become stark, between what Mexican author Jose Vasconcelos once called Universopolis – a place in which all the peoples of the world are melded into a “cosmic race” – and the Blade Runner scenario.

In Blade Runner, a prescient 1982 film, Los Angeles in the 21st century has become an ominous “world city” marked by cultural fusion and economic stratification, a sunless and polluted place, overcrowded with Asian and Latino drones who barely look up at the metal fortresses of the rich. That option is basically an advanced imperialist state.

Like Vasconcelos, author Salman Rushdie envisions a more optimistic, multicultural alternative. Immigrants may not so much assimilate as leak into one another, he suggests, “like flavors when you cook.”

Of course, this is precisely what frightens many Trump supporters. For them the USA is hot dogs and apple pie, and they show little interest in expanding their diets.

Radiation levels inside a damaged reactor at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant have hit a record high, and are the worst since the plant suffered a triple meltdown nearly six years ago. The latest readings now pose a serious challenge as officials prepare to dismantle the stricken facility.

Radiation levels inside the containment vessel of reactor No. 2 at Fukushima has reached 530 sieverts per hour—a figure described by experts as “unimaginable.” The readings, taken by Tokyo Electric Power Co. Holdings Inc. (Tepco), were taken near the entrance of a space immediately below the pressure vessel, which contains the reactor core.

The radiation level inside the plant now far exceeds the previous high of 73 sieverts per hour, which was recorded soon after the triple meltdown in March 2011. Tepco made the readings by analyzing electronic noise caused by the radiation in video images. The company says this technique has a margin of error of plus or minus 30 percent (so even at the extreme low ball, the levels are no lower than 370 sieverts per minute—but possibly as high as 690!).

Needless to say, this plant is not fit for human life. Just one dose of a single sievert is enough to cause radiation sickness and nausea. Exposure to four to five sieverts would kill about half of those exposed to it within a month, while a single dose of 10 sieverts is enough to kill a person within weeks.

These surging radiation levels are complicating plans to dismantle the plant. According to the National Institute of Radiological Sciences, medical professionals aren’t prepared to treat patients who have been exposed to the levels of radiation currently experienced at the facility. This is a big problem for Tepco, which plans to remove fuel debris as part of the decommissioning process. The dismantling of Fukushima is scheduled to start in 2021 and could take nearly a half-century.

Officials with Tepco aren’t entirely sure why radiation levels are on such a dramatic upward trend. Either previous readings were insufficient or incorrect, or conditions inside the plant are changing. Problem is, the interior condition of the plant is still a big mystery. The high readings suggest that some of the melted fuel that escaped the pressure vessel is lingering nearby. Should this be confirmed, it would mark the first time that tainted debris has been found in any of the three reactors that suffered core meltdowns. Tepco has been unable to confirm the condition of the melted fuel owing to the extreme and inhospitable conditions inside.

Tepco has discovered a 6.5-foot-wide hole in the metal grate under a pressure vessel in reactor No. 2’s containment vessels at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. (Image: Tepco)

In other news, a remotely-operated vehicle discovered a horrific 6.5-feet (two-meter) hole in the metal grating under the pressure vessel in the reactor’s primary containment vessel. The company suspects the gash was created by nuclear fuel that melted and then pierced through the vessel after the tsunami knocked out Fukushima Daiichi’s back-up cooling system.

“It may have been caused by nuclear fuel that would have melted and made a hole in the vessel, but it is only a hypothesis at this stage,” explained a Tepco spokesperson to AFP. “We believe the captured images offer very useful information, but we still need to investigate given that it is very difficult to assume the actual condition inside.”

This investigation will prove easier said than done. Tepco was hoping to send a newly developed robot into reactor No. 2, but that doesn’t seem possible now given the intense radiation inside. The remotely-operated machine was designed to withstand exposure of up to 1,000 total sieverts. At the previous peak of 73 sieverts per hour, it could run for about 10 hours. But at the newly recorded 530 sieverts per hour, it would last no more than two hours. Consequently, Tesco is planning to send the robot into reactor No. 1 in March, while its survey plan for reactor No. 2 is now on hold.

Scary stuff, to be sure. When nuclear goes wrong, it really, really goes wrong.

[The Japan Times, The Guardian, AFP]

Radiation levels inside a damaged reactor at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant have hit a record high, and are the worst since the plant suffered a triple meltdown nearly six years ago. The latest readings now pose a serious challenge as officials prepare to dismantle the stricken facility.

Radiation levels inside the containment vessel of reactor No. 2 at Fukushima has reached 530 sieverts per hour—a figure described by experts as “unimaginable.” The readings, taken by Tokyo Electric Power Co. Holdings Inc. (Tepco), were taken near the entrance of a space immediately below the pressure vessel, which contains the reactor core.

The radiation level inside the plant now far exceeds the previous high of 73 sieverts per hour, which was recorded soon after the triple meltdown in March 2011. Tepco made the readings by analyzing electronic noise caused by the radiation in video images. The company says this technique has a margin of error of plus or minus 30 percent (so even at the extreme low ball, the levels are no lower than 370 sieverts per minute—but possibly as high as 690!).

Needless to say, this plant is not fit for human life. Just one dose of a single sievert is enough to cause radiation sickness and nausea. Exposure to four to five sieverts would kill about half of those exposed to it within a month, while a single dose of 10 sieverts is enough to kill a person within weeks.

These surging radiation levels are complicating plans to dismantle the plant. According to the National Institute of Radiological Sciences, medical professionals aren’t prepared to treat patients who have been exposed to the levels of radiation currently experienced at the facility. This is a big problem for Tepco, which plans to remove fuel debris as part of the decommissioning process. The dismantling of Fukushima is scheduled to start in 2021 and could take nearly a half-century.

Officials with Tepco aren’t entirely sure why radiation levels are on such a dramatic upward trend. Either previous readings were insufficient or incorrect, or conditions inside the plant are changing. Problem is, the interior condition of the plant is still a big mystery. The high readings suggest that some of the melted fuel that escaped the pressure vessel is lingering nearby. Should this be confirmed, it would mark the first time that tainted debris has been found in any of the three reactors that suffered core meltdowns. Tepco has been unable to confirm the condition of the melted fuel owing to the extreme and inhospitable conditions inside.

Tepco has discovered a 6.5-foot-wide hole in the metal grate under a pressure vessel in reactor No. 2’s containment vessels at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. (Image: Tepco)

In other news, a remotely-operated vehicle discovered a horrific 6.5-feet (two-meter) hole in the metal grating under the pressure vessel in the reactor’s primary containment vessel. The company suspects the gash was created by nuclear fuel that melted and then pierced through the vessel after the tsunami knocked out Fukushima Daiichi’s back-up cooling system.

“It may have been caused by nuclear fuel that would have melted and made a hole in the vessel, but it is only a hypothesis at this stage,” explained a Tepco spokesperson to AFP. “We believe the captured images offer very useful information, but we still need to investigate given that it is very difficult to assume the actual condition inside.”

This investigation will prove easier said than done. Tepco was hoping to send a newly developed robot into reactor No. 2, but that doesn’t seem possible now given the intense radiation inside. The remotely-operated machine was designed to withstand exposure of up to 1,000 total sieverts. At the previous peak of 73 sieverts per hour, it could run for about 10 hours. But at the newly recorded 530 sieverts per hour, it would last no more than two hours. Consequently, Tesco is planning to send the robot into reactor No. 1 in March, while its survey plan for reactor No. 2 is now on hold.

Scary stuff, to be sure. When nuclear goes wrong, it really, really goes wrong.

[The Japan Times, The Guardian, AFP]

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in danger of being brought down, possibly soon, over what initially appears to be little more than an imprudent taste for Cuban cigars and pink champagne.

In truth, however, the allegations ensnaring Netanyahu reveal far more than his personal flaws or an infatuation with the high life. They shine a rare light on the corrupt nexus between Israel’s business, political and media worlds, compounded by the perverse influence of overseas Jewish money.

Of the two police investigations Netanyahu faces (there are more in the wings), the one known as Case 1000, concerning gifts from businessmen worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, is most likely to lead to his downfall.

But it is the second investigation, Case 2000, and the still-murky relationship between the two cases, that more fully exposes the rot at the heart of Israel’s political system. This latter case hinges on a tape recording in which Netanyahu plots with an Israeli newspaper tycoon to rig media coverage in his favor.

Leads from both cases suggest that Netanyahu may have been further meddling, together with his billionaire friends, in the shadowy world of international espionage.

Cigars and champagne

Netanyahu’s appetite for a free lunch has been common knowledge in Israel since his first term as prime minister in the late 1990s. Then, he was twice investigated for fraud, though controversially charges were not brought in either case. Police discovered along the way that he and his wife, Sara, had horded many of the gifts he received during state visits. More than 100 were never recovered.

The clarifications that were issued more than 15 years ago, as a result of those investigations, make it hard for Netanyahu to claim now that he did not understand the rules. According to justice ministry advice in 2001, government and state officials cannot keep gifts worth more than $100 without risking violating Israeli law.

The gifts Netanyahu received from one of the Israeli businessmen involved in Case 1000, Hollywood film producer Arnon Milchan, amounted to as much as $180,000. Netanyahu has argued that these presents, ranging from cigars to jewelry, were expressions of a close friendship rather than bribes to him in his capacity as prime minister.

The problem, however, is that Netanyahu appears to have reciprocated by using his position as head of the Israeli government to lobby John Kerry, the then U.S. secretary of state, to gain Milchan a 10-year U.S. residency visa. He may have done more. We will return to that matter later.

Also being investigated are his family’s ties to a friend of Milchan’s, Australian billionaire James Packer, who made his fortune in the media and gambling industries. Packer has similarly lavished gifts on the Netanyahu family, especially Yair, Netanyahu’s eldest son.

At the same time, Packer, now a neighbor of the Netanyahus in the coastal town of Caesarea, has been seeking permanent residency and the enormous benefits that would accrue with tax status in Israel. As a non-Jew, Packer should have no hope of being awarded residency. There are suspicions that Netanyahu may have been trying to pull strings on the Australian’s behalf.

Many of these gifts were apparently not given freely. The Netanyahus asked for them. Indicating that Netanyahu knew there might be legal concerns, he used code words – “leaves” for cigars and “pinks” for champagne – to disguise his orders to Milchan.

Police are reported to be confident, after questioning Netanyahu three times, that they have enough evidence to indict him. If they do, Netanyahu will be under heavy pressure to resign.

Pattern of corruption

Disturbing as these allegations of corruption are, Case 2000 indicates that this is about more than one prime minister’s dubious ties to wealthy patrons.

David Ansalem, a political ally of Netanyahu’s, observed on Facebook recently: “In the past 30 years, no prime minister was free from involvement in [police] investigations.”

Ansalem was suggesting that Israeli bribery and fraud laws are too strict, and can easily catch out an unwary politician. But the reverse is more likely to be true: politicians are rapidly corrupted by their pursuit of power in Israel. In short, the corruption in Israel is institutionalized.

Netanyahu’s predecessor as prime minister, Ehud Olmert, was similarly the subject of several different investigations, and is currently serving a jail term for fraud over his involvement in a massive real estate deal when mayor of Jerusalem. He was also convicted of receiving cash in envelopes from a U.S. businessman, Morris Talansky, in return for political favors.

Before Olmert, Ariel Sharon was at the centre of many investigations of dubious financial connections with businessmen, including Israeli real estate magnate David Appel and the British Jewish businessman Cyril Kern. Sharon fell into a long-term coma, and later died, before the investigations could lead to an indictment.

This week a corruption investigation against Isaac Herzog, the opposition leader, was dropped, though inconsistencies in his testimony were sharply criticised by Israel’s attorney general. The investigation led to the indictment of Herzog’s campaign manager and a businessman.

Also this week, a former chief rabbi of Israel, Yona Metzger, was convicted of bribery and sentenced to three and half years.

20 super-rich families

Corruption is rampant in part because of Israel’s extreme concentration of wealth. This is a trend in much of the developed world, but its effects are accentuated in Israel by the small scale of the economy. Research shows that as few as 20 families control most of the country’s wealth, particularly in sectors like real estate, banking, retail, transport and homeland security. It seems some of these super-rich families expect to buy political influence as well.

But there is also a combination of conditions, particular to Israel, that blur the distinctions between the personal and institutional, and that have ensured corruption flourishes.

The climate was probably set in 1948, when Israel was established on the ruins of another society. The building by Israel’s elites of a new, supposedly more equal society in the agricultural communities of the kibbutz and moshav was possible only through the wholesale theft of Palestinian land and homes. The Absentee Property Law of 1950 sanctioned an orgy of plundering by Israel’s upper and middle classes. That foundational culture is hard to eradicate.

Further, Israel’s highly militarised society discourages resistance to authoritarian practices. A 2014 survey by the Israel Democracy Institute, for example, found that only one in three Israeli Jews regarded Israel’s democratic character as supremely important.

This trend is reinforced by the sanctity of Israel’s security sector, which includes not only the military, but the many intelligence services, including the Mossad spy agency, Israel’s arms manufacturers, homeland security and cyber warfare firms, as well as more conventional industries.

Trust in the Israeli military stands at 90 per cent, and half of the Jewish public believe the security services should be allowed to operate against terror without any legal oversight, according to a survey last year. The secrecy surrounding this sector – and the expansive definition in Israel of “terrorism” – inculcates a consensus in favor of concealment and a set of values in which corruption is likely to thrive.

Safeguards are further undermined by Israel’s fractured social structure – religious vs. secular, Ashkenazim vs. Mizrahim, veterans vs. immigrants, liberals vs. settlers. The resulting tribalism creates oppositional interest groups seeking favors and patronage rather than accountability and transparency.

Corruption is especially flagrant in land dealings, both in Israel and the occupied territories. In the Negev, in Israel’s south, for example, vast stretches of territory have been seized, often from Bedouin owners who are nominally citzens of the state, and reallocated as private ranches to Jewish families in a non-transparent planning process.

The institutionalization of corruption is evident in the behavior of leading officials, especially in the field of law enforcement. The police chief, Roni Alsheikh, and a supreme court judge, Noam Sohlberg, both have long records of lawbreaking, by living in settlements in the occupied territories in violation of international law.

Even more glaring is the fact that Avi Cohen, the government official in charge of monitoring and enforcing planning laws in Israel, chiefly against Palestinian citizens, lives in the West Bank settlement “outpost” of Palgei Mayim, which is in violation of Israeli law too.

The shadow economy

But the reach of Israeli corruption is global. As a self-declared Jewish state, one that formally regards every Jew in the world as being personally invested in Israel, a network of personal and financial ties that are intentionally opaque has developed between Israeli businesses and officials, on the one hand, and overseas Jewish organisations, donors, investors and criminals, on the other.

Israeli authorities are aware that criminal gangs with international connections, often in the former Soviet Union, recycle their money in the Israeli economy, often laundering it in real estate purchases. A leaked U.S. embassy cable in 2009 warned that Israel was in danger of becoming a “promised land” for organised crime.

The Haaretz newspaper observed recently that this underground economy had become so big – with an annual turnover reaching as much $39 billion – Israel could find itself on the same list as Iran as “one of the leading state financiers of global terrorism”.

Some of this shadow economy is authorised at the highest levels. Israel confers privileged status on international Zionist organisations like the Jewish National Fund and World Zionist Organisation that funnel in donations from Jews around the world. These “charitable” organisations enjoy semi-governmental status, even though they can operate outside Israel’s laws.

The WZO setttlement division, for example, secretly pumps money into illegal settlements in the West Bank, hiding the money even from Israel’s state auditors. Funds are moved around out of sight, leaving plenty of room for corruption among officials, in addition to the inherent illegality of the settlement enterprise.

And then there are the Jewish tycoons from the US, Canada, Europe and Australia who treat Israel as part of their philanthropic investment portfolio. Their reasons include ideological zeal to realise a Greater Israel, salving their consciences for not living in Israel, or extending their influence to the “safe haven” they or their family may need in times of trouble.

Most Israeli politicians rely on overseas Jewish funders. Netanyahu won his Likud party’s primaries in 2014 exclusively with the help of foreign donors, all but one of them American.

Personifying this unhealthy external interference in Israeli politics is Sheldon Adelson, the U.S. casino magnate who is Netanyahu’s main patron. Adelson has done much more than channel donations to Netanyahu’s campaign coffers. He created a newspaper to get Netanyahu elected and keep him in office.

The free daily Israel Hayom, founded 10 years ago, is now the biggest-circulation paper in Israel and is known locally as Bibi-ton, or Bibi’s newspaper, in reference to Netanyahu’s nickname. A recent investigation by Haaretz found that Adelson had sunk an astronomic sum into Israel Hayom – some $190 million in its first seven years alone – to keep it afloat.

At the same time, Adelson has been sponsoring Republican politicians, including the new occupant of the White House, Donald Trump, to ensure he has an outsize influence in the U.S. as well. Trump’s sudden conversion to Netanyahu’s pro-settlement agenda coincided with his need for Adelson’s support in the presidential campaign.

War against the media

Adelson and his Israel Hayom newspaper are at the heart of Netanyahu’s current troubles. The tapes in Case 2000 are audio recordings of conversations between Netanyahu and Arnon Mozes, the Israeli owner of the Yedioth Ahronoth media group, which includes the country’s largest paid-for newspaper. Mozes’ desperate need to save his business empire appears to have driven him into Netanyahu’s embrace.

Adelson and Netanyahu’s aim in establishing Israel Hayom in 2007 was not only to create a propaganda platform for Netanyahu. It was also intended to drive rival papers, especially Yedioth Ahronoth, out of business by forcing down their income from advertising revenue. U.S. businessman Adelson’s pockets are much deeper than those of Israeli businessman Mozes.

This was effectively a vendetta by Netanyahu and Adelson against Mozes for using his media empire, which once enjoyed near-monopoly status in Israel, to damage Netanyahu and support rival politicians. Yair Lapid, a former columnist at Yedioth, is today leader of the Yesh Atid party, a potential challenger to Netanyahu for prime minister. He has in the past received strong backing from his former paper.

In the tapes, Mozes and Netanyahu discuss a deal that would guarantee the Yedioth media group cheerlead for Netanyahu in return for his government passing legislation to limit Israel Hayom’s circulation and possibly force it to charge a cover price. The pair appear to have broken off contacts some time before Israel’s general election in March 2015.

Had the talks succeeded, Netanyahu would have enjoyed almost blanket support in the mainstream press. The holdout would have been the liberal, and very small-circulation, Haaretz daily.

Netanyahu was not prepared to rest there, however. After the 2015 election he appointed himself the communications minister so that he would have regulatory power over Israel’s broadcasters. Since then he has been waging a concerted battle to intimidate Israel’s two commercial TV stations, Channels 2 and 10. Even after the latest revelations, he remains in charge of the communications ministry.

From Hollywood to Mossad

Cases 1000 and 2000 share at least one figure in common. Milchan gave Netanyahu extravagant gifts over many years, but he is also reported to have acted as go-between, bringing arch-enemies Netanyahu and Mozes together. Milchan has his own financial stake in the media, in his case a holding in the Channel 10 TV station.

In addition, Milchan introduced Netanyahu to sympathetic businessmen, including his friend Packer, to discuss taking the ailing Yedioth media group off Mozes’ hands. Only last October he arranged for media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s son, Lachlan, to fly to Israel for one night for a secret meeting with Netanyahu.

Milchan is undoubtedly at the centre of the shadowy world of power and finance that corrupts public life in Israel. Not only is Milchan a highly influential Hollywood figure, having produced more than 100 films, but he has admitted that he is a former Mossad agent. He used his Hollywood connections to help make arms deals and secure parts for Israel’s nuclear weapons program.

One can only wonder whether Milchan was not effectively set up in his Hollywood career as a cover for his Mossad activities.

But Milchan, it seems, is still wielding influence in Israel’s twilight world of security.

Yossi Cohen was appointed head of the Mossad a year ago, after a government vetting committee accepted that he had no personal ties to Netanyahu. But Cohen forgot to mention that he is extremely close to Netanyahu’s high-flying friends – connections that are now under investigation.

Milchan set up a global security firm in 2008 called Blue Sky International, stuffed with Israeli security veterans. Packer soon became a partner. They developed close ties to Cohen, first while he was a senior official at the Mossad and later when he headed Israel’s national security council.

Before Cohen was appointed head of Mossad in December 2015, the pair had hoped to recruit him to their cyber-security operations. Cohen received several gifts from Packer, in violation of Israeli government rules, including a stay at one of his luxury hotels.

A source speaking to Haaretz said Blue Sky had “more than [a] direct line” to Netanyahu. They “would pull him out from anywhere, at any time, on any occasion.”

According to Haaretz’s military analyst, Amir Oren, the new disclosures raise serious questions about whether Milchan and Packer twisted Netanyahu’s arm to parachute Cohen into the post over the favored candidate. In return, Packer may have been hoping that Cohen would authorise exceptional Israeli residency for him, classifying him as a security asset.

Beyond this, one one can only speculate about how Cohen’s indebtedness to Milchan, Packer and Netanyahu might have influenced his decisions as head of the Mossad. It was only a few years ago that the former Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, was reported to have wrestled furiously with Netanyahu to stop him launching a military strike on Iran.

Prosecution drags feet

It is unclear for the time being whether the revelations are drawing to a close or will lead deeper into Israel’s twin netherworlds of financial corruption and security.

But what has emerged so far should be enough to finish off Netanyahu as prime minister. Whether it does so may depend on the extent of Israel’s compromised legal system. Attorney general Avichai Mendelblit was appointed by Netanyahu and is a political ally. He appears to have been dragging his feet as much as possible to slow down the police investigation, if not sabotage it.

But the weight of evidence is looking like it may prove too overwhelming. As political analyst Yossi Verter observed: “There’s no way that a police commissioner … appointed [by Netanyahu] and a cautious attorney general, who in the past was part of his close circle and one of his loyalists, would be putting him through the seven circles of hell if they weren’t convinced that there’s a solid basis for indictment and conviction.”

The next question for Netanyahu is whether he will step down if indicted. He should, if Olmert’s example is followed. But his officials are citing a 1993 high court ruling that allows a cabinet minister under indictment to remain in office. Certainly if Netanyahu chooses to stay on, his decision would be appealed to the court again. However, the judges may be reluctant to oust a sitting prime minister.

The court of public opinion is likely to be decisive in that regard. A recent poll shows few Israelis believe Netanyahu is innocent of the allegations. Some 54 per cent think he broke the law, while only 28 believe him. Opinion, however, is split evenly on whether he should resign.

Where next?

If past experience is any measure, Netanyahu will try to turn public opinion his way by increasing friction with the Palestinians and exploiting the international arena, especially his relations with the Trump administration. He may be expected to encourage Trump at the very least to posture more stridently against Iran.

Nonetheless, most observers assume Netanyahu is doomed – it is simply a matter of when. The odds are on an indictment in late spring, followed by elections in the fall, say Israeli analysts.

At this stage, none of his political rivals wants to be seen stabbing Netanyahu in the back. Most are keeping quiet. But behind the scenes, political leaders are hurrying to forge new alliances and extract political concessions while Netanyahu is wounded.

Naftali Bennett, the settler leader, is pushing aggressively for annexation of Ma’ale Adumim, a large settlement strategically located close to Jerusalem, as a prelude to further annexation of parts of the West Bank.

Who might succeed Netanyahu? Yair Lapid, of the centre-right Yesh Atid, is heading the polls, but that may in part reflect the disarray in Netanyahu’s Likud party. In a sign of where the deeper currents in Israeli society are leading, a Maariv poll last week showed that settler leader Naftali Bennett would win an election if he were to head the Likud.

Netanyahu now needs the help of all the powerful friends he can muster. His biggest ally, U.S. casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, may not be among them. After the revelations that Netanyahu was conspiring against him with Mozes, Adelson has cut back on Israel Hayom’s circulation and is reported to be offering less favorable coverage of the Netanyahus.

That could prove the final straw, sealing Netanyahu’s fate.

Russia will consider taking countermeasures to protect its own security if the United States pushes ahead with its planned deployment of an advanced anti-missile system on South Korean soil, the country’s top envoy in Seoul said Friday.

Russian Ambassador to South Korea Alexander Timonin said that the stationing of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system on the Korean Peninsula will have a “dangerous” impact on ongoing efforts to secure regional peace and stability.

“We will have no choice but to draw a certain conclusion once the THAAD installment is complete,” he said during a press conference held in the Russian Embassy located in central Seoul. “We will have to take certain types of countermeasures to guarantee our own security.”

In July, South Korea and the United States announced a plan to set up a THAAD battery by the end of this year to better cope with the growing military threats from North Korea. China and Russia have strongly opposed the plan, saying it could hurt their strategic security interests.

Earlier in the day, U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis visiting Seoul reiterated Washington’s stance, saying that deploying the THAAD anti-missile unit to South Korea is to protect America’s allies and its own troops.

Timonin said he does not want to elaborate on what impact the THAAD deployment will have on Russia-South Korea relations, adding that Moscow is still hoping that the decision could be withdrawn.

The ambassador, however, made it clear that the reason why Russia is opposed to THAAD is because it is regarded as part of the U.S.’ global missile defense system that surrounds its own borders.

“We see it as a threat to our national security,” he said.

He admitted that the cacophony over THAAD could affect Russia-South Korea relations but still drew attention to the importance of economic cooperation between the two countries, hinting that the impact will not go as far as to hurt their ties in business.

“Our bilateral economic cooperation is important as much as the THAAD issue. It could be more important than that,” he said, adding in Korean, “Don’t worry.”

Regarding the North, he reiterated Russia’s commitment to UNSC resolutions adopted to penalize Pyongyang for its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons but underlined the need for talks, as well as trying to find a “peaceful” solution.

“Russia is willing to take every possible measure in accordance with UNSC resolutions and no progress has been made in cooperation with the North in military and political areas,” he pointed out.

“But we think that the sanctions should not be pursued in a way that a possibility of talks with the North is ruled out or blocked,” he added. “Our stance is that the impact on the North Korean people should also be minimized.”

He called for the resumption of the long-suspended six-party talks to discuss the North’s denuclearization, saying that Russia is “ready” to participate in the multilateral negotiation process.

The six-party talks involving South and North Korea, the United States, China, Japan and Russia have been stalled since late 2008, when the North opted not to engage in negotiations.

“Russia is ready to actively join the talks, and we will be able to offer our version of solution,” he said. “Most countries involving the (North’s) nuclear issue see the six-party talks as an effective and constructive format.”

Russia will consider taking countermeasures to protect its own security if the United States pushes ahead with its planned deployment of an advanced anti-missile system on South Korean soil, the country’s top envoy in Seoul said Friday.

Russian Ambassador to South Korea Alexander Timonin said that the stationing of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system on the Korean Peninsula will have a “dangerous” impact on ongoing efforts to secure regional peace and stability.

“We will have no choice but to draw a certain conclusion once the THAAD installment is complete,” he said during a press conference held in the Russian Embassy located in central Seoul. “We will have to take certain types of countermeasures to guarantee our own security.”

In July, South Korea and the United States announced a plan to set up a THAAD battery by the end of this year to better cope with the growing military threats from North Korea. China and Russia have strongly opposed the plan, saying it could hurt their strategic security interests.

Earlier in the day, U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis visiting Seoul reiterated Washington’s stance, saying that deploying the THAAD anti-missile unit to South Korea is to protect America’s allies and its own troops.

Timonin said he does not want to elaborate on what impact the THAAD deployment will have on Russia-South Korea relations, adding that Moscow is still hoping that the decision could be withdrawn.

The ambassador, however, made it clear that the reason why Russia is opposed to THAAD is because it is regarded as part of the U.S.’ global missile defense system that surrounds its own borders.

“We see it as a threat to our national security,” he said.

He admitted that the cacophony over THAAD could affect Russia-South Korea relations but still drew attention to the importance of economic cooperation between the two countries, hinting that the impact will not go as far as to hurt their ties in business.

“Our bilateral economic cooperation is important as much as the THAAD issue. It could be more important than that,” he said, adding in Korean, “Don’t worry.”

Regarding the North, he reiterated Russia’s commitment to UNSC resolutions adopted to penalize Pyongyang for its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons but underlined the need for talks, as well as trying to find a “peaceful” solution.

“Russia is willing to take every possible measure in accordance with UNSC resolutions and no progress has been made in cooperation with the North in military and political areas,” he pointed out.

“But we think that the sanctions should not be pursued in a way that a possibility of talks with the North is ruled out or blocked,” he added. “Our stance is that the impact on the North Korean people should also be minimized.”

He called for the resumption of the long-suspended six-party talks to discuss the North’s denuclearization, saying that Russia is “ready” to participate in the multilateral negotiation process.

The six-party talks involving South and North Korea, the United States, China, Japan and Russia have been stalled since late 2008, when the North opted not to engage in negotiations.

“Russia is ready to actively join the talks, and we will be able to offer our version of solution,” he said. “Most countries involving the (North’s) nuclear issue see the six-party talks as an effective and constructive format.”

We bring to the attention of GR readers this important text by Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director of The Arms Control Association

With the inauguration of Donald J. Trump—with his confrontational style, disdain for expert advice, and penchant for Twitter-based policy making—several key foreign policy and nuclear security challenges have become more daunting.

As commander-in-chief, Mr. Trump now has the authority to decide whether to use nuclear weapons in a crisis, despite entering the White House with no discernable strategy for managing today’s nuclear challenges.

What he has said so far is very troubling.

On Dec. 22 Trump tweeted that

“The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.” When questioned on this the next day in an MSNBC interview, he responded “Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them…and outlast them all.”

In the coming weeks and months, there will be policy reviews on nuclear weapons strategy and force requirements; missile defense; and options to deal with Iran and North Korea. This week, Roll Call reported that a blue-ribbon Pentagon advisory panel has urged the Trump administration to consider making the U.S. arsenal more capable of “tailored nuclear options for limited use.”What does this mean?

Among other things, hard-won nonproliferation and arms control successes secured under past Republican and Democratic administrations will be reconsidered and are at risk.

The U.S. nuclear testing moratorium, the policy against new types of nuclear weapons, the landmark 2015 Iran nuclear deal, and key U.S.-Russian nuclear arms reduction treaties cannot be taken for granted. The danger of possible confrontations over with China in the South China Sea, Iran in the Persian Gulf, North Korea, and even Russia in Europe are even higher.

Our team is working with urgency and determination to defend past gains, strengthen ties with coalition partners, exploit opportunities for progress, and raise public awareness in ways that hold our elected leaders to one of their most important responsibilities: preventing proliferation and avoiding nuclear catastrophe.

If you find our efforts important, please become a member or help us with a special donation at this critical time. We can’t do this without our members and supporters.

Thank you,

Daryl G. Kimball,
Executive Director

Conservative Patrick Buchanan – who endorsed Trump for president – writes:

High among the reasons that many supported Trump was his understanding that George W. Bush blundered horribly in launching an unprovoked and unnecessary war on Iraq.

***

Unlike the other candidates, Trump seemed to recognize this.

Trump’s anti-war, anti-interventionist statements appealed to many Americans.  Indeed, quite a few Sanders supporters switched to Trump (or stayed home on election day) because of Trump’s anti-war promises … and Clinton’s record as a warmonger.

Buchanan expresses disappointment that Trump is already saber-rattling:

It was thought he would disengage us from these wars, not rattle a saber at an Iran that is three times the size of Iraq and has as its primary weapons supplier and partner Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Former long-time Congressman Ron Paul notes that Trump has already engaged in bombings in Yemen:

Andrew Spannaus notes:

The early Trump administration has sent mixed signals regarding relations with Russia. Trump’s initial comments indicated that the U.S. would seek a diplomatic deal to reduce tensions around Ukraine, including by potentially recognizing the pro-Russian referendum in Crimea, in exchange for a broader deal with Russia involving cooperation against terrorism or nuclear arms reduction. However, Trump’s United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley on Thursday vowed to continue sanctions against Russia until it surrendered Crimea.

Brandon Turbeville says, “The new boss is now starting to look extremely similar to the old boss.”  Turbeville also points out that Trump appears to be mucking about in Syria.

And since Trump took the helm, war with China is looking increasingly likely.

So it’s starting to look like – despite his promises of being an anti-war non-interventionist – Trump will be a warmonger.

I hope I’m wrong … and that Trump is just playing the unpredictable madman to gain negotiating leverage with foreign powers.

President Trump’s calls for reorienting American foreign policy look to be disintegrating in his first two weeks in office as he embraces the neoconservative hostilities toward Iran and Russia, as Andrew Spannaus notes.

The Trump Administration’s goal of de-escalating tensions with Russia is meeting stiff resistance in Eastern Europe where many reject the notion that a diplomatic solution can be reached over the issues of Ukraine and NATO expansion.

This reality was on clear display at the 10th Europe-Ukraine Forum held in Rzeszow, Poland, from Jan. 27 to 29, which brought together over 900 government officials, politicians and analysts from across Europe, to discuss how to respond to the new political situation in the United States while continuing to provide support to Kiev’s efforts to bind itself closer to the West.The atmosphere at the Forum – an annual event organized by the Eastern Institute of Warsaw – was more muted than last year, as the reality of the “realpolitik” likely to be adopted by President Trump’s administration sinks in.

The previous forum in 2016 was opened by the American neoconservative Philip Karber, president of the Potomac Foundation, who lamented the “sophistic” reasoning of those who argue against providing military assistance to Ukraine and said he couldn’t wait for the next presidential administration to arrive (when it appeared likely it would be headed by Hillary Clinton or a traditional Republican). Karber noted that President Barack Obama had refused to fully arm the Ukrainians in their battle against Russia.

This wasn’t just idle talk coming from Karber, as we found out a few months later in 2016, thanks to leaks published by The Intercept last July. It appears that Karber had gone repeatedly to the front lines of the fight in Ukraine to draw up his own – inflated – intelligence reports regarding Russian intervention. He sent the reports to General Philip Breedlove, at the time the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, who in turn used Karber’s figures to challenge the lower estimates drawn up by official intelligence agencies.

General Breedlove then went a step further, seeking to mobilize pressure on President Obama to provide lethal assistance to Ukraine. Despite enlisting the help of prominent individuals such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell and one of Breedlove’s predecessors at NATO, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, Breedlove’s efforts proved ineffective. Although President Obama continued to direct harsh criticism at Russia in public, behind the scenes his message to the General was: “do not get me into a war.”

Harlan Ullman, senior adviser to the Atlantic Council, wrote to Breedlove about his attempt to “leverage, cajole, convince or coerce the U.S. to react” to Russia: “Given Obama’s instruction to you not to start a war, this may be a tough sell.”

The hope for a more aggressive stance against Russia by the future U.S. administration obviously didn’t take into account the possibility that the next President would be Donald Trump. In January 2016, few gave Trump any chance to actually win the election, and thus the assumption was that by this time, Hillary Clinton or a Republican such as Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush would be occupying the White House.

Former NATO Commander Philip M. Breedlove.

Trump’s election seemed to upend the U.S. establishment’s push for a more aggressive stance towards Russia that has been on full display since last fall in particular. The news media and political class have, in fact, focused almost hysterically on alleged Russian intervention into the U.S. elections, despite crucial gaps in the evidence presented to the public and the question of whether Russian President Putin would have taken such a risk when it appeared Clinton was a shoo-in to win.

The WikiLeaks disclosures – primarily confirming Clinton’s close ties to Wall Street and the Democratic National Committee’s help in undermining Bernie Sanders’s campaign – were not initially considered a major factor in Clinton’s defeat, which she principally blamed on FBI Director James Comey’s last-minute reopening and re-closing of the investigation into her use of a private email server for State Department business. No one has suggested that Putin was behind Comey’s actions or Clinton’s server decision.

Trump’s Uncertainty

The early Trump administration has sent mixed signals regarding relations with Russia. Trump’s initial comments indicated that the U.S. would seek a diplomatic deal to reduce tensions around Ukraine, including by potentially recognizing the pro-Russian referendum in Crimea, in exchange for a broader deal with Russia involving cooperation against terrorism or nuclear arms reduction. However, Trump’s United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley on Thursday vowed to continue sanctions against Russia until it surrendered Crimea.

At the Europe-Ukraine Forum, the earlier expectation of reduced tensions with Russia was grudgingly accepted by some, but outright rejected by most. Many speakers called for an even more aggressive stance on NATO expansion to include not only Ukraine, but also Sweden, Finland and any other country in Russia’s neighborhood.

Then-Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina speaking at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland. March 15, 2013. (Flickr Gage Skidmore)

Tomasz Szatkowski, Undersecretary of State of the Polish Ministry of National Defense, also said Poland would volunteer to lead a group of nations in creating a first-response network, ready to organize out-of-area military missions in response to Russian aggression. Other officials agreed with the idea of creating an alliance between a group of countries going from the Baltics down through Eastern Europe, to put pressure on the European Union and the United States to head off any potential diplomatic accords with Putin.

The fear among these participants was that Ukraine would lose out in any U.S.-Russian diplomatic accord. They argued further that if nothing is done to counter Putin’s alleged expansionism then Russia will inevitably move into Eastern Europe in order to restore its former empire.

However, this view is based on the assumption that the conflict in Ukraine broke out simply because the Russian president woke up one morning and decided it was time to expand Russian military power again. It ignores what the West did up to 2014, such as expanding NATO towards Russia’s borders and providing support through both official sources and numerous NGOs to “pro-democracy” groups, some of which wanted regime change not only in Kiev but in Moscow.

A prominent example is the head of the U.S. taxpayer-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Carl Gershman. As journalist Robert Parry has reported, NED funded scores of “democracy promotion” projects in Ukraine, contributing to undermining the previous elected government and touching off the civil war between Ukrainian nationalists from the west and ethnic Russians from the east. Gershman also has called for the overthrow of Vladimir Putin in Russia.

A False Narrative

Although the West’s propaganda narrative has obscured the circumstances around the ouster of Ukrainian President Yanukovych on Feb. 22, 2014, the violent putsch has been called the “most blatant coup in history” by George Friedman, the founder of Stratfor and Geopolitical Futures. At the time of the coup, a diplomatic deal had been struck for new elections by the end of the year, but far-right militia groups stepped in to seize control of the government institutions and the coup regime was quickly declared “legitimate” by the U.S. government and its allies.

A key player in the change in power was U.S. Undersecretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who was recorded in a pre-coup phone call saying “Fuck the EU” with regard to Europe’s role as a mediator for a diplomatic solution, and also hand-picking the person who would become the new prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, with the comment “Yats is the guy.”

Former NATO Commander Philip M. Breedlove.

Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine’s Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

This direct intervention by the West provoked a predictable reaction from Russia, which moved quickly to ensure that Crimea would not end up under the NATO umbrella and then provided support to ethnic Russian rebels in the east of Ukraine who battled Ukrainian troops spearheaded by the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion and other ultra-nationalist militias.

The intensity of the conflict in Ukraine decreased considerably after a ceasefire agreement was hammered out in early 2015. However, on Jan. 28, barely a week into the Trump administration, new fighting broke out around the city of Avdiivka in eastern Ukraine. Staunchly anti-Russian media outlets and politicians immediately tried to leverage the situation to block any moves by President Trump to press ahead with a diplomatic solution.

However, at the Forum in Rzeszow, there were at least some voices calling for a recognition of the new reality ushered in by the change in approach in Washington. In private discussions several government officials noted that with further NATO expansion probably off the table at this point, there is no alternative to dialogue.

A few speakers, such as Markku Kangaspuro of Finland and former Ukrainian government official Oleksandr Chalyi, admitted publicly that there cannot be total war with Russia, and that at this point a political solution seems to be the only way forward. The most that can be done, from the standpoint of those who aim to counter Russia’s influence as much as possible, is to try to limit and mitigate a potential deal between Trump and Putin.

Andrew Spannaus is a freelance journalist and strategic analyst based in Milan, Italy. He is the founder of Transatlantico.info, that provides news, analysis and consulting to Italian institutions and businesses. His book on the U.S. elections Perchè vince Trump (Why Trump is Winning) was published in June 2016.

This is the second in a series of articles based in part on eyewitness accounts about the rapidly deteriorating socio-political conditions in Turkey and what the future may hold for the country. The first article is available here.

Much has been written on the endemic corruption in Turkey which involves virtually every social strata—including political, judicial, government administration, private sector, civil society, business, and military—and which stands in total contrast to President Erdogan’s grandiose vision to make Turkey a significant player on the global stage. After fifteen years in power, Erdogan now presides over a state deeply entrenched in corruption, conspiracy theories, and intrigue. He uses every lever of power to cover up the pervasive corruption consuming the nation and overshadowing the remarkable socio-political progress and economic growth that he made during his first nine years in power.

To consolidate his reign, he intimidated his political opponents, emasculated the military, silenced the press, and enfeebled the judiciary; most recently, he pressed the parliament to amend the constitution to grant him essentially absolute powers.

Turkey ranks 75th in the world in transparency on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index—falling nine places since 2015—along with Bulgaria, Kuwait, and Tunisia. More than 40% of Turkish households perceive public officials to be corrupt.

The economy: Given the pervasiveness of corruption, economic progress in Turkey has slowed down. In Erdogan’s initial years, the economy grew by 5-7 percent because he made it a priority while focusing on the poor and less educated, who subsequently became his core supporters.

When the global economy was strong Turkey registered significant economic growth, but the recent economic slowdown revealed the fault line in Turkey’s economy. An inflated and corrupt bureaucracy made it extremely difficult to be granted licenses for development, making it ever harder for foreign and local investors to accelerate the process without bribing government officials.

During a corruption investigation in 2013, $17.5 million in cash was discovered in homes of various officials, including the director of state-owned Halkbank. Fifty-two people connected to the ruling AK Party were detained in one day, but subsequently released due to “lack of evidence.”

Given this grim reality, as long as the government continues to deny the existence of pandemic corruption, Erdogan’s ambition to make Turkey’s economy among the ten largest economies by 2023 (the 100th anniversary of the Turkish Republic) has become nothing but a pipe dream.

Suppressing the press: Erdogan has shown zero tolerance for criticism and has worked to stifle the press. Any media outlet that exposed corruption cases became an ‘enemy of the state.’

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 81 journalists are currently imprisoned, all of whom have been charged with anti-state offenses, and over 100 news outlets have been ordered closed by the government. In total, between July 20 and December 31, 2016, 178 broadcasters, websites, and newspapers were shuttered.

Whereas in a democracy the media is considered central to keeping the government honest, in Turkey investigative journalism has become taboo as the Erdogan government is terrified of the potential exposure of corruption cases where government officials are directly involved.

The implications of this are far and wide as other countries, especially democracies, become suspicious of Turkey’s positions. The lack of transparency severely erodes its credibility and international standing.

Political: Two-thirds of Turks in a survey revealed they perceive political parties to be corrupt. Turkey lacks an entity that monitors the financing of parties, which are required to submit their financial tables to the Constitutional Court, an institution ill-equipped to handle audits.

Additionally, according to the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation, Turkey “does not have a specific regulatory process to eliminate possible conflicts of interest” for parliamentarians who transition to the private sector after their terms are complete.

Commenting on former Prime Minister Davutoglu’s “transparency package”, Erdogan shamelessly stated that “If it [requiring party officials to reveal wealth] goes on like this, you can’t find anyone to chair even [the AKP’s] provincial and district branches.”

Several of Erdogan’s ministers (Economy Minister Zafer Caglayan, Interior Minister Muammer Guler, and Environment Minister Erdogan Bayraktar) resigned after their sons were arrested on allegations of bribery. Following their resignation, Erdogan “proceeded to dismiss thousands of police officers, prosecutors, and judges” and accused the Gulen movement of a coup attempt.

The arrest and indictment in US courts of Iranian-Turkish gold trader Reza Zarrab poses a significant threat to Erdogan’s authority, as top AK officials are wrapped up in the indictment—including some of Erdogan’s family members. Pro-government media quickly leveled accusations against the American prosecutor and judge involved in the case of being instruments of the Gulen movement.

The ramifications of the wide-spread political corruption also have major adverse impacts on Turkey’s relations with foreign governments who interact with Ankara out of necessity rather than by free choice—particularly the EU—which makes Turkey’s foreign relations tenuous and puts its long-term security at risk.

Judiciary: According to the 2013 Global Corruption Barometer, 13% of households reported having to pay a bribe after coming into contact with the judiciary, which has increased in the past three years. The flaws of the Turkish judiciary have “undermined the acceptance of the ruling by all segments of Turkish society and tainted it with allegations of political score-settling.”

An even-handed judiciary is necessary to have a healthy and sustainable democracy. But when it becomes corrupted, as it has in Turkey, it is not just the cases before a court that become compromised—there is a ripple effect that occurs, impacting on behavior of officials engaged in criminal activity and who feel they can continue to act in such a manner with impunity.

Military: According to the EU Progress Report 2016, extensive legal protection is given to counter-terrorism personnel and “the military and intelligence services continue to lack sufficient accountability in Parliament.” The same report states that “Access to audit reports by the Turkish Court of Accounts on the security, defense and intelligence agencies remains restricted.”

Erdogan has replaced hundreds of generals, which led to a reduction in strategic planning and overall quality of military effectiveness. His purge of the military high brass three years ago on charges of conspiring to topple the government has eroded Turkey’s position in NATO.

Similarly, the purge of the top echelon of the military following the July 2016 coup further weakened military preparedness, which raises serious questions about Turkey’s military prowess and its effectiveness as a member of NATO.

Turkey defies the NATO charter that requires its members to “safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.” By not adhering to these principles, Turkey risks being potentially expelled, especially now that Erdogan appears to be increasingly gravitating toward Moscow.

Civil society: The EU Progress Report 2016 notes: “Participation by civil society in the budgetary process is poor…and independent civil society organizations are rarely involved in law- and policy-making processes.”

Corruption creates fear in society—individuals who might otherwise wish to expose acts of corruption are now afraid to be implicated. According to Transparency International’s Oya Ozarslan, “Today you can’t offer people neither a good nor a bad example because corruption trials have become impossible in Turkey. This in turn legitimates the notion that [the corrupt] get away with it anyway.”

The AK Party pledged “[to wage a] most intensive struggle [against corruption],” and fully ensure “transparency and accountability prevail in every area of public life… [to prevent] the pollution of politics,” but then Erdogan himself rejected any practical measures to tackle corruption, fearing damaging exposure.

Sadly, much of what Erdogan aspired for could have been realized had he continued the reforms he initiated and brought Turkey to the international status he desired without resorting to authoritarianism.

After 15 years in power, Erdogan provides a classic example of how power corrupts. It is time for the public and the opposition parties to demand that he leaves the political scene and allow the formation of a democratically-elected government to begin the process of stemming corruption.

Otherwise, Turkey will forfeit its huge potential of becoming a significant player on the international stage.

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.

In six months, Israeli forces have raided seven Palestinian-owned publishing houses. 

The Syrian army and the National Defense Forces (NDF) are storming the ISIS-held Hayyan gas fields west of Palmyra in the province of Homs. Government forces are reportedly in control of over a half of the area, but clashes are ongoing.

On February 2, the army and the NDF secured the Jihar crossroad and the village of al-Baydhah al-Sharqiyah.

A coalition of pro-Turksih militant groups known as the Free Syrian Army and the Turkish Armed Forces seized 4 more settlements – Alghagran, Alawasi, Alloahagh and Hasani – from ISIS in the countryside of al-Bab in the province of Aleppo. The move was aimed on further flanking the ISIS stronghold of al-Bab in order to create circumstances which would allow Turkish forces to take control over it.

Meanwhile, the Syrian army and the NDF have liberated about 250 km2 from the ISIS terrorist group in the eastern countryside of the city of Aleppo since the start a military operation in the area 20 days ago.

The government forces operation in the area has already sparked rumors about a possible Syrian-Turkish confrontation in the mainstream media. Nonetheless, these reports indulge in wishful thinking while the Russian-Syrian-Turkish-Iranian cooperation de-facto exists.

ISIS claimed to kill 32 members of the so-called “moderate opposition” in the area of Daraa.

Meanwhile, the recently-forled Jabhat al-Nusra-led alliance Tahrir al-Sham has launched series of operations against the FSA’s al-Safwa Division bases in the western countryside of Aleppo.

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

Except for certain constants in physics, chemistry and some other sciences there really are alternative facts for myriad answers to questions.  The recent brouhaha over the use of the term alternative facts by a Trump White House staffer reveals more than media bias. It reveals utter stupidity.

As someone with a doctorate in science and engineering, a former full professor of engineering at a major university, the author of five nonfiction books and hundreds of articles, as well as a former senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, I have seen countless cases of legitimate alternative facts.  All kinds of professionals exercise considerable discretion at best and major bias and subjectivity at worse when selecting pieces of data for an analysis or to support a conclusion.  Nor do they necessarily describe the limits and uncertainties of the data used.

Here is a relevant contemporary example.  President Trump just issued an executive order to greatly limit new federal hires.  In anarticle in The Washington Post the following appeared: “Depending on how the exemptions are interpreted, according to New York University public service professor Paul Light, the freeze might affect fewer than 800,000 employees, or more than one-fifth of the overall federal workforce.”

That one fifth would correspond to 4 million federal employees.  Is that figure too high or too low?  Is it universally used?

Apparently not.  Days later another article in The Washington Postcited 2.8 million current federal employees.  This civilian workforce in the Executive Branch was shown to have been stable for some years.  Yet it is fairly common to see the 4 million figure in various places.

I did an Internet search for the number of federal employees.  I was not surprised to find a number of alternative facts about a parameter that one might think is not open to much interpretation.  If your eyes are glazing over, it gets worse.

An official federal government website offered the following data for 2014.  The total number is 4,185, 000.  But this is comprised of 2,776,000 for the Executive Branch, 1,602,000 for the military, and 64,000 for the legislative and judicial areas.

One website says there are “1.8 million civilian employees, excluding postal service, according to the Department. of Labor.”  Another sitesays: “There are currently 1.9 million people employed by the federal government (without counting postal workers or military members).”

The Postal Service website says there are 625,000 employees. Subtract this from the 2.8 million figure and you get 2.18 million civilian workers, more than the 1.8 million or 1.9 million figures.

Nevertheless, these figures indicate that the above number of either 2.776 million or 2.8 million for the Executive Branch includes postal workers.  But is it realistic to consider this number relevant to discussions of a hiring freeze, imposed by President Trump, which is what is done in the recent Washington Post article?  Not likely.

They also suggest that the 800,000 figure in the WaPost article represents a much larger fraction of civilian federal workers, excluding postal workers, than the 20 percent given in the article referring to some 4 million workers.

An article entitled “Counting federal employees is no simple task” made the point that data may not always include Postal Service employees and that various factors can be used to justify certain numbers, such as what year the data were obtained for.

With this one example reasonable people can see that various numbers could be cited for the size of the federal workforce, such as 1.8 million, 2.8 million, or even 4 million.  They are, it seems, alternative facts not carrying the burden of being intentionally false and deceptive.

In recent days there are more examples of how “facts” can vary and support the view that there really are alternative facts.  The New York Times said there were 1.36 million civilian federal employees; Politico said it was 2 million; the Baltimore Sun said it was 2.7 million.

Joel S. Hirschhorn was a full professor at the University of Wisconsin , Madison and a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association; he has authored five nonfiction books, including Delusional Democracy – Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government.

It is not often I recommend a Jonathan Freedland column, but this one is interesting in the way it reveals, mostly inadvertently, what is bad  and what helpful about a Trump White House.

As Freedland notes, the more we learn about Donald Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon, the more dangerous this administration seems. Bannon apparently believes in

The Fourth Turning, which argues that human history moves in 80- to 100-year cycles, each one climaxing in a violent cataclysm that destroys the old order and replaces it with something new. For the US, there have been three such upheavals: the founding revolutionary war that ended in 1783, the civil war of the 1860s and the second world war of the 1940s. According to the book, America is on the brink of another. …

“We’re at war” is a favourite Bannon slogan, whether it’s the struggle against jihadism, which Bannon describes as “a global existential war” that may turn into “a major shooting war in the Middle East”, or the looming clash with China.

Trump’s threatened new world order is testing the very limits of liberal complacency. Freedland’s admission in this column of his overriding conservatism and his nostalgia for the neoliberal, corporate world that brought forth the monstrous Trump reveals quite how circular his thinking is – and, for that matter, always was.

Freedland has been cheerleader-in-chief at the Guardian of the “Great American Democracy” for nearly three decades, beginning with his posting to Washington. Despite his protests now, he and other liberals made very little noise against the slow erosion of civil rights in the US and the accretion of powers to the security state, especially under Democratic presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

The gradual reversal in recent times of the democratic gains made in the US during the 1950s and 1960s have gone largely unremarked by the liberal punditocracy. But it was these very reversals that created, first, the political and media climate Trump exploited to win power and, second, the national security infrastructure he will exploit to entrench his rule against opponents.

From these first weeks, it seems that Trump is committed to kicking down the old order, creating a Darwinian survival of the fittest nations in which he thinks the US, or at least his inner circle, will emerge triumphant. That risks wars far closer to home than we in Europe and the US would like. We have preferred our wars, care of more liberal presidents, to be distant, out of view.

What is needed now are radical left ideas that challenge Trump’s radical right ideas. Freedland’s hankering for return to the status quo – the incremental plunder of the national coffers by the mega-rich, covert class war, a mostly low-level global “war on terror” that benefits only the military-industrial complex, lip service to tackling a climate change already in overdrive, all obfuscated by the corporate media of which he is part – is not a recipe either for humankind’s survival or for preventing another, even worse Trump figure emerging further down the line.

This has to be the test for the coming protests against the Trump administration. Marching with placards demanding, like Freedland, a return to where we were before Trump burst forth on to the scene, simply adds fuel to the alt-right’s funeral pyre.

This is no time for a longing to bring back the discredited old order. What we need now is fire in the belly of the left, a burning desire for real change, for social justice, not a simmering resentment that the privileges enjoyed by Freedland and his liberal colleagues are under threat.

President Donald Trump signed executive directives on Friday initiating a sweeping rollback of regulations on banks and financial brokers enacted under the Obama administration following the Wall Street crash of 2008.

Trump’s actions target in particular the 2010 Dodd-Frank bank regulations and a Labor Department rule set to take effect in April requiring financial advisers to put the interests of retired clients before their own monetary rewards.

The billionaire president seemed to flaunt his promotion of Wall Street’s interests, signing the two measures after meeting in the White House with his business council. The council is chaired by Stephen A. Schwarzman, the multi-billionaire chief executive of the private equity giant Blackstone Group.

Among the dozen or so corporate executives in attendance were Jamie Dimon, another billionaire, who heads JPMorgan Chase, the largest US bank, and Laurence D. Fink, the mega-millionaire chief of the investment firm BlackRock.

“We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank because frankly, I have so many people, friends of mine that had nice businesses, they can’t borrow money,” Trump said during his meeting with the corporate bosses. He praised Dimon, who has bitterly campaigned against the Dodd-Frank law. JP Morgan Chase was fined billions of dollars in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis for multiple violations of bank regulations and laws, including fraudulent sub-prime mortgage deals that contributed to the collapse of the US housing market in 2007. A frequent visitor to the Obama White House, Dimon was for a time known as “Obama’s favorite banker.”

“There’s nobody better to tell me about Dodd-Frank than Jamie,” Trump declared.

Trump also had high praise for Fink, touting BlackRock’s management of Trump money for earning “great returns.”

Nothing could more clearly expose the farce of Trump’s pretensions to be a champion of the American worker.

Wall Street celebrated the attack on financial regulations with a stock buying spree focused on bank and financial shares. The biggest winners were JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Visa on a day that saw the Dow surge 186 points to recoup recent losses. It closed once again above the 20,000 mark, ending at 20,071. The Standard & Poor’s 500 and Nasdaq indexes also recorded big gains, with the Nasdaq ending the trading session in record territory.

Trump’s assault on bank regulations is of a piece with his moves to gut all legal and regulatory restrictions on corporate profit-making. Since taking office two weeks ago, he has signed executive orders mandating the lifting of regulations across the board, removed obstacles to the construction of the Keystone and Dakota Access oil pipelines, and picked long-time opponents of the Environmental Protection Agency, occupational health and safety rules, and limitations on industrial and mining pollution to head the federal agencies tasked with overseeing these activities.

The White House economic program—including sharp tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, an infrastructure program that amounts to a tax windfall for private investors, a hiring freeze for federal workers, and historic cuts in social programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security—is the fulfillment of the wish list of America’s financial oligarchy.

Trump and his aides have denounced the 2010 Dodd-Frank law as a “disaster” and an “overreach” of government authority, and they have questioned its constitutionality. In fact, it is a largely token measure passed mainly to provide political cover for Obama’s multi-trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street and the financial elite.

Under Obama, not a single leading banker was prosecuted for the criminal activities that led to the biggest financial disaster and deepest slump since the 1930s, destroying the jobs, life savings and living standards of tens of millions of workers in the US and around the world.

Despite the minimal restraints imposed by Dodd-Frank, during the Obama years bank profits soared, the wealth of the richest 400 Americans increased from $1.57 trillion to $2.4 trillion, the Dow rose by 148 percent, and the concentration of income and wealth in the hands of the top 10 percent, and above all the top 1 percent and 0.01 percent, reached historically unprecedented levels.

But the financial oligarchy, whose grip on the country increased under Obama, will brook not even minor limitations on its “right” to plunder the American and world economy. The Obama years paved the way for the emergence, in the Trump administration, of a government that embodies the oligarchy not only in its policies, but also in its personnel, beginning with the billionaire real estate speculator and reality TV star at its head.

Besides Trump, at least three multi-billionaires will occupy high posts in the administration, including Wilbur Ross, Betsy DeVos and Carl Icahn. Mega-millionaires will include Stephen Mnuchin, Rex Tillerson, Andrew Puzder, Elaine Chao and Gary Cohn, who gave up his number two post as president of Goldman Sachs to become the director of Trump’s National Economic Council.

Overseeing Wall Street as head of the Securities and Exchange Commission will be the longtime lawyer for Goldman Sachs, Jay Clayton. In addition to Cohn, other Goldman alumni include Mnuchin and Trump’s top political adviser, Stephen Bannon.

On Friday, Cohn told Bloomberg Television, “We’re going to attack all aspects of Dodd-Frank.” He absurdly accused the law of “shackling” US banks.

The White House could do “quite a bit” on its own, he said, while making clear that the administration would work with the Republican-dominated Congress to finish the job of ripping up bank regulations. House Republicans are preparing to put forward a bill to replace Dodd-Frank in the coming weeks.

Cohn singled out two provisions of the Dodd-Frank law for particular attack. The first is the so-called Volcker Rule, which restricts the ability of federally insured banks to make financial bets on their own behalf, in what is known as “proprietary trading.” Such gambling, including with depositors’ money, played a major role in the collapse of the banking system in 2008. Wall Street banks, led by Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan, have pushed relentlessly for the elimination of this provision.

The second provision is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a largely toothless body under the aegis of the Federal Reserve Board that is tasked with shielding the public from the depredations of the banks, credit card companies and other financial firms. Cohn indicated that the White House might demand the resignation of its director, Richard Cordray, as the first step in the bureau’s evisceration or outright elimination. “Personnel is policy,” he said.

The second action Trump signed was a memorandum instructing the labor secretary to delay implementation of the rule banning financial advisers and brokers from recommending to their retired clients more expensive investments for the purpose of generating greater returns to the advisers. A 2015 report from the Obama administration concluded that “conflicted advice” costs retirement savers $17 billion a year.

Even as Trump was issuing his executive directives on Friday, Senate Republicans were voting to repeal a rule linked to Dodd-Frank that requires oil companies to publicly disclose payments they make to governments in connection with their business operations around the world. Among those who lobbied against the Securities and Exchange rule was the new secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, in his capacity as CEO of Exxon Mobil.

This amnesty for corporate bribery and criminality reveals the essence of the Trump administration’s scorched earth campaign against business regulations.

The Democrats will do nothing to oppose these policies. Their opposition to Trump is focused on differences over US imperialist foreign policy, not opposition to his assault on the democratic and social rights of working people.

But workers looking for an alternative to the political establishment who may have entertained hopes in Trump’s promises to restore decent-paying jobs will be rapidly disabused. The realization that they have once again been conned will have socially explosive consequences.

In May, 2013, the Washington Post’s Greg Miller reported that the head of the CIA’s clandestine service was being shifted out of that position as a result of “a management shake-up” by then-Director John Brennan. As Miller documented, this official – whom the paper did not name because she was a covert agent at the time – was centrally involved in the worst abuses of the CIA’s Bush-era torture regime.

As Miller put it, she was “directly involved in its controversial interrogation program” and had an “extensive role” in torturing detainees. Even more troubling, she “had run a secret prison in Thailand” – part of the CIA’s network of “black sites” – “where two detainees were subjected to waterboarding and other harsh techniques.” The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on torture also detailed the central role she played in the particularly gruesome torture of detainee Abu Zubaydah.

Beyond all that, she played a vital role in the destruction of interrogation videotapes that showed the torture of detainees both at the black site she ran and other secret agency locations. The concealment of those interrogation tapes, which violated both multiple court orders as well the demands of the 9/11 Commission and the advice of White House lawyers, was condemned as “obstruction” by Commission Chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Keane. A special prosecutor and Grand Jury investigated those actions but ultimately chose not to prosecute.

That CIA official’s name whose torture activities the Post described is Gina Haspel. Today, as BuzzFeed’s Jason Leopold noted, CIA Director Mike Pompeo announced that Haspel was selected by Trump to be Deputy Director of the CIA.

This should not come as much of a surprise given that Pompeo himself has said he is open to resurrecting Bush-era torture techniques (indeed, Obama’s CIA Director, John Brennan, was forced to withdraw from the running in late 2008 because of his support for some of those tactics only to be confirmed in 2013). That’s part of why it was so controversial that 14 Democrats – including their Senate Leader Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Sheldon Whitehouse and Tim Kaine – voted to confirm Pompeo.

That Haspel was the actual subject of the 2013 Post story was an open secret. As Leopold said after I named her on Twitter as the subject of that story: “all of us who covered CIA knew. She was undercover and agency asked us not to print her name.” Gina Haspel is now slated to become the second-most powerful official at the CIA despite – or because of – the central, aggressive, sustained role she played in many of the most grotesque and shameful abuses of the War on Terror.

You will often see potentially important pieces of legislation languish in the US House. A bill will remain active, meaning that it can be brought to the Floor at any time. But it flies just under the radar. Other times the language floats around Washington for years until a “crisis” necessitates its activation and passage. As we know well, what eventually became the PATRIOT Act — one of the single greatest attacks on civil liberties in US history — started out and spent much of its early life as a sugar-plumb fairy dancing in neocon fantasies. Then came 9/11 and it was dusted off and imposed on the American people. And the United States has never been — and may never be — the same. Either way, these measures are important if seldom seen.

So it may well be with H.J.Res. 10, introduced in the House just as the new Congress began at the beginning of this month. The title of the bill tells the tale: a bill “To authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces to achieve the goal of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.” This legislation, introduced by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), is as it appears: an authorization for the President to use military force against Iran. But it is much worse than that.

Why so? Because it specifically authorizes the president to launch a pre-emptive war on Iran at any time of his choosing and without any further Congressional oversight or input. The operative sentence in the resolution reads, “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines necessary and appropriate in order to achieve the goal of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.” (Emphasis added).

President Trump — and, importantly, his entire national security team — has been extraordinarily aggressive toward Iran, repeatedly threatening that country both at the negotiating table and on the battlefield. H.J.Res 10 would be just the blank check the Administration craves to realize such threats.

And thanks to ongoing US and allied sabre-rattling in the Persian Gulf, tensions continue to escalate. At the end of this month, the UK, US and allied military forces will take part in operation “Unified Trident,” a joint exercise in the Persian Gulf that will simulate a military confrontation with Iran.

How would Washington respond if a bill was active in the Iranian parliament authorizing war on the United States and the Iranian navy began conducting joint exercises with the Chinese in the Gulf of Mexico simulating an attack on the United States?

Press Conference at the United Nations. Against propaganda and regime change, for peace and national sovereignty.

Canadian independent journalist Eva Bartlett reveals the lies and fabrications of the mainstream media.

Whereas the media upholds the “Global War on Terrorism” it fails to mention that US-NATO supports both the ISIS and Al Nusrah. 

UN Headquarters in New York.  9 December 2016

I have always tried to be fair in these posts and somewhat unpredictable. At the very least, my aim is to cut through ideology (including my own) and interpret facts on the ground in a sensible way. But I am having a very difficult time with President Donald Trump’s executive orders placing a hold on Syrian refugees and travelers from seven targeted countries. When I have been corrected by radio talk show hosts for referring to these actions as “the Muslim ban” because of this or that technicality, I have reminded them that I am from the “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck school.” Forget the baloney. This is a Muslim ban.

I understand disruption. It is as much a part of the American tradition as our core values of freedom in the Bill of Rights. The colonies were settled and built by disrupters. The American Revolution and Constitution gave us our birth as a nation, a very different nation not based on divine right or family but on a set of shared values. Probably the greatest of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, breathed meaning into both the need for rebellion every so often and the equal need for a safety valve (the frontier) so that the rebellious could find an outlet for a new life. Disruption is who we are.

But the greatest and most disruptive force in our nation’s history has been immigration and the fact that we welcome newcomers from all places, kick and moan about it, then ultimately watch them work, live the dream, pass the dream on to their children, and regenerate the American spirit. In the mid-19th century there were those who tried to bar Irish Catholics.

Read complete article on Forbes

His February 3 executive order addressed deregulation of America’s financial system, largely operating ad libitum already – a symbolic action on his part. Congressional legislation is required to repeal or change so-called Dodd-Frank financial reform. 

Obama’s measure was a scam, doing far more harm than good, virtually nothing to curb abusive practices. Lobbyists and lawyers representing Wall Street wrote the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, assuring dirty business as usual.

The measure capitulated to Wall Street, empowering the Street’s owned and operated Fed to enforce oversight, instead of an independent regulatory agency with teeth to act for the general welfare.

It replaced bailouts with bail-ins during the next financial crisis, taxing depositors by expropriating a portion of their savings to recapitalize insolvent banks, making savers bear the burden of financial crisis conditions, instead of institutions causing it.

It hugely empowered Wall Street, facilitating the growth of giant banks to far greater size and dominance than during pre-2008 crisis conditions. At the same time, community banks and credit unions were devastated.

A 2015 Harvard Kennedy School study, titled “The State and Fate of Community Banking” showed how Dodd-Frank advantaged Wall Street over Main Street – the opposite of what Obama claimed it would do.

It escalated the decline of community banks and credit unions. State National Bank of Big Spring (Texas) experienced the problem firsthand, its president Jim Purcell saying:

Dodd-Frank systematically favors big banks over community banks, and that bias poses a serious threat to the banking relationships that community banks, Main Street businesses and other folks have fostered for a century.

The so-called Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) is a scam. It did little to curb practices responsible for 2008 financial crisis conditions. Elizabeth Warren ran it from September 2010 – August 2011.

Dodd-Frank was a boon to Wall Street, the bain of community banking, forcing many hundreds of local institutions out of business.

In July 2015, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R. TX), House Financial Services Committee chairman minced no words, saying:

Dodd-Frank “made us less financially stable. Since the passage of Dodd-Frank, the big banks are bigger and the small banks are fewer. But because  Washington can control a handful of big established firms much easier than many small and zealous competitors, this is likely an intended consequence of the Act. Dodd-Frank concentrates greater assets in fewer institutions. It codifies into law ‘Too Big to Fail.’ “

In January 2014, former financial regulator, white collar crime expert William Black blasted JP Morgan Chase, America’s largest bank, saying its “CEO Jamie Dimon presided over the largest financial crime spree in world history…in the range of 15 major felonies that either the United States investigators (or foreign governments) found…”

It’s not just JP Morgan, Black explained. It’s the entire financial system. Black’s updated book is titled “The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One.”

On Friday, Trump’s press secretary Sean Spicer called Dodd-Frank “disastrous policy.” True enough, but claiming it’s “crippling” the economy is political hyperbole.

Before signing his EO, Trump said “(w)e expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank, because frankly I have so many people, friends of mine, that have nice businesses and they can’t borrow money.”

They just can’t get any money because the banks just won’t let them borrow because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank. So we’ll be talking about that in terms of the banking industry.

Quantitative easing added enormous amounts of liquidity to capital markets. Wall Street used it to consolidate to greater size, for market speculation, for stock buybacks, and huge bonuses to top executives.

There’s plenty of money around. It’s just a matter of how financial giants choose to use it. Eliminating or changing Dodd-Frank won’t alter how they operate, profoundly against the public interest.

Below is the text of Trump’s EO:

CORE PRINCIPLES FOR REGULATING THE UNITED STATES FINANCIAL SYSTEM

By the power vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. It shall be the policy of my Administration to regulate the United States financial system in a manner consistent with the following principles of regulation, which shall be known as the Core Principles:

(a) empower Americans to make independent financial decisions and informed choices in the marketplace, save for retirement, and build individual wealth;

(b) prevent taxpayer-funded bailouts;

(c) foster economic growth and vibrant financial markets through more rigorous regulatory impact analysis that addresses systemic risk and market failures, such as moral hazard and information asymmetry;

(d) enable American companies to be competitive with foreign firms in domestic and foreign markets;

(e) advance American interests in international financial regulatory negotiations and meetings;

(g) restore public accountability within Federal financial regulatory agencies and rationalize the Federal financial regulatory framework.

Sec. 2. Directive to the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury shall consult with the heads of the member agencies of the Financial Stability Oversight Council and shall report to the President within 120 daysof the date of this order (and periodically thereafter) on the extent to which existing laws, treaties, regulations, guidance, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and other Government policies promote the Core Principles and what actions have been taken, and are currently being taken, to promote and support the Core Principles.

That report, and all subsequent reports, shall identify any laws, treaties, regulations, guidance, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and other Government policies that inhibit Federal regulation of the United States financial system in a manner consistent with the Core Principles.

Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

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.

Whether you love or hate Trump’s “Muslim ban” (it’s actually a temporary 3-month ban, except for Syrians), there’s a bigger picture …

CNN notes:

The seven Muslim-majority countries targeted in President Trump’s executive order on immigration were initially identified as “countries of concern” under the Obama administration.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer on Sunday pointed to the Obama administration’s actions as the basis for their selection of the seven countries. Trump’s order bars citizens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the U.S. for the next 90 days.

“There were further travel restrictions already in place from those seven countries,” Spicer said on ABC’s “This Week.”

6 out of the 7 countries on the list – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Syria – were targeted for regime change by the U.S. 25 years ago. Specifically,   (Indeed, the U.S. previously carried out coups to implement regime change in these countries numerous times in the past.)

The 7th country – Lebanon – dodged a bullet, and Yemen replaced it.

But the world’s leading sponsors of terror are not on the list …

CNN notes:

In the hours after its release, many questioned why the list omitted other countries with direct links to those terror attacks. The 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon.

In fact, British intelligence officer, British ambassador to Uzbekistan, and chancellor of the University of Dundee Craig Murray points out that the dangerous countries are not on the list … while those who haven’t attacked Americans in the United States are on the list:

Saudi Arabia – which is not on the list – is the world’s largest sponsor of radical Islamic terrorists. The Saudis have backed ISIS and many other brutal terrorist groups. And the most pro-ISIS tweets allegedly come from Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is the hotbed of the most radical Muslim terrorists in the world: the Salafis (both ISIS and Al Qaeda are Salafis). And top American terrorism experts say that U.S. support for brutal and tyrannical countries in the Middle east – like Saudi Arabia – is one of the top motivators for Arab terrorists.

So whether you love or hate the idea of banning radical Islamic jihadis from the U.S. , the fact is that Trump – using a list compiled by Obama (in turn largely compiled by Neoconservatives pushing regime change 25 years ago) – is banning people from the wrong countries.

Postscript: Admittedly, there are ISIS jihadis in Syria, Libya and Iraq. But they are only there because the U.S. and our allies created the conditions that allowed them to form and then metastasize. Neither ISIS nor Al Qaeda were in those countries before the Iraq and Libyan wars and the U.S. and its allies started supporting Syrian “rebels“.

In all 3 countries, the governments hate the jihadis because the jihadis are fighting – and trying to bring down – the governments.  This is the opposite of governments like Saudi Arabia which actively back terrorists.

As for Iran, the CIA admits that the U.S. overthrew the moderate, suit-and-tie-wearing, Democratically-elected prime minister of Iran in 1953. He was overthrown because he had nationalized Iran’s oil, which had previously been controlled by BP and other Western oil companies. As part of that action, the CIA admits that it hired Iranians to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its prime minister. If the U.S. hadn’t overthrown the moderate Iranian government, the fundamentalist Mullahs would have never taken over.

And we’re busy creating a lot of new terrorists in Yemen.

Every Human Vaccine Tested Was Contaminated by Unsafe Levels of Metals and Debris Linked to Cancer and Autoimmune Disease, New Study Reports

Researchers examining 44 samples of 30 different vaccines found dangerous contaminants, including red blood cells in one vaccine and metal toxicants in every single sample tested – except in one animal vaccine.

Using extremely sensitive new technologies not used in vaccine manufacturing, Italian scientists reported they were “baffled” by their discoveries which included single particles and aggregates of organic debris including red cells of human or possibly animal origin and metals including lead, tungsten, gold, and chromium, that have been linked to autoimmune disease and leukemia.

In the study, published this week in the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination, the researchers led by Antonietta Gatti, of the National Council of Research of Italy and the Scientific Director of Nanodiagnostics, say their results “show the presence of micro- and nano-sized particulate matter composed of inorganic elements in vaccine samples” not declared in the products’ ingredients lists.

Lead particles were found in the cervical cancer vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, for example, and in the seasonal flu vaccine Aggripal manufactured by Novartis as well as in the Meningetec vaccine meant to protect against meningitis C.

Samples of an infant vaccine called Infarix Hexa (against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis and haemophilus influenzae type B) manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline was found to contain stainless steel, tungsten and a gold-zinc aggregate.

Other metal contaminants included platinum, silver, bismuth, iron, and chromium. Chromium (alone or in alloy with iron and nickel) was identified in 25 of the human vaccines from Italy and France that were tested.

GSK’s Fluarix vaccine for children three years and older contained 11 metals and aggregates of metals. Similar aggregates to those identified in the vaccines have been shown to be prevalent in cases of leukemia, the researchers noted.

Many of the vaccines contained iron and iron alloys which, according to the researchers, “can corrode and the corrosion products exert a toxicity affecting the tissues”.

The researchers supply an image of an area in a drop of Sanofi Pasteur MSD’s Repevax (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio) vaccine “where the morphology of red cells – we cannot tell whether they are human or animal- is clearly visible” along with the presence of “debris” composed of aluminum, bromine, silicon, potassium and titanium.

Feligen, the only veterinary vaccine tested in the 44 total vaccines sampled, proved to be the only sample free from inorganic contamination.

The investigation revealed aluminum and sodium chloride, the usual component of saline, as was expected, because they are named ingredients of most vaccines. Using a Field Emission Gun Environmental Electron Scanning Microscope, the researchers produced photos of this aluminum salt which formed white crystalline branches similar to frost on a windowpane on the top of the droplets of vaccine liquid. A German-made vaccine against allergies produced a layer of inorganic salts so thick that the researchers could not penetrate the drop not to detect other particulate contaminants.

Aluminum has a documented neurotoxicity all by itself. The French veterinary vaccines exclude it for this reason. The human ones don’t. The researchers express concern about synergy of multiple toxins added to this known neurotoxin. “It is a well-known fact in toxicology that contaminants exert a mutual, synergic effect, and as the number of contaminants increases, the effects grow less and less predictable. The more so when some substances are unknown.”

“The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us,” the researchers note. “In most circumstances, the combinations detected are very odd as they have no technical use, cannot be found in any material handbook and look like the result of the random formation occurring, for example, when waste is burnt. In any case, whatever their origin, they should not be present in any injectable medicament, let alone in vaccines, more in particular those meant for infants.”

Undesirable impact

The study explains that these foreign injected impurities may explain a vast array of apparently unrelated adverse events associated with vaccination from headaches and seizures to fatigue, muscle pain, paralysis and sudden infant death syndrome. More likely than not, they speculate, vaccine contaminants will “have a more serious impact on very small organisms like those of children.”

Once inside a body, foreign material in a vaccine shot, whether it is meant to be there as in the case of an aluminum, or not, in the case of contaminants, launches the formidable immune system into action.

As with anything small and foreign, its reaction to vaccine ingredients is potent, poorly understood, unpredictable, and as the Italian researchers say, may be “undesirable.” The immune system may dispatch an army of large white blood cells called macrophages to engulf the foreign bodies and contain them in swellings and granulomas at the injection site. But if the contaminants are swept away in the blood’s circulation to any distant site or organ including the microbiota, which regulate numerous functions including the immune system, their effect could be felt long after they covertly entered the body.

In some cases, the immune system my initiate an inflammatory assault against what it perceives as invader. This may include the launch of a host of players called cytokines. Some of these chemical messengers like interleukin-6 are incriminated in autism.

Because the body cannot get rid of these contaminants — metal-based pollutants are not biodegradable – this kind of inflammation may be sustained and chronic and can manifest as autoimmune diseases when the immune system turns on its own cells as in multiple sclerosis or type 1 diabetes.

It’s also been shown that the contaminants found in the vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with DNA, the researchers note. No one knows what that can do.

Dark history

Vaccines have a long and sordid history of contamination. In 1955 batches of polio vaccine containing live polio virus infected and paralysed hundreds of children. The tragedy became known as the Cutter Incident for the laboratory where the vaccines had passed safety tests with flying colors.

But there are dozens of other “incidents” which would better be called acts of criminal negligence, including:

• The polio vaccine doled out between 1955 and 1963 was contaminated with simian virus 40 (SV40) from monkey kidney cells used to produce the vaccine. It’s been linked to the growing epidemic of cancer.
• In 2007, Merck & Company, Inc. recalled 1.2 million doses of Hib vaccines due to contamination with bacteria called cereus, a potentially lethal food-poisoning bug.
• In 2009, more than 40,000 doses of a meningitis C vaccine for babies were withdrawn from the British market when they were found to be contaminated with blood-poisoning bacteria, S aureus.
• In 2010, deep sequence analysis of eight different live attenuated virus vaccines revealed unexpected viral sequences in three of them: retrovirus avian leukosis was found in a measles vaccine, a virus similar to simian retrovirus was identified in Rotateq anti-diarrhea vaccine developed by CDC consultant Paul Offit, and the entire genome sequence of porcine cirovirus1 was found in Rotarix leading the FDA to suspend the rotavirus vaccine.
• In 2014, The US Food and Drug Administration ordered GlaxoSmithKline to review the manufacturing operation of its flu vaccine when it found microbiological contamination of products purporting to be sterile.
• In 2013, Merck & Company, Inc. recalled one batch of Gardasil when glass particles were discovered in several phials.
• Recently it was reported that Sanofi Pasteur refused to recall its ActHIB vaccine for babies, even though it knew it was contaminated with glass shards. The FDA didn’t object.

There are dozens of these cases, and even if vaccine manufacturers are issued multiple “warnings” action is rarely ever taken to clean the vaccine manufacture process. Since pharmaceutical companies have blanket indemnity from lawsuits for faulty vaccines, there is no incentive for them to clean up their act.

Clear and present danger

The study investigators conclude that the vaccine contamination they found is likely accidental. “Our hypothesis is that this contamination is unintentional, since it is probably due to polluted components or procedures of industrial processes (e.g. filtrations) used to produce vaccines, not investigated and not detected by the Producers”.

Discussion about why pharmaceutical companies don’t produce clean vaccines is one thing. But the reality of vaccines as they are now is another. It doesn’t change what is being injected into millions of people today. Dangerous unintended toxins are in every one of the vaccines tested in this investigation, except one for cats.

This research doesn’t just show that vaccines are full of crud that top scientists can’t even define. It makes a mockery of health oversight agencies like the FDA and CDC and their lies that vaccines undergo adequate safety checks and risk assessment.

It doesn’t merely reveal that the long-term consequences of vaccinating cannot even be assessed. If anti-cancer vaccines like Gardasil and Cervarix contain cancer-causing aggregates of toxic metals, their use as a weapon against a cancer a girl has zero chance of getting before age 21 is not just useless. It is egregious abuse.

Now, every vaccine’s claims to saving lives must be weighed against its risks of causing cancer, neurodevelopmental disease, autoimmune disease and every other immune-mediated “mystery” disorder now epidemic and soaring.

The results of these investigations not only negate every assertion that vaccines are “safe and effective”, but they confirm that they are actually a clear and present danger.

Professor Emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, and author Marjorie Cohn discusses the constitutional violations resulting from the executive order banning nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries …

On January 27, 2017, President Trump made good on his campaign promise to institute a ban on Muslims entering the US. Trump’s executive order (“EO”) is titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.”

The EO bars nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from the US for at least 90 days. They include Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, and Sudan. The EO also indefinitely prevents Syrian refugees, even those granted visas, from entering the US. And it suspends the resettlement of all refugees for 120 days.

©  WikiMedia (Rhododendrites)

None of the 9/11 hijackers came from the seven countries covered by the EO; 15 of the 19 men hailed from Saudi Arabia, which is not on the list. No one from the seven listed countries has mounted a fatal terrorist attack in the United States.

Countries exempted from the EO include Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates — countries where Trump apparently has business ties.

Trump’s EO violates the Establishment Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. It also violates the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); both are treaties the United States has ratified, making them part of US law under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. The EO violates the Immigration and Nationality Act as well.

Six Federal Courts Stay Trump’s EO

In the face of legal challenges, six federal courts have temporarily stayed implementation of parts of the EO, indicating that petitioners have a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits.

On January 28, US District Judge Ann Donnelly of the Eastern District of New York concluded that the petitioners “have a strong likelihood of success in establishing that the removal of the petitioner and others similarly situated violates Due Process and Equal Protection.” She also found “imminent danger . . . [of] substantial and irreparable injury to refugees, visa-holders, and other individuals from nations subject to the [EO].”

Donnelly thus enjoined respondents Trump, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), et al from removing anyone with refugee applications approved by US Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the US Refugee Admissions Program. Holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from the seven listed countries who are legally authorized to enter the US, are also protected from removal by Donnelly’s order.

In spite of Donnelly’s order, CBP agents continued to detain immigrants at airports across the country and send them back, even though some could face persecution in their countries of origin.

On January 28, US District Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia forbade respondents Trump et al from removing the three Yemeni petitioners, who were lawful permanent residents being held at Dulles International Airport, for seven days from the issuance of her order. Brinkema further ordered CBP agents to permit attorneys access to all lawful permanent residents (green card holders) detained pursuant to the EO at Dulles International Airport pursuant.

Nevertheless, CBP agents refused to allow detained lawful permanent residents to consult with lawyers. On February 1, the Commonwealth of Virginia asked a federal judge to force Trump, CBP and other high government officials to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for refusing to obey a lawful court order.

On January 28, US District Judge Thomas Zilly of the Western District of Washington granted a stay of removal and enjoined respondents Trump et al from removing John Does I and I from the US pending a hearing on February 3.

On January 29, US District Judge Allison Burroughs and US Magistrate Judge Judith Gail Dein of the District of Massachusetts found that Iranian petitioners, a married couple, both of whom are engineering professors at University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, had a strong likelihood of success in establishing the detention/and or removal of them and others similarly situated would violate Due Process and Equal Protection.

The two judges also concluded petitioners were likely to suffer irreparable harm. They issued a temporary restraining order, preventing respondents Trump et al from detaining or removing for seven days individuals with refugee applications approved by US Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the US Refugee Admissions Program. Holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, lawful permanent residents,] and others from the seven listed countries who, absent the EO, would be legally authorized to enter the US, were also protected from exclusion.

On January 31, US District Judge Andre Birotte in Los Angeles ruled that the government must permit immigrants from the seven listed nations who have initial preclearance for legal residency to enter the US. Birotte ordered US officials to refrain from “removing, detaining or blocking the entry of [anyone] . . . with a valid immigrant visa” arriving from one of the seven countries.

Attorney Julie Ann Goldberg had filed the Los Angeles case on behalf of more than 24 plaintiffs of Yemeni descent, including US citizens. Over 200 people holding immigrant visas who had left Yemen, and are either related to US citizens or lawful permanent residents, were stranded in Djibouti and prevented from flying to the US.

Meanwhile, on February 1, a counsel to the president informed government agencies that the EO does not apply to some categories of immigrants. They include lawful permanent residents, Iraqis who worked for the US government in jobs such as interpreters and people with dual nationality when entering the US with a passport from a country other than one of the forbidden seven.

On February 3, US District Judge James Robart in Seattle issued a temporary nationwide restraining order halting the EO’s ban on citizens of the seven countries from entering the US. Judge Robart ruled the EO would be stopped nationwide, effective immediately.

The EO Violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

The strongest constitutional argument for overturning the EO is that it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court has held “the clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” The EO “imposes a selective ban on immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries as well as establishes preferential treatment for refugees seeking asylum who are identified with ‘minority religions’ in their country of origin,” ACLU National Legal Director David Cole wrote in Just Security. Cole cited Trump’s statement on Christian Broadcast News that the intent of his EO was to prioritize “Christians” seeking asylum over “Muslims.”

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Irvine School of Law, observed in the Los Angeles Times, “Although Trump’s order does not expressly exclude Muslims, that is its purpose and effect as it bars entry to individuals from predominantly Muslim countries.”

When Trump signed the EO, Cole noted, he “pledged to ‘keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the US.’ Not ‘terrorists’; not ‘radical terrorists.’ But only ‘radical Islamic terrorists.'” Cole concluded that Trump “has violated the Establishments Clause’s ‘clearest command'” as “[T]here is no legitimate reason to favor Christians over all others who are persecuted for their beliefs.”

The EO Violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment

Procedural due process forbids the government from depriving an individual of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The US government is obligated to hear the asylum claims of noncitizens who arrive at US borders and ports of entry. The Immigration and Nationality Act provides, “Any alien who is physically present in the US or who arrives in the US . . . irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum . . .” They must be afforded an opportunity to apply for asylum or other forms of humanitarian protection and be promptly received and processed by US authorities. The Trump administration’s denial of an opportunity to apply for asylum violates procedural due process.

The EO Violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

The Equal Protection Clause prohibits the government from “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.” An executive order that has the “purpose and effect of disapproval of a class recognized and protected by state law” violates the Equal Protection Clause, the Supreme Court held in US v. Windsor.

Muslim immigrants and non-Muslim immigrants from the seven listed countries are two separate classes of people for Equal Protection purposes. Unequal treatment of different groups based on religion, which is a suspect class, are subjected to strict scrutiny and thus there must be a compelling state interest to justify the disparate treatment. None of the 9/11 hijackers came from any of the seven countries. There have been no fatal terrorist attacks on US soil by anyone from those countries. Therefore, there is no compelling state interest for treating the two classes differently. This is particularly true in light of Trump’s statements that his order would prioritize “Christians” seeking asylum over “Muslims.”

As Corey Brettschneider wrote for Politico, the Court drew a clear connection between the protection of religious liberty and the Equal Protection Clause’s prohibition of invidious discrimination in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah.

The EO Violates the Take Care Clause, Art. II, Sec. 3

Trump’s EO violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, according to Jeanne Mirer, president of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. “This provision requires the President to ‘take care’ that the laws of the country are faithfully executed,” Mirer wrote on Facebook. “The EO on immigration violates this clause because it requires government officials to violate various laws as well as human rights treaties we have ratified. He is also violating it by appointing people who openly oppose the laws they are being asked to enforce. Impeachable offense,” she added.

The EO Violates the Convention Against Torture

Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) establishes the principle of nonrefoulement. It forbids states parties from expelling, returning or extraditing a person to a state “where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” Refugees often flee repressive regimes to escape persecution. Sending people back to a country where they may well suffer torture violates the CAT.

The EO Violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) forbids states parties from making distinctions in the provision of civil and political rights based on “race, colour [sic], sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” By giving fewer rights to Muslims than non-Muslims, Trump is violating the ICCPR.

The EO Violates the Immigration and Nationality Act

According to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, no person can be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” By singling out people from majority-Muslim countries, Trump has violated the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Legal and political fallout

Attorneys general from 15 states and the District of Columbia issued a joint statement condemning the EO. One thousand State Department employees likewise opposed the EO.

After federal courts stayed the ban, acting Attorney General Sally Yates ordered the Justice Department not to defend the EO, saying she wasn’t convinced it was lawful. Trump responded by firing Yates, stating she had “betrayed the Department of Justice.”

Ironically, Senator Jeff Sessions, who will become Attorney General once the Senate confirms his nomination, asked Yates at her confirmation hearing whether she thought the Attorney General had “the responsibility to say no the President if he asks for something that’s improper.”

Sessions’ fingerprints are all over the Muslim ban. The Daily Beast reported that Sessions, Steve Bannon and senior policy advisor Steven Miller (a Sessions confidant) drafted the EO.

Hundreds of people were kept in limbo after Trump issued his order. A five-year-old boy was separated from his mother for four hours. Erez Reuveni, an attorney with the Justice Department’s Office of Immigration Litigation, said more than 100,000 visas have been revoked. He could not say, however, how many people who had visas were sent back to their home countries. But, William Cocks from the State Department Bureau of Consular Affairs wrote in an email to NBC News, “Fewer than 60,000 individuals’ visas were provisionally revoked to comply with the Executive Order.”

Although thousands protested the Muslim ban at airports around the country, White House chief of staff Reince Priebus told CBS News that the ban could be extended.

After Judge Robart issued the nationwide stay on February 3, the White House vowed to appeal the ruling. Trump tweeted, “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” In another tweet, Trump wrote, “When a country is no longer able to say who can, and who cannot , come in & out, especially for reasons of safety &.[sic] security – big trouble!”

We will see whether the Trump administration fulfills its legal duty to act in accordance with the judicial decisions. The rubber will meet the road when federal appellate judges, and probably the Supreme Court, rule on the legal merits of these petitions.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and former president of the National Lawyers Guild. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues. Visit her website at http://marjoriecohn.com/ and follow her on Twitter @MarjorieCohn.

Viewpoint by distinguished Bangladeshi journalist Eresh Omar Jamal

By now we all know of Donald Trump’s executive order temporarily banning the entry of citizens from seven Muslim majority countries. According to his statement, it was “about terror and keeping” America “safe”, as his “first priority” is to “protect and serve” America. But simply banning the entry of people from these seven countries cannot guarantee the safety of Americans and will fail to bring an end to, or even minimise, terrorism.

So what can he do? Former US Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, says that “the simplest way to end the refugee problem is to stop producing refugees” (The Left Is Self-Destructing, January 30). Similarly, ‘the simplest way to end terrorism’ then, would be ‘to stop producing terrorists’.

Sadly, that is exactly what the US and its allies have been doing in Syria and elsewhere, prompting independent journalists en masse, various governments and others, to emphasise the need for the US to stop supporting terrorists who are destabilising the Middle East especially, but other regions too. And in the process, worsening the refugee crisis and increasing terrorism across the world.

The latest amongst those brave individuals is a member of the US Democratic Party and the US Representative for Hawaii’s 2nd congressional district, Ms. Tulsi Gabbard. Having met ordinary Syrians and their president during her visit to Syria, Ms. Gabbard told CNN’s Jake Tapper in an interview that a common question she received from ordinary Syrians was: “why the US and its allies are providing support and arms to terrorist groups like al-Nusra, al-Qaida or al-Sham, ISIS who are on the ground there, raping, kidnapping, torturing and killing the Syrian people.”

She said that every person she spoke to said the same thing, without hesitation, that there are “no moderate rebels”. That “the Syrian people recognise and they know that if President Assad is overthrown, then al Qaida — or a group like al Qaida…will take charge of all of Syria” (Just Back From Syria, Rep. Gabbard Brings Message: ‘There Are No Moderate Rebels’, cnsnews.com, January 26). And that is why “they are pleading with the United States to stop supporting these terrorist groups” and let Syrians decide their own fate.

To honour their request, Ms. Gabbard recently put forth a bill in Congress called the “Stop Arming Terrorists Act”, to prevent the US government from using its taxpayer dollars “to directly or indirectly support groups allied with terrorist groups such as ISIS and al Qaeda in their war to overthrow the Syrian government”. To gain support for her bill, Ms. Gabbard also met with President Trump, who, according to her, responded well to her message.

Now, the best way that President Trump can really fight terrorism is by ending US support to terrorist organisations in attempt to overthrow foreign governments and, instead, back the ‘Stop Arming Terrorists Act’. This, however, will not be easy. According to Ms. Gabbard, she is facing immense bipartisan pressure from both the Democrats and Republicans for her stance against the US’ longstanding policy of instigating regime change in foreign countries. Should Trump decide to follow her advice, there can be no doubt that the same will happen to him.

However, if President Trump is truly sincere about taking a stand against the ‘establishment’, like he said he would during his campaign and in fighting terrorism, this is exactly what he must do. But this alone won’t be enough. He must also convince the US’ allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and others, to not support these extremists groups and to stop directly intervening in countries like Yemen. And if dialogue fails, President Trump must reverse Obama’s policy of providing record breaking quantities of armaments to the likes of Saudi Arabia and others, as without US weaponry, these countries cannot wage their wars of aggression.

During his presidential campaign and after, President Trump also expressed his desire to work with Russia to end the Syrian crisis. All the while the US worked towards bringing about regime change in Syria, Russia valiantly provided support to the Syrian government, humanitarian aid to the Syrian people and tried its best to find a political solution despite being repeatedly demonised for it. Now that he is in office, President Trump should immediately look to work with Russia, rather than against her, as his predecessor’s administration did.

Given the possibilities, the good news is that President Trump can do a lot to end terrorism, ensure security for Americans, all the while saving the US a lot of money that would otherwise be wasted on foreign incursions. The bad news, he will have to take on the entire US government-industrial-complex to succeed and even if he has the courage to take on that challenge, there is no guarantee of success, given the power that it wields. But that aside, the most important question for now is, is he going to follow through with his promise of taking on the establishment, and stop waging “stupid wars”?

Whatever the answer is, will be the most important determinant on how successful President Trump is in saving American lives and, also very importantly, the lives of many others.

Eresh Omar Jamal is an Editorial Assistant at The Daily Star, Bangladesh, the  largest circulating English daily newspaper in Bangladesh. He has a  Specialised Honours in Financial and Business Economics from York  University, Canada, and can be reached at [email protected].

The landlocked countries of Malawi and Zambia are little-known to the rest of the world, yet they occupy very strategic positions in the continental interconnectivity projects and Hybrid War projections.

Zambia is situated smack dab in the center of north-south and east-west corridors, while Malawi – for all of its poverty and underdevelopment – is still located in a strategic space between the future gas giants of Tanzania and Mozambique and the forthcoming logistical powerhouse of Zambia. Due to Malawi and Zambia’s shared history as separate British colonies and even part of the same one under the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, as well as their neighborly and landlocked status, it’s appropriate to discuss both of them in the same chapter about Hybrid War.

Unlike many of the previous reviews that have been undertaken, this one will be comparatively shorter owing to the relative lack of detailed information about these countries, though that shouldn’t be taken to infer that they’re no less important than the other states that have been studied thus far. Malawi and Zambia may not presently be the center of regional focus, but continental connectivity trends indicate that they’ll play a much greater strategic role in the future, albeit for two different reasons. Zambia will be the pivotal transit location between intersecting transport corridors, while Malawi will always remain the vulnerable disruptor in Southern Africa that could risk spoiling the entire regional arrangement if its stability unravels. Should it remain mildly stable into the future, then it could reversely play the role of a geopolitical guarantor in preventing an outburst of Weapons of Mass Migration from derailing these multipolar projects.

The research will kick off by discussing Malawi’s position between Tanzania, Zambia, and Mozambique, before describing some of its domestic and historical factors that could one day be exploited to undermine its stability. Afterwards, the work will progress to talking about Zambia and the critical interconnector role it plays in bringing together north-south and east-west mobility projects in Africa. As with Malawi, Zambia is also vulnerable to a major destabilization scenario, though one which could deal even more damage than its neighbor’s and seriously curtail the transcontinental integration projects that are expected to pass through its bottleneck territory.

Giving Meaning To Malawi’s Geography

Regional Discrepancies:

Malawi might seem to many to just be a strip on the west coast of Lake Malawi/Nyasa (if they even knew where the country was to begin with), but it actually occupies an advantageous position at the crossroads of three very important states. Like was explained in the chapter introduction, Tanzania and Mozambique are two of the world’s most promising energy giants, while Zambia is the location of planned cross-continental logistics networks. Even though Malawi is not directly linked up with any of them, it’s still within close enough proximity that any humanitarian destabilization within the country could prompt a debilitating outflow of Weapons of Mass Migration that interfere with these said projects’ viability through the disruption of each host state’s domestic equilibrium.

Socio-economic challenges are expected to noticeably increase in this densely populated nation as it explodes from 16 million people to 43 million by 2050 and then 87 million by the turn of the next century. Its present southern-concentrated Muslim minority of an estimated 13% of the population will obviously grow in proportion to this and might even gain relative ground during the country’s demographic acceleration, which might encourage irresponsible rabble-rousing rhetoric about an impending “Clash of Civilizations” and all of the resultant conflict scenarios that go with it. Focusing more on this point at Malawi’s oncoming population boom, it’s absolutely uncertain how the country will remain sustainable even in its already deeply impoverished state, and it can’t be discounted that naturally occurring humanitarian problems might develop where famine or natural disasters lead to a massive exodus of Malawians to their neighbors. Depending upon the scenarios that unfold in the future, there might even be internal migrations between the Northern, Central, and Southern Regions if the population doesn’t outright leave the country in droves (or is unable to because the borders are blocked).

This might upset the balance between the three regions, which currently sees the capital of Lilongwe in the central one as the largest city, the southern hub of Blantyre as the country’s second-largest city, and the northern capital of Mzuzu as the third-largest in Malawi. It should be qualified at this point that the Central and Southern Regions are the most populous, and that in some ways the Northern one sits at the distant periphery of the nation’s importance. Furthermore, Blantyre is connected to Mozambique’s ports of Beira and Nacala (as will be described below), while the national capital of Lilongwe is thus dependent on its southern regional counterpart for accessing the trade that runs through these routes. This state of affairs makes Blantyre the country’s economic capital and Lilongwe its political-administrative one, and the rivalry between the two regions and their city centers might become a primary point of discord in the event of future humanitarian or political crises.

Mozambican Dependency:

Malawi isn’t strategic only because of its very real potential for a domestic meltdown, though that’s certainly a large part of why it’s of interest to foreign actors, whether to reinforce the stability of their regional projects by assisting the state or to gain an influencing upper hand in potentially destabilizing it and tangentially taking down the rest of its neighbors in the process. Approached from a positive and multipolar forward-looking angle, Malawi could also actively contribute to regional connectivity because of its advantageous location between these countries, but provided of course that this opportunity is identified and pursued by its partners.

The Shire River in the southern part of Malawi connects to the Zambezi and further along to Mozambique’s second-largest port of Beira, while international roads run adjacent to this path. Malawi’s other vector for international trade and general interaction with the outside world comes through the northeastern Mozambican port of Nacala, which is also linked with the country via roads. Both routes could also serve rail freight, but Mozambique’s domestic network was destroyed during the Civil War and is thus incapable of connecting to Malawi’s Central East African Railway system.

Nowadays Malawi is totally dependent on Mozambique’s transport corridors in every sense of the word, and its strategic vulnerability has spiked in the face of RENAMO’s recent offensives against the government there. Recalling the previous chapter about that country and the map that was included in the research, RENAMO lays claim to all of the territory through which Malawian goods must transit on their way to the rest of the world. This means that the non-state actor essentially has the opportunity to hold an entire state hostage if they decided to target their truckers or if the military situation in these provinces became so critical that most Malawian trade was halted as a result. In any case, Malawi’s dependence on trans-Mozambican infrastructure networks indirectly makes the country a member of the enlarged Indian Ocean economic community and thus gives these high seas paramount importance for Lilongwe in conducting its agriculturally dominated international trade.

Trouble With Tanzania:

Although its northern border is located very close to TAZARA, Malawi either doesn’t want to or is unable to take advantage of this because of the territorial trouble that it has with Tanzania. The two countries are engaged in a dispute over their international boundary on Lake Malawi/Nyasa. Lilongwe claims the entirety of the northeastern part of the body of water all the way up to the Tanzanian shoreline, while Dodoma says that the international boundary should be split evenly in the middle. This disagreement has become increasingly significant in recent years after oil deposits were prospected under the waterbed, meaning that whoever has control over its surface territory will reap the windfall of revenue that this results in. Malawi is much poorer than Tanzania and has a smaller population at only 16 million people, so forthcoming energy profits could possibly be put to more concentrated and effective use by Lilongwe than by Dodoma, though that’s not to say that Tanzania shouldn’t automatically be disentitled from some of the proceeds, too.

The issue is still being negotiated, though for the reason explained above, it’s difficult to see why Malawi would cede any of its claims or agree to respect any international arbitration that deprives it of its absolutist share over this potential cash cow. From the reverse perspective, much mightier Tanzania has every reason to continue pressing its claims, especially since the Chinese-financed Mtwara Development Corridor will turn Dodoma’s Lake Malawi/Nyasa shores into a new hub of business and thus heighten the periphery’s attractiveness to the national center. As both sides remain stubborn in their claims and international maritime tensions boil, there remains a distinct possibility that they could explode into armed conflict if one side or another engages in a provocation, which in this context, might most likely be staged by the Tanzanians since they have everything to gain and the Malawians have everything to lose if the two clash. It’s probably because of their simmering tensions that Malawi doesn’t see Tanzania as a reliable transit partner for diversifying its international trade routes from the Mozambican RENAMO-influenced ports of Beira and Nacala, so Lilongwe will likely continue to remain dependent on its eastern neighbor for the foreseeable future so long as the Tanzanian dispute remains unresolved.

The Zambian Detour Or Zambia’s Detour?:

The most hopeful opportunity that Malawi has for relieving its dependency on Mozambique is to expand its rail network to Zambia and onwards to one of the several crisscrossing infrastructure projects cutting through the country. The first step in this direction was already taken in 2010 with the commissioning of the Chipata-Mchinji railway between both states. It has thus far underperformed in its potential and most of Malawi’s trade is still conducted with Mozambique or by means of its territory through Beira and Nacala ports. Instead of the railway serving to diversify Malawi’s international trade away from Mozambique, it might reversely have the effect of deepening its dependency due to Zambia’s own grand strategy of infrastructural diversification.

Lusaka wants to position itself as the central crossroads of South-Central African trade, and in doing so, it has a vision to extend its own rail networks through Malawi and onwards to Nacala. The existing problem is that Mozambique’s relevant rail line to that port hasn’t been operational for decades, though this is why the African Development Bank approved a long-term $300 million loan in February for restoring the route. If the route is completed and RENAMO doesn’t behave as an obstructive force in inhibiting the corridor’s economic viability, then the ZaMM (Zambia-Malawi-Mozambique) railroad could function as a complementary Silk Road in pairing with the Tanzanian portion to Zambia and allowing for a secondary Indian Ocean terminal for the Southern Trans-African Route (STAR). This is because Nacala would link to TAZARA, which in turn could connect to Angola’s Benguela line via the Northwest Railway that might soon be constructed in Zambia.

ZaMM would be a welcome addition to multipolarity’s network of transnational infrastructure projects if it ever sees the light of day, though it would be entirely ironic for Malawi given that its plans for a Zambian detour away from Mozambique ultimately turned into Zambia’s own detour to Mozambique and Malawi’s double dependency on its neighbor.

Color Revolutions And Coups Along The Lake Malawi/Nyasa Coast

Demographic, “civilizational”, and intra-regional pressures present the most ‘organic’ conflict scenarios for Malawi, and like it was mentioned above, these could predictably lead to an outflow of Weapons of Mass Migration into the three surrounding states. That being said, there are also two much more artificially manufactured destabilization scenarios that could burst forth in Malawi at any moment, and these are Color Revolutions and coups, both of which have a recent history of attempted deployment in the country. The situational specifics of any future iteration of these schemes might change, but the general idea of foreign-supported regime change would remain the same.

Color Revolution Failure:

Malawi was rocked by a failed Color Revolution attempt in July 2011, though one which ultimately claimed a handful of lives and confirmed that the China-orienting country was on the list of America’s regime change targets. Prior to the events, President Bingu wa Mutharika had recognized Beijing as China’s official government in 2008, after which bilateral relations took off and the two started moving to one another. Chinese investments entered the country and Beijing’s influence was finally felt in one of the few corners of the world where it had been absent over the past several decades. Mutharika’s policy reversal towards China was significant because Malawi had previously been in full lockstep with Western policies ever since its 1964 independence and Cold War rule under President Hastings Banda. Malawi’s leader tried so hard to emulate the Western establishment that he sometimes even outdid his patrons, such as when his country – the only African one with diplomatic ties to apartheid South Africa – continued trading with Pretoria despite many of his European and American partners sanctioning it from 1986 until its removal in 1994. This is why Mutharika’s about-face caught so many off guard, since it totally broke with his predecessors’ stringent policy of recognizing Taiwan.

In the run-up to the Color Revolution, the government expelled the UK High Commissioner in April 2011 after he called the president “autocratic”, “combative”, and “intolerant of criticism” – smears that are regularly used in ginning up an information campaign against a foreign leader. It shouldn’t be too unexpected that a protest movement broke out a few months later in July, and following the government’s defensive actions in restoring law and order, the UK and the US both suspended their aid to the donor-dependent country as punishment for its president’s success in fending off the regime change operation. The suspicious timing between the UK’s implicit anti-government threats and the unleashing of a Color Revolution shortly thereafter is enough to make one question whether the entire mess was managed by Malawi’s former colonial occupier, just as the close coordination between London and Washington’s aid suspensions lend credence to the thought that the US might have had something to do with this as well. Mutharika didn’t directly accuse either of them for being behind the deadly commotion, but he did point his finger in early 2012 at what he claimed were some unnamed donor nations that were working with in-country NGOs to organize the protests against him.

‘Constitutional Coup’:

Mutharika suddenly passed away in April 2012 at the age of 78, sparking a brief constitutional crisis of who his legal successor should be. Per the constitution, power must be transferred from the President to the Vice-President during the passing of the former, though the tricky situation was that Mutharika had disowned his successor a year beforehand. Joyce Banda entered into problems with Mutharika and was dumped from the ruling party in 2010, just one year after he picked her to run on his winning ticket during the 2009 elections. Banda allegedly didn’t support Bingu’s plans to have his brother and then-Foreign Minister Peter Mutharika succeed him in the future, and this dispute is what led to her de-facto dismissal. The problem, however, was that Banda chose not to resign from her post and stubbornly remained the legal Vice-President throughout the rest of Bingu’s tenure. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party was factionalized by the controversy and Bingu did not have enough influence within his own party to get her impeached. Therefore, when he abruptly died in early April, she legally became his successor, though there was a short two-day period where the government met without her and conspired to pass the baton to Bingu’s brother, Peter. The plot didn’t succeed because the military wouldn’t stand behind it, and therefore Banda became Malawi’s first female president.

What’s interesting about this episode is that Banda didn’t even belong to the ruling party by that time, having been expelled in 2010. She created her own “People’s Party” in May 2011, just two months before the Color Revolution. This was obviously done in tactical coordination with the UK and US, which evidently threw their weight behind her as they tried to topple Mutharika. It’s telling that just a few months after Banda’s inauguration, the US rescinded its former aid suspension and renewed its donations to the country, clearly as a reward for their proxy’s victory during the ‘constitutional coup’. Even more curiously, the American-based and globally renowned Forbes magazine included Banda on their list of the world’s most powerful women from 2012-2014, with the latter year unbelievably ranking her as the 40^th most powerful despite her never achieving anything of international significance ever in her career. It doesn’t take much to realize that this was just a more personal reward for the politician in exchange for returning Western influence to the country, even though she never ended up going as far as reversing her predecessor’s recognition of Beijing. In spite of her ‘popularity’ in Forbes and the ‘power’ that the Western elite said that she had, Banda dismally lost her first-ever election in 2014 and was replaced by Bingu’s brother, Peter Mutharika, thus preventing her from fully carrying out her envisioned/ordered policies.

Coup Fears:

Peter Mutharika’s presidency has been marked by a balance between Malawi’s traditional Western aid partners and China, though even this pragmatic approach towards Beijing appears to have set off alarm bells in the Western capitals. The investigation itself is still ongoing, but the government claims to have foiled a coup plot in February of this year. According to reports, the American Ambassador met with opposition leader Lazarus Chakwera during his visit to the US and hatcedh a coup plot, one which allegedly was also being organized with other conspirators through WhatsApp. The specific details of how the putschists planned to seize power haven’t been publicly released (at least to the author’s knowledge), so it’s unclear whether this was meant to be a military coup, a ‘constitutional coup’, or a Color Revolution coup. In what might be an unrelated event but which could also possibly have something to do with this scandal, the president dismissed the head of the army at the end of July. One media report said that this was because the country’s intelligence chief linked him to a planned coup, which if true, would confirm that the original plotters from February (the US and its on-the-ground network of political and NGO proxies) haven’t given up on their mission to overthrow Mutharika.

Just as it was with his brother Bingu, Peter Mutharika is being targeted because of his government’s decision to continue Lilongwe’s relationship with Beijing. Banda was unable to cut Malawi’s ties with China because they had simply become much too advantageous for her country, as was seen when she signed a $667 million electricity deal with China’s Export-Import Bank in 2013. It’s not known why she would do this while still being a stereotypical Western stooge, but it could be that she felt confident enough that the US and UK wouldn’t turn on her just for that, especially since they had already invested in helping her gain power in the first place. The fact that Banda would still continue Malawi’s relationship with China despite she herself being a Western proxy is a strong testimony to just how important China has become to the country in the less than a decade since bilateral ties have been established. Peter, for his part, went even further and recently hosted a China-Malawi Investment Forum where he invited China to take part in a wide array of projects in the agriculture, agro-processing, energy, mining, ICT, tourism, infrastructure, and manufacturing industries, among others. Pretty much, he offered to open the entire country up to Chinese capital in exchange for the development that it would bring, and with this in mind, it’s reasonable to predict that the last two pro-US coup plots certainly won’t be the last to be attempted.

Demystifying Zambia

With Malawi’s strategic situation and Hybrid War vulnerabilities out of the way, it’s now time to connect the research to neighboring Zambia, the mysterious-sounding country in South-Central Africa which the casual observers knows absolutely nothing about. To give the reader a crash course about the basics of Zambia’s significance, one should start by speaking about former President Kenneth Kaunda, the man who is essentially the ‘father of the nation’. In many ways, he was to Zambia what his close friend and ally Julius Nyerere was to Tanzania, and that’s a pragmatic, stable, and decades-long leader who presided over his state throughout all of the Cold War. Just like Tanzania, Zambia was a frontline state fighting against apartheid in South Africa and the remaining colonial governments in Angola, Mozambique, and Rhodesia, and the country was a sanctuary for rebel groups fighting in these neighboring conflicts. Although there were several high-profile incursions against its territory – most notably when the Rhodesian government attacked some of the insurgents there during the late 1970s – Zambia was never formally involved in any conventional war (not even “Africa’s World War” in 1990s Congo), and it thus remained largely untouched by the conflicts that have ravaged Africa over the past half a century.

This deserves further commentary because – like Tanzania – it’s very unusual that such an identity-diverse state could evade domestic and international conflict for so long while its counterparts seemed to inevitably become embroiled in it. Zambia counts 73 ethnic and linguistic groups within its borders, making it less diverse than Tanzania, but still relatively eclectic by any other standard (especially European). The largest groups are the Bemba and the Tonga, comprising 21% and 13.6% of the population and concentrated mostly in the north and south, respectively. Interestingly, former President Kaunda was born in traditionally Bemba northern Zambia to Tonga parents from Malawi, and this ‘minority-of-a-minority’ status might have played a part in why he didn’t promote tribalism during his rule. His assimilation and integration as an ‘outsider’ into local society was an integral part of his personal upbringing, and this formative experience could be attributed with influencing him to pursue an inclusive national identity that emphasized state patriotism over tribal affiliation. It also helped to a large degree that Kaunda was a peaceful anti-imperialist and a stout socialist, two interlinked ideological matrices which obviously had a strong effect on his views. Although it’s possible for a supporter of these ideas to also be a parochial tribalist, that wasn’t the case with Kaunda, who practiced what he preached and put it to the test by forging a unified Zambian identity.

Zambia’s commendable stability also owes itself to its alliance with Tanzania and its close partnership with China. Under the imperial period of British rule, all of Zambia’s connective infrastructure projects were built according to a ‘north-south’ logic, thus making the country completely dependent on Rhodesia (later Zimbabwe) and apartheid South Africa for its connection to the rest of the international marketplace. This became a major vulnerability after the country’s 1964 independence when Kaunda took to actively practicing his anti-imperialist policies and started training and hosting rebel groups from all around the region. In order to retain strategic flexibility and prevent Zambia from blackmail by its neighbors, it looked eastward to ideologically identical Tanzania for a desperately needed alternative outlet to the world. As such, the TAZAMA oil pipeline linking the two countries was completed in 1968, followed by the Chinese-financed TAZARA railroad along mostly the same route in 1975. Taken together, the Tanzanian-linked infrastructure projects gave Zambia the opportunity to more independently practice its anti-imperialist policy, and the railroad was especially pivotal in the export of the country’s copious copper deposits after Angola’s Benguela railroad became inoperable during the country’s post-independence civil war in 1975 and Lusaka opted to diversify its prior export dependency away from Rhodesia. Had it not been for the backup options that Tanzania provided it for energy and commodity market access, then Zambia would have remained fully reliant on the imperialist and apartheid states and thus would have eventually been subsumed by their influence and control with time.

Zigzagging Through The South-Central African Pivot Space

In relation to the infrastructure projects zigzagging through Zambia, it’s apparent that the country serves as the connectivity juncture for the entire sub-equatorial transport network running throughout the region. For this reason, Zambia can be described as the pivot state over this vast space and an object of priceless envy in the New Cold War:

* Red: TAZARA
* Green: TAZARA-Katanga-Benguela/TAZARA-North West Railroad-Benguela
* Pink: Walvis Bay Corridor
* Blue: Zambia-Zimbabwe-South Africa railroad network
* Purple: ZaMM (Zambia-Malawi-Mozambique)

The above map visually depicts Zambia’s geostrategic importance in Africa through the perspective of New Silk Road connectivity. It lies at the center of multiple intersecting infrastructure projects and has the potential for linking them all together to forge an integrated sub-equatorial coast-to-coast transit system in this part of Africa. Furthermore, if an interconnecting route was to be made between Tanzania’s TAZARA and Kenya’s LAPSSET Corridor (i.e. bridging Dar es Salaam and Lamu via Mombasa), then it would be conceptually possible to join Ethiopia’s nearly 100-million-strong marketplace and the Addis Ababa-Djibouti railroad to this transcontinental mainland transportation line. Even barring the expansion of this network past the equator and into the Horn of Africa, the Zambia-intersecting sub-equatorial rail matrix makes the South-Central country one of the continent’s most influential pivot spaces, and accordingly, a very likely victim for Hybrid War.

Cutting The Zambian Knot

Zambia is the key component to the larger transcontinental New Silk Road interconnectivity project that’s taking shape in sub-equatorial Africa, and it accordingly ties all of the projects together into an integrated whole. If Zambia were to be destabilized in any significant way, then it would immediately throw this multipolar vision into jeopardy, either disrupting it partially or wholly, or allowing a third-party state (i.e. the US) to acquire influence or control over the entire structure. For this reason, it’s integral for Zambia to strictly adhere to its traditional complementary policies of independence and stability, as any major deviation from either of these could create problems for the rest of the international network that transits through the country. In evaluating the Hybrid War threats facing Zambia, four in particular stand out, including both general and ‘conventional’ scenarios and those which are more specific and asymmetrical.

It should be kept in mind at all times that the US is known for its phased and adaptive approach to destabilizing targeted countries, and that it doesn’t always aim for regime change per say. Sometimes it’s only hoping that certain events (regardless of the amount of control that the US directly exercises over them) can result in enough pressure that the intended government tweaks their policies in conformity with the US’ interests. Other times, it wants to do more than overthrow the government and actually aims for a ‘regime reboot’, or in this case, a complete domestic reformatting of the country from a unitary republic to a divided federation. Regardless of what the physical result ultimately ends up being, the guiding motivation is always to either disrupt, control, or influence the multipolar transnational connective infrastructure projects in question, which in this case are the five such ones that transit through Zambia.

Color Revolution:

It was evident that Zambia was at risk of an incipient Color Revolution even before the summer 2016 election resulted in a narrow margin of victory for the ruling party. The government was forced to shut down the main ‘opposition’ newspaper after it accumulated millions of dollars in overdue tax arrears, with the owner obviously flouting the law with the expectation that the government wouldn’t dare to move against it out of fear of being accused of an “anti-democratic crackdown”. “The Post” completely misjudged the authorities and was shut down a little over one month before the 11 August election. Shortly after that, ‘opposition’-led clashes killed one person and injured several others, after which the government temporarily suspended campaigning so as to allow both sides to cool down and deescalate the tensions between them.

This worked in the sense of preventing another outbreak of pre-electoral violence, but it didn’t mitigate the ‘opposition’s’ pent-up anti-government energy that eventually burst out in the aftermath of the vote. United Party for National Development (UPND) candidate Hakainde Hichilema alleged that the ruling Patriotic Front led by incumbent President Edgar Lungu defrauded the ballot and illegally pulled off his victory, demanding a recount which he believed would rectify the results and give him the presidency instead. The government refused to cave into the pressure and insisted that Lungu rightfully won the election with 50.35% of the vote compared to Hichilema’s 47.67%, which in turn prompted the UPND to reject the official tabulation. The national situation remains very tense because of this, and it’s possible that some elements of the ‘opposition’ might be planning a Hybrid War to help them seize power.

Regional-Tribal Conflict:

Even if the present drama is resolved, that doesn’t take away from the fact that the country is almost evenly divided into two separate political camps for the second time in just as many years. During the extraordinary 2015 vote that was called in response to incumbent President Sata’s unexpected death, Lungu beat Hichilema 48.33% to 46.67% by the razor-thin difference of nearly 27,000 votes and was therefore accorded with the right to serve out the rest of his predecessor’s term before the next round of elections, which he won by a slightly more comfortable (though still narrow) margin. The geographic nature of this division follows the general north-south split between the Bemba and Tonga’s zones of influence, indicating that tribalism might finally be on the verge of becoming a palpable political factor.

Even though it would be utterly destabilizing to the country’s traditional social and political harmony for this to happen – and likely herald in the sort of violent conflict that has hitherto been a staple of most African nations’ history – it wouldn’t exactly be surprising, since the ‘opposition’ displayed its inclination to politicize tribal identity earlier this year when some of its highest-ranking representations proposed that Zambia “should choose leaders on tribal rotation basis”, which effectively amounts to “Bembas and other tribes [being] excluded from seeking the presidency on grounds of tribe”. The ruling Patriotic Front immediately admonished its rivals for flirting with such a dangerous ideology and warned that “it is outrageous and completely away from established democratic principles upon which our beloved Zambia is built.”

In hindsight and judging by the results of the latest election, this scandal might have been effective in reinforcing the incipient regional-tribal politicized identity that is perniciously creeping to the fore of Zambian politics. Should this trend continue, then it will almost certainly catalyze a larger centrifugal process whereby the decay of inclusive socialist-era Zambian patriotism accelerates to become an all-out rapid post-modern degeneration into regionalized, tribalized, and then perhaps even localized identities that split the country into halves and possibly even divide it further into a multidimensional mix of militantly conflicting variables (“stereotypical African tribal warfare”). More than likely though, the immediate effect of Zambia’s descent into domestic violence would see the western and southern parts of the country teaming up against the northern and eastern ones, though it might not be the Bembas and Tongas that end up starting a war for political power, but the Lozi in “Bartoseland” that spark one for independence or Identity Federalism.

“Barotseland” Separatism And Identity Federalism:

The Lozi account for only about 5.7% of Zambia’s 15 million people, but they’re sparsely spread throughout most of the expansive Western Province and have historic kingdom claims to nearly 44% of the country’s entire territory if one includes their pre-colonial footprint in the contemporary Northwestern and Southern Provinces. The Lozi’s homeland of Bartoseland became a protectorate of the UK in the late 19^th century and came to constitute the vast majority of the then-province of Barotseland-North-Western Rhodesia prior to its merger with its counterpart of North-Eastern Rhodesia in 1911 to form Northern Rhodesia, which would later become Zambia after its 1964 independence.

It was right before the country’s freedom from the British that the Barotseland issue returned to the national spotlight, as all sides agreed to the Barotseland Agreement in that year which gave the region broad autonomy over its civil affairs. Kaunda, however, rescinded this in 1969 following a constitutional referendum that equalized each province’s status and tangentially ended up changing Barotseland’s name to the Western Province (with its historical territory in the modern-day Northwestern and Southern Provinces never having been administratively incorporated into its namesake entity). The topic subsequently remained a non-issue for decades until the past couple of years ago when activists made a fuss about it on several occasions and ended up in jail for their attention-seeking stunts. There were even riots in the regional capital of Mungu in 2011 and 2013, but these were quickly quelled by the authorities. Since then, Barotseland has been a slowly simmering problem that threatens to rise to the surface in the coming future, and it might just receive foreign encouragement because of the geostrategic implications that it would have.

Although Barotseland only encompasses the Western Province, its historical claims stretch into the Northwestern one and up to the DRC border, which could theoretically put the separatist-federalist entity right in the middle of the Northwestern railroad project to Angola’s Benguela, or in other words, cut right into the middle of the Southern Trans-African Route’s (STAR) Congo-alternative ‘detour’. The proposed Zambian-Angolan rail connection is much more geopolitically reliable than the Katanga corridor due to the DRC’s inherent instability and proneness to large-scale and disruptive conflict, so the inability to construct the Northwestern railroad due to a possible Barotseland secessionist campaign would deal a heavy blow to the long-term strategic security of STAR.

Moreover, even if a future Barotseland conflict with the newly formed “Barotseland Liberation Army” or other groups never directly interferes with STAR, the ensuing domestic political configuration that might occur through the granting of autonomy to the region or even federal status might produce an uncontainable contagion effect that spreads throughout the whole country, possibly leading to its full-on devolution and the granting of quasi-independent autonomous/federalized status to the Northwest Province as well. Zambia is already giving more power to the provincial and local governments as per the 2013 Decentralization Policy, and this initiative could be exploited by regional-tribal actors such as the Barotse, or even the Bemba and Tonga in the event of large-scale post-election clashes between them, in order to promote a nationwide devolution of power which would transition Zambia from a unitary state into a series of autonomous or federalized statelets.

Regardless if it’s sparked by the Barotseland separatists or not, the nationwide fulfillment of this scenario could lead to a these semi-independent identity-based statelets controlling disrupting, controlling, and/or influencing the five separate multipolar transnational connective infrastructure projects running through Zambia and linking together the whole of Southern Africa, which could thenceforth create a cartographic checkerboard of opportunities for out-of-regional states such as the US to divide-and-rule these vital transit corridors

ULTIMATE DISRUPTOR: Weapons Of Mass Migration:

It’s difficult to predict if, or when, this might happen, but should any form of significant conflict break out in the DRC, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, or perhaps even Angola or Tanzania, then the wave of Weapons of Mass Migration that might crash into the historically stable state of Zambia could totally upend the domestic harmony that’s pervaded the country for decades and push it to the brink of civil breakdown. The ‘opposition’-manufactured tension between the Bemba and Tonga, to say nothing of the separatist desires of a progressively loud segment of the Lozi in Barotseland, could be inflamed and each respective identity group might see a valuable window of opportunity for promoting their agenda amidst the confusion and disorder that a large-scale migrant influx might bring.

It’s not to imply that the arrival of thousands of migrants would instantly lead to a reversal of law and order in the country, but that it would indeed cause a divisive reaction among the locals and cause unforeseen budgetary, administrative, and policing pressures which could in turn worsen existing institutional stresses. Depending on the intensity of the onslaught, it might either progressively or rapidly overwhelm these said entities and contribute to the perception of state weakness – one which opportunistic non-state actors and ‘opposition’ parties might be keen to take advantage of. Despite its location at the crossroads of South-Central Africa, Zambia has yet to experience a massive inflow of migrant/refugees from its neighbors, and even so, it was much more politically and socially cohesive under the Cold War presidency of Kaunda to handle any such contingency. The situation is dramatically different nowadays, and as the elections clearly exhibit, the country is sharply divided into two competing political factions, the balance of which might be disastrously disturbed by the sudden introduction of this rogue and ultra-unpredictable third-party element.

To be continued…

Andrew Korybko is the American political commentator currently working for the Sputnik agency. He is the author of the monograph “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime Change” (2015). This text will be included into his forthcoming book on the theory of Hybrid Warfare.

PREVIOUS CHAPTERS:

Hybrid Wars 1. The Law Of Hybrid Warfare

Hybrid Wars 2. Testing the Theory – Syria & Ukraine

Hybrid Wars 3. Predicting Next Hybrid Wars

Hybrid Wars 4. In the Greater Heartland

Hybrid Wars 5. Breaking the Balkans

Hybrid Wars 6. Trick To Containing China

Hybrid Wars 7. How The US Could Manufacture A Mess In Myanmar

Why did President Donald Trump fire off an angry and threatening tweet early Thursday morning following the violent protests that had broken out the night before on UC Berkeley campus?  Here’s a copy of Trump’s tweet:

If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?

Maybe the impulsive President was just angry that a controversial, rightwing speaker like Milo Yiannopoulos was unable to deliver his presentation because masked agitators began to rampage across the campus breaking windows, burning signs and wreaking havoc. That’s certainly one possibility, but there are other more intriguing explanations that seem equally likely.

Consider this: Like most Americans, Trump knows that these anarchist groups show up routinely at peaceful demonstrations with the intention of raising hell and discrediting the groups that peacefully assemble to express their opinion on one issue or another. In this case, the protestors had gathered in opposition to a man who seemingly advocates religious intolerance and Islamophobia. Trump was well aware of this.

He also knew that the UC Berkeley Chancellor and his staff did everything in their power to provide security to both the speaker and the groups that had gathered for the event.  Check out this excerpt from an article at  Bloomberg:

Some advocates for universities and education said they were surprised by Trump’s tweet…

“I have never seen anything like this,” said John Walda, president of the National Association of College and Business Officers. “Why would you infer that you want to punish a university” when it was only trying to protect people. The university “did exactly the right thing,” he said…

The university said Chancellor Nicholas Dirks had made clear that Yiannopoulos’ “views, tactics and rhetoric are profoundly contrary to those of the campus,” but that the university is committed to “enabling of free expression across the full spectrum of opinion and perspective” and condemned the violence.

Berkeley seems to have done everything it can to protect students’ First Amendment rights, Cohn said.

(“Trump Threatens U.C. Berkeley Funding Over Violent Protests“, Bloomberg)

So if the Chancellor had already gone the extra mile to protect free speech, then why did Trump decide to lower the boom on him? Was he genuinely angry with the Chancellor’s performance or did he interject himself for political reasons?  In other words, how did Trump stand to benefit from getting involved in this mess?

Isn’t his tweet crafted to win support from his red state base who identify Berkeley with the erratic behavior of the “loony left” that burn flags, spit on veterans, and hate America?  Isn’t it designed to discredit the millions of  liberal and progressive protestors who have peacefully participated in pro-immigration demonstrations or anti-Trump marches across the country? Isn’t Trump’s interference  intended to make him look like a strong, decisive leader willing to defend free speech against hypocritical leftists thugs who violently oppose anyone who doesn’t share their narrow “librul” point of view. Isn’t the action part of a broader plan to reinforce a stereotypical view of liberals as sandal clad, fist pumping, Marxist firebrands who want to burn down the country so they can create their own Soviet Utopia?

Isn’t this really why Trump decided to parachute into the event, to enlarge and polish his own image while exacerbating existing political divisions within the country?

Trump’s reaction to the incident in Berkeley is worth paying attention to if only to grasp that –what we are seeing– is not the random act of an impulsive man, but a governing style that requires an identifiable threat to domestic security, “the left”.  A divisive president only prevails when the country is divided,  when Americans are at each others throats and split between Sunni and Shia.  That’s the goal, driving a wedge between people of differing views, exacerbating historic animosities in order to enhance the authority of the executive and usurp greater control over the levers of state power.

Once again, we’re not excluding the possibility that Trump’s tweet may have been a “one off” by an impulsive man but, by the same token, it might be an indication of something more serious altogether.

Keep in mind, that Trump’s chief political strategist, Steve Bannon, is a man who produced documentary movies on Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, and Occupy (Wall Street).  According to Salon:

Bannon does not hide his affinity for propaganda. He has cited as an inspiration Nazi propagandist and filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl. She famously directed “Triumph of the Will,” a film commissioned by Adolf Hitler in 1933 that portrays Germany as a country returning to world power.
(“Three lessons we learned about Steve Bannon from this weekend’s New York Times and Boston Globe profiles “, Salon)

So at best Steve Bannon is a public relations magician and at worst an unapologetic propagandist. But what is so telling about Bannon is his position in the administration. Bannon occupies the seat closest to the throne which shows how much emphasis Trump places on image, public perception and narrative. Bannon is Trump’s most trusted ally, the spinmeister whose job it is to create the Great Leader who is admired and loved by his loyal base but feared and despised by his enemies. All of this fits seamlessly with Trump’s Berkeley tweet.

And it also fits with Trump’s governing style which is geared to deepen divisions, increase social unrest, and create enemies, real or imagined.  In this view, Berkeley was just a dry run, an experiment in perception management orchestrated to sharpen Trump’s image as the hair-trigger Biblical father who will intercede whenever necessary and who is always ready to impose justice with an iron fist.

So the masked rioters actually did Trump a favor, didn’t they? They created a justification for presidential intervention backed by the prospect of direct involvement. One can only wonder how many similar experiments will transpire before Trump puts his foot down and bans demonstrations altogether?

Of course, that may very well be the objective.

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

Donald Trump’s predecessors, Bush and Obama, paved the way for President Chito’s persecution of people from Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, and Iraq, all of which “have been attacked with military action, proxy wars and sanctions.”

Trump simply continues a U.S. policy that “makes countries unlivable and then tells fleeing victims that the door is shut.” Anti-Trumpism is grossly inadequate. The whole system is evil — Democrats included.

It is good to fight for humane treatment of Syrians but their rights should be respected whether they are at an American airport or in Damascus.

The trope of supporting the Democratic Party as the lesser of two evils has proven to be a huge failure. Barack Obama epitomized the foolishness of this political choice. As Black Agenda Report pointed out he was not less evil than Republican presidents. He was just the more effective evil. As the first black president and with the Democrats’ undeserved reputation as the party of justice and peace, he was able to get away with more evil doing than any other president in recent memory.

Donald Trump is just the opposite.

He is openly evil and successfully appealed to 60 million voters in spite of, or in some cases, because of that fact. In little more than one week Trump has moved forward on his pledge to build a wall on the Mexican border, repeal the Affordable Care Act without replacing it, build the DAPL and Keystone XL pipelines, and ban immigration from seven predominantly Muslim nations.

His executive order banning citizens of Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, and Iraq from entering the United States generated immediate outrage and a swell of popular action. What went unnoticed is that citizens of these seven nations were first chosen for scrutiny and travel restrictions by Barack Obama.

All seven of these countries have at various times been subjected to American aggression.

Trump’s executive order only mentions Syria by name and includes other “countries of concern,” a term that is an Obama administration contrivance. Visa waivers no longer applied to people who visited any of these countries. Even persons with dual citizenships were subjected to these restrictions which amounted to nothing more than war by other means. All seven of these countries have at various times been subjected to American aggression. They have all been attacked with military action, proxy wars and sanctions. America makes countries unlivable and then tells fleeing victims that the door is shut.

The Trump team’s amateurishness turned the immigration ban into a public relations problem. They did not anticipate popular outcry, demonstrators converging on airports and lawsuits filed to protect people who just 24 hours earlier were legally able to enter the country. Some were freed in the ensuing chaos but others were detained or stranded and unable to enter the country. Federal judges ruled against it in a variety of ways and the acting attorney general finally declared that the Justice Department would not defend the executive order. Trump responded by firing her.

But these temporary setbacks should not be seen as a complete victory nor should they result in support for the Democrats. The ham fisted Donald Trump did what others have done before him. He benefited from policies enacted by predecessors and gave himself wider latitude to carry out human rights abuses. Bush claimed a right to indefinitely detain anyone he considered a terror suspect. Obama took this doctrine one step further. He claimed and acted upon a right to kill anyone he deemed a terror suspect. The NSEERS policy which subjected men from 25 countries to travel restrictions and extra scrutiny began with Bush but was continued under Obama for two years. Obama did not dismantle the program completely until he was on the verge of leaving office.

Trump benefited from policies enacted by predecessors and gave himself wider latitude to carry out human rights abuses.

The response to this crisis must include an honest assessment of the Democratic Party and its role in creating it. The Democrats’ treachery and ineptitude which brought Trump to power has still not been discussed thoroughly and should be on the agenda for any and all discussions. Right wing Democrats like Cory Booker should not be let off the hook because they showed up at an airport making an obvious case for following immigration law. This same man turned his back on the wishes of his supporters and instead followed the dictates of his corporate backers when he thwarted a plan to bring cheaper drugs into the country. The politicians who put their thumbs on the scale for the unethical and incompetent Hillary Clinton also must explain themselves. This needed conversation cannot be lost in the effort to fight Trump.

No one should think that the Democratic Party will be able to capitalize on this situation or anything else Trump presents to them. One can also assume that his 60 million voters are quite happy with this decision and will applaud him for making it. There isn’t necessarily a downside for Trump in getting bad press when his would-be opponents are hapless and won’t admit that their implosion handed him the presidency.

It is a good thing that so many people rose up against presidential law breaking. But that presents yet another contradiction. This resistance will be valuable only if it results in mass action against the larger political system. Selective amnesia for Hillary Clinton or other Democrats will not do. Appeals to the phony clarion call for lesser evilism should not be the response to Trump administration policies.

There isn’t necessarily a downside for Trump in getting bad press when his would-be opponents are hapless and won’t admit that their implosion handed him the presidency.

It is good to fight for humane treatment of Syrians but their rights should be respected whether they are at an American airport or in Damascus. They leave their homeland because Obama administration policy destroyed their country in the frenzy for regime change and that must not be forgotten. The silence of Obama supporters during the commission of this war crime should not be forgotten either.

The ruling classes prefer Obamaesque evil over Trump’s for obvious reasons. They need a president who can commit wrongdoing with a smile, not with a sneer. We the people shouldn’t be fooled by either one. The story of the immigration executive order is a test case for progressives. Will they fight by returning to a discredited party or will they fight to create something new?

Democratic senators ought to reject every Trump appointee still awaiting confirmation. They must act like the Republicans do when they are out of power. Until the immigration executive order some Democrats, like progressive heroine Elizabeth Warren, were supporting some Trump nominees. The “going along to get along” must end. But so should support for the Democrats. People who raced to the airport to try to help their fellow human beings should look elsewhere and kill off the incompetent lesser evil for good.

Democrats owe their members more than just speaking up when Trump commits an illegal act. That is just a starting point. The Trump presidency is proof of the Democratic Party’s irrelevance. Its failure is proof that new politics are needed. Claims of lesser/greater evil must not rule the day. All of the evil must be excised no matter where it comes from.

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

Trump impulsa un proyecto reaccionario que no se clarifica indagando el populismo. Promueve un giro autoritario con sostén para-institucional para favorecer a los capitalistas. La inédita resistencia en las calles reflota tradiciones rebeldes y acota su margen de acción.

En la estratégica pulseada con China pretende renegociar tratados sin retornar al viejo proteccionismo. La agresión a México es una advertencia a los grandes competidores y el maltrato a los inmigrantes anticipa una fase de neoliberalismo xenófobo.

El componente keynesiano de Trump no atenúa su carácter regresivo. El ascenso del magnate potencia el belicismo y enlaza la crisis europea con el devenir estadounidense. El impacto sobre América Latina es mayúsculo.

Trump confirmó en sus primeros días que es un mandatario reaccionario con múltiples planes de atropellos. Mientras crece la resistencia callejera, la viabilidad de su agresión es una incógnita. Pero en cualquier caso, una acertada caracterización de su proyecto vale más que incontables vaticinios.

UNA AGENDA VIRULENTA 

Las órdenes ejecutivas que firmó el magnate ilustran sus propósitos trogloditas. Ratificó la construcción del muro a cargo de México, puso en marcha la expulsión de indocumentados, anuló el visado para varios países árabes, anunció la quita de subsidios federales a las ciudades que protejan inmigrantes, inició la liquidación del seguro de salud (Obamacare) y congeló la contratación de empleados estatales.

Su gabinete de generales y multimillonarios incluye expertos en destruir la educación pública (Betsy DeVos), vaciar el sistema sanitario (Tom Price), liquidar el ambientalismo (Scott Prui) y congelar el salario mínimo (Andy Puzder). Su vicepresidente (Mike Spence) lidera las campañas de penalización del aborto y sus principales funcionarios son declarados anti-islamistas (Michael Flynn) o pregoneros del suprematismo blanco (Bannon).

Como el exponente del lobby petrolero (Tillerson) ya rehabilitó la construcción de oleoductos contaminantes, es posible un debut represivo contra los pobladores que resisten en Dakota, esos devastadores emprendimientos.

La predisposición de Trump por el garrote se verificó en su justificación de la tortura. Garantizó protección total a las actividades de la CIA y subió el tono de los insultos contra la prensa por su cobertura de las manifestaciones opositoras. Con una fábula sobre los sufragios fraudulentos, prepara algún mecanismo de disuasión del registro de votantes.

Trump negocia con el establishment republicano el plan económico y la política exterior, respaldando las campañas oscurantistas de los ultra-derechistas de su gabinete. Esa agenda incluye iniciativas de los suprematistas contra los afro-americanos y los derechos conquistados por otras minorías. No sólo los latinos están excluidos de su proyecto de “hacer nuevamente grande” a los Estados Unidos (Davis, 2016).

El magnate sabe que su giro xenofóbico requiere más acciones que palabras. Busca el sostén activo de su electorado para diabolizar a los mexicanos y atacar a los musulmanes. Por eso convoca a los “verdaderos estadounidenses” a sostener su figura contra los “políticos profesionales” del Congreso.

Su combinación de verborragia agresiva y caudillismo nacionalista ha sido identificada por numerosos analistas con el “populismo anti-sistémico” (Fraga, 2016). Utilizan esa denominación para cuestionar su demagogia y su desconocimiento de los principios republicanos. Subrayan que esos defectos son internacionalmente compartidos por líderes de la derecha y la izquierda

Pero la inconsistencia de esta comparación salta a la vista en el caso de Trump. Se pueden trazar paralelos con Le Pen, pero cualquier parentesco con Maduro o Evo Morales es un disparate. El mote de populista oscurece que el potentado es un exponente de la clase capitalista, que busca reconstituir el sistema político estadounidense mediante una gestión autoritaria.

Como esa meta exige soportes para-institucionales, la coalición gobernante incluye el componente fascista de las milicias y de los grupos que promueven el uso de las armas en las universidades.

Algunos autores (Cabrera, 2017) resaltan acertadamente estas amenazas, frente a las vacilaciones de los progresistas que contemporizan con Trump. Esos enfoques describen el voto obrero logrado por el multimillonario como una simple manifestación de descontento, diluyendo su carácter reaccionario. También despliegan acertados cuestionamientos a Obama e Hilary, desconsiderando el peligro que representa el nuevo presidente (Fraser, 2017). Con esa actitud resulta difícil valorar la extraordinaria explosión de protestas que desencadenó la llegada de Trump.

UNA RESISTENCIA INÉDITA

 Ningún otro presidente inició su mandato con tanto rechazo inicial. Cuatro millones de manifestantes transformaron la fisonomía de las principales ciudades de Estados Unidos. Pero más llamativa ha sido la radicalidad de los discursos y las consignas.

Bajo un alud de carteles proclamando que Trump “no es mi presidente”, numerosos oradores resaltaron la ilegitimidad del mandatario. Las encuestas ratificaron que la mitad de la población convalida esa percepción. No sólo Michael Moore y los seguidores de Sanders cuestionan la validez de la actual gestión presidencial. Algunas personalidades del establishment coinciden en ese desconocimiento (Krugman, 2017). Estos planteos socavan los cimientos del sistema institucional estadounidense.

La ceremonia de asunción fue boicoteada por cuarenta senadores liderados por un emblemático luchador afro-americano (Lewis). Este convulsivo escenario suscita impensables comparaciones con los países latinoamericanos.

Junto a las protestas emerge una nueva cultura de resistencia presente en ingeniosos carteles, que recuerdan a los grafiti del 68. Las redes sociales sustituyen las viejas pinturas en los paredones, facilitando la difusión instantánea de los mensajes. La repercusión internacional de esos slogans crece junto a un repudio de Trump, que es compartido por toda la comunidad artística de Hollywood.

La próxima batalla se librará en las “ciudades santuario” que extendieron documentos de protección a los perseguidos. Las autoridades de 300 centros urbanos han declarado que resistirán las exigencias federales de deportación,  subrayando “que la inmigración hace grande a América”.

Varios comentaristas trazan comparaciones con el clima que anticipó en los años 60, las movilizaciones contra la guerra de Vietnam. Ese recuerdo ha sustituido las analogías de Trump con Reagan por semejanzas más pertinentes con Nixon. Si la resistencia se consolida, los planes del nuevo mandatario afrontarán los mismos límites que paralizaron a ese antecesor.

Trump reabre viejas heridas de la sociedad estadounidense. Confronta con los descendientes de pueblos originarios sioux, que rechazan los oleoductos contaminantes. En el piquete de Standing Rock fue conmemorado el saqueo sufrido por esa comunidad, con apoyos que incluyeron a varios veteranos de guerra. Todos pidieron perdón por el exterminio de los indios y su confinamiento en reservas (Honty, 2016).

Este resurgimiento de antiguas grietas es más agudo en la cuestión racial. Trump acoge a los encubiertos simpatizantes del Ku Klux Klan, que heredan el odio de los derrotados plantadores del Sur hacia los afroamericanos. Durante la última centuria, ese sector preservó un enorme poder en los ministerios, tribunales y legislaturas (Pozzi, 2016) y sostuvo el sistema electoral que premia a los estados rurales, conservadores y con menor población (Majfud, 2016).

Trump fue ungido por ese antidemocrático sistema que vulneró la mayoría de sufragios obtenidos por su contrincante. Ahora reabre desde la presidencia las fracturas más dolorosas de la historia estadounidense. Su presencia en la Casa Blanca ha desatado un terremoto político. Luego del impresionante apoyo logrado por Sanders, esa convulsión ha creado un gran auditorio para las propuestas de la izquierda.

LA PULSEADA ESTRATÉGICA CON CHINA

Trump no es un extraviado que improvisa la gestión de la primera potencia. Parte de diagnósticos elaborados por centros de estudios del establishment, que han constatado cómo la globalización neoliberal impulsada por Estados Unidos beneficia a China (Silva Flores, Lara Cortes, 2017).

Resolver esa contradicción es el principal objetivo del acaudalado. Busca ante todo reducir el descomunal déficit comercial con el gigante asiático. Promueve ese balanceo mediante una revisión de los tratados de libre comercio, que no aportan suficientes ganancias a la economía yanqui.

Por eso inauguró su gestión frenando la negociación del convenio transpacífico, que a su juicio otorgaba demasiadas concesiones a los restantes miembros de la asociación.

Esta decisión no implica el repliegue proteccionista de una economía tan enlazada con circuitos internacionales de abastecimiento. Trump intenta reordenar (y no suprimir) los tratados que rigen el comercio mundial, a través del esquema concertado por la OMC a mitad de los 90.

El magnate busca recuperar la hegemonía de Estados Unidos en el intercambio global (Lucita, 2016). No pretende revertir la estructura internacional de transacciones, que actualmente manejan las empresas multinacionales.

Ese tipo de revisión ya fue perpetrada por Estados Unidos, cuando sustituyó el fracaso del ALCA por convenios bilaterales con distintos países latinoamericanos. Ahora prepara una renegociación que preservará todos los ítems que apuntalan a la potencia del Norte.

Trump retomará del caído TTP (y del  pendiente TISA) las conveniencias logradas por las firmas estadounidenses en los derechos de propiedad de varias áreas (remedios, cinematografía, informática, correo, aeronáutica, finanzas). Buscará convalidar la supremacía de su país en los servicios y el acceso privilegiado a las compras públicas de otras naciones (Ghiotto, Heidel 2016).

Pero la negociación con China es más compleja. Trump no sólo exige la apertura del mercado asiático a los bancos y proveedores estadounidenses. También demanda límites a la penetración directa de productos chinos o a su ingreso lateral, a través de plataformas de producción en terceros países. Los automóviles están en mira de ese operativo.

La presión contra el competidor oriental se extiende a la esfera monetaria. Trump no obstruirá la compra de bonos del tesoro -que preserva la preeminencia internacional del dólar- pero tratará de evitar la apreciación de la moneda norteamericana (y las devaluaciones del yuan), que afectan las exportaciones de la primera potencia.

Con ese duro esquema de hostigamiento comercial-monetario, el magnate intentará doblegar a China, sin afectar el predominio de los sectores altamente internacionalizados de la economía estadounidense.

El conflicto estratégico que se avecina con el gigante oriental tiene semejanzas con la pugna mantenida con la Unión Soviética. Los presidentes republicanos se han especializado en confrontaciones de ese tipo. Reagan potenció la guerra fría, Bush lideró invasiones en Medio Oriente y Trump encabeza la pulseada con China.

Pero en el establishment hay muchas dudas sobre ese desafío (Nye, 2017). Los halcones suponen que China es económicamente vulnerable e incapaz de sustituir a Estados Unidos, en el comando del capitalismo globalizado.

Pero el sector que predominaba con Obama teme las consecuencias de ese choque. Promueve la neutralización de China, mediante su incorporación plena (y consiguiente subordinación) a los circuitos globales de las finanzas (poder de voto en el FMI) y la moneda (constitución de un signo mundial con participación del yuan) (Bond, 2015)..

Trump ya empezó su ofensiva con una llamada telefónica a Taiwán, pero prepara con cuidado la escalada. El gobierno chino respondió con dureza, ofreciendo en Davos nuevos tratados de libre-comercio a todos los socios en disputa. Mientras evita discutir la apertura interna, contraataca con propuestas de globalización potenciada.

China ya puso en marcha su propio convenio en el Pacífico (AGER), afianza el estratégico acuerdo de Shangai con Rusia y logró inéditas aproximaciones con Filipinas, Malasia y varios países del Sudeste Asiático. Frente a semejante resistencia, Trump ensaya la futura confrontación, con provocaciones a un vecino indefenso del hemisferio americano.

EL SENTIDO DE LA AGRESIÓN A MÉXICO 

Los furibundos ataques a México son una advertencia a los competidores de mayor porte. Trump ejercita su ofensiva global con la insultante exigencia de construir un muro pagado por las víctimas.

También aquí está en juego la reducción del déficit comercial con el vecino y una renegociación más favorable del convenio comercial (NAFTA). Pero como esos desbalances son inferiores a los vigentes con otros países, es evidente que el gesto de patota hacia México tantea pulseadas de mayor alcance.

Trump supone que Peña Nieto aceptará todas las humillaciones. No olvida que el actual canciller Videgaray lo invitó como candidato a despreciar públicamente a México. Imagina que el establishment de ese país carece de un plan alternativo a la subordinación al Norte y está seguro del acompañamiento de Canadá.

Por eso chantajea con el arancelamiento de importaciones provenientes de una economía, que destina a Estados Unidos el 90% de sus ventas. Complementa esa presión con amenazas de impuestos a las remesas.

El muro es un mensaje de persecución total. Más que la construcción efectiva del paredón -que ya fue concretada en un tercio por las administraciones anteriores- le interesa emitir una señal de agresión sin límite. Sugiere una pesadilla semejante a la padecida por los palestinos en Cisjordania.

La expulsión de mexicanos sintetiza su nuevo plan de gestión reaccionaria de la fuerza de trabajo. Trump pretende reforzar la vieja segmentación de los asalariados que ha caracterizado al capitalismo estadounidense. Esa división facilitó la dominación burguesa. Al principio eran contrapuestos los inmigrantes europeos de distintas nacionalidades y posteriormente se propició la confrontación de los trabajadores blancos con los negros y latinos (Gordon, 1985)..

En las últimas décadas esta fractura fue utilizada por consolidar la reducción de los ingresos populares. El salario mínimo es actualmente inferior en un 25 por ciento al vigente en 1968, a pesar de la duplicación que registró la productividad.

Trump resucita el nacionalismo para recrear la vieja segmentación de los trabajadores en el nuevo escenario neoliberal. Combina chauvinismo con privatizaciones y flexibilización laboral. Utiliza la xenofobia y limita la movilidad de los asalariados para consolidar el poder del capital.

Esa restricción es su principal foco de revisión de los tratados de libre comercio. En ningún momento objeta la continuidad de la acumulación a escala mundial. Postula ampliar el esquema predominante en la relación entre China y Estados Unidos, que excluye la circulación entre los trabajadores de ambos países (Panitch, 2016)..

El Brexit anticipó esta nueva tendencia. Supone renegociar las normas del comercio entre Inglaterra y Europa, pero sobre todo apunta a restaurar las restricciones al ingreso de inmigrantes. También conduce al desconocimiento británico de las leyes laborales y sociales del Viejo Continente. Al que igual que en Estados Unidos, los capitalistas buscan redoblar sus agresiones usufructuando de las divisiones en la clase obrera.

Con la obstrucción de la movilidad de la fuerza de trabajo, Trump y sus colegas ingleses promueven otro modelo de globalización asimétrica. Intentan reemplazar el alicaído cosmopolitismo de la Tercera Vía por un nuevo coctel de neoliberalismo con xenofobia. Este giro se implementa a través de estados nacionales, que persisten como el cimiento insoslayable de la mundialización neoliberal.

Es importante registrar el carácter limitado del cambio propiciado por Trump, frente a la generalizada identificación de su política con el viejo proteccionismo (Algañaraz, 2017) o con el fin de la globalización (Pérez Llana, 2017). Esas caracterizaciones han sido acertadamente objetadas, por los autores que describen las diferencias del curso actual con los modelos clásicos de arancelamiento (Puello Socarrás, 2017). En el giro propuesto hay muchas continuidades con el esquema neoliberal de las últimas décadas (Robinson, 2017)..

Trump forma parte de ese período por su evidente promoción de la ofensiva del capital sobre el trabajo. Plantea revisar las normas de comercio dentro del marco de la mundialización. No auspicia ninguna eliminación de las cadenas globales de valor, que rigen la fabricación internacionalizada de incontables mercancías.

Ni siquiera postula alterar la globalización financiera. Se ha rodeado de la crema de Wall Street y trabaja con los republicanos más hostiles a cualquier regulación del movimiento internacional de los capitales.

LOS RIESGOS DE LA ECONOMÍA

Como Trump debutó abriendo muchos frentes de conflicto, necesitará logros económicos próximos para oxigenar su gestión. En lo inmediato promueve el programa de obras públicas, que muchos sectores demandaron infructuosamente a Obama.

Un magnate que amasó fortunas con desarrollos inmobiliarios sintoniza con todos los negocios de infraestructura. Esa inversión es impostergable en una economía afectada por el vetusto estado de los servicios públicos. Al cabo de tres décadas de contracción en ese segmento de los gastos federales, la antigüedad de esos activos supera los 22 años.

La propuesta de Trump no es tan ambiciosa e involucra erogaciones muy inferiores a las efectivizadas por China en el último decenio. Pero incluso a esa escala hay pocos antecedentes de efectividad en ese tipo de iniciativas. Ninguna economía occidental ha logrado recientemente reactivaciones sustanciales por esa vía. El último fracaso se registró en Japón. El Abe-economics -que anticipó algunos rasgos del Trump-economics- no logró reanimar el aparato productivo (Robert, 2016)..

El proyecto del millonario supone, además, un gran endeudamiento público y el significativo incremento de las tasas de interés. Ese encarecimiento revertiría la baratura crediticia que alivió a la economía estadounidense en los últimos años.

Por el momento los mercados financieros están satisfechos con su nuevo representante en la Casa Blanca. Aprueban la inminente reducción de impuestos a las actividades empresarias y avalan el protagonismo de los banqueros en el gabinete. Pero habrá que ver cómo reaccionan los fondos de inversión con fuertes tenencias de títulos estadounidenses, ante el incremento del déficit fiscal.

Un riesgo semejante introduce la preeminencia del lobby petrolero. Los popes de este sector (Tillerson, Rick Perry, Scott Pruit) no sólo recuperan el dominio que tuvieron durante la gestión de los Bush. Su total negación del cambio climático augura el congelamiento de las tratativas para frenar el calentamiento global y una renovada emisión de gases tóxicos. Al concluir el quinquenio más cálido de la historia reciente se avecina el desmantelamiento de la Agencia de Protección Ambiental (Chomsky, 2016).

Resulta difícil imaginar cómo hará Trump para lograr su prometida recomposición del empleo industrial. Ninguna de sus propuestas revierte la especialización de la economía estadounidense, en servicios o fabricaciones de bienes finales. Esas medidas tampoco contrarrestan los procesos de automatización que desplazan mano de obra. En ningún caso permitirían abaratar el costo de la fuerza de trabajo a una escala comparativa con Asia.

El modelo en marcha supone una mezcla de monetarismo (alza de las tasas de interés) y ofertismo (reducción de impuestos), con ingredientes keynesianos  (reactivación con gasto publico). Este último componente suscita elogios de algunos pensadores heterodoxos, que divorcian la política económica de la orientación reaccionaria de Trump (Varoufakis, 2016). La recuperación capitalista que promueve ese proyecto no atenúa su regresividad.

REPLANTEOS INTERNACIONALES 

El  belicismo de Trump salta a la vista en los asesores del presidente. Incorporó más militares en cargos de seguridad, que cualquier otro gobierno de los últimos 60 años. En su gabinete predominan los mismos partidarios de la unipolaridad armada, que prevalecieron en la gestión de los Bush. Ya dispuso incrementos de sueldos en el ejército y un mayor presupuesto para el Pentágono.

El magnate desmintió todas las expectativas de repliegue interno de la primera potencia. El sheriff del planeta calibra sus cañones y refuta todas esperanzas de aislacionsimo. La valorización de acciones del complejo industrial-militar anticipa su agenda intervencionista..

Esa escalada tiene precedentes en Obama, que recompuso la presencia internacional del Pentágono con incrementos de bases internacionales (de 60 en 2009 a 138 en 2016) y autorizó el lanzamiento de 26.171 bombas (Gandásegui, 2017).

Estados Unidos es el protector militar del capitalismo global y no tiene en carpeta ningún abandono de ese rol. Las incógnitas giran en torno a los objetivos geopolíticos específicos de esa acción.

Trump intenta una aproximación con Rusia para debilitar a China. Invierte el operativo de Nixon, que en los años 70 buscó socavar a la URSS acordando con el gigante asiático.

Los contratos petroleros suscriptos con Putin por el secretario Tillerson (en representación de Exxon Mobil) prepararon el nuevo curso. Pero en el Departamento de Estado existen serias resistencias a ese rumbo. Por eso se han filtrado tantos secretos de la relación de Trump con Moscú.

La elite rusa aprueba el afianzamiento de las relaciones con Occidente. Deposita sus fortunas en Londres, educa a sus hijos en Harvard, vacaciona en Miami y consuma negocios turbios en Ginebra (Kagarlisky, 2015). Pero como Estados Unidos nunca ofrece algo a cambio de la simple subordinación, todos los acercamientos desembocan en nuevos distanciamientos.

La experiencia Yeltsin quedó atrás y Putin no acepta el sometimiento propiciado por los antecesores de Trump. Rusia estableció numerosos convenios con China y acaba de exhibir ambiciones geoestratégicas en Siria (Katz, 2017).

El ocupante de la Casa Blanca afronta, además, serios conflictos con gobiernos europeos por su aproximación a Putin. Varios líderes del Viejo Continente se niegan a eliminar las sanciones introducidas por Hollande y Obama durante la crisis de Ucrania. Esos desacuerdos agravan el malestar generado por las exigencias estadounidenses de mayor financiamiento europeo de la OTAN. Este disenso se extiende incluso al incondicional socio británico.

El impacto de Trump es especialmente significativo en Inglaterra. Ha reforzado a los partidarios de concretar aceleradamente el Brexit, para actualizar la alianza transoceánica y diversificar acuerdos de libre-comercio con distintas regiones. Pero los oponentes a esa separación demoran las definiciones y auspician un status intermedio con Europa (semejante a Noruega). Otros proponen una larga transición de siete años y todos dependen de una resolución final del Parlamento.

Para contrarrestar la presión de los bancos -que perderían con el Brexit la centralidad de la City en la absorción del capital europeo-el gobierno ofrece ampliar las atribuciones de Londres, como paraíso financiero desregulado. En la dura negociación comercial con Alemania, amenazan con ofrecer mayores subsidios a las empresas para atraer inversiones del Viejo Continente.

Pero todas estas jugadas empalidecen frente a la amenaza de Escocia de convocar a un nuevo plebiscito, para dirimir la separación del Reino Unido si se concreta el abandono de Europa.

El ascenso de Trump también influye en los resultados de los próximos comicios presidenciales en Francia. La extrema derecha espera repetir lo ocurrido en el mundo anglosajón. Pero a diferencia de Estados Unidos no tienen una estrategia a futuro. Proclaman su rechazo a cualquier modalidad de la Unión Europea y al mismo tiempo refuerzan lazos parlamentarios, con los partidos derechistas del Viejo Continente.

En semejante desconcierto no es muy sensato coquetear con la oleada actual elogiando el Brexit o aprobando el proteccionismo (Sapir, 2016). Al igual que en Estados Unidos, el acompañamiento del grueso de la clase obrera a las propuestas reaccionarias, no atenúa la regresividad de esos planteos.

La izquierda debe plantar su propia bandera denunciando por igual a los xenófobos y a los liberales. Es cierto que Trump y Le Pen ascienden por la decepción con Obama y Hollande, pero ese avance expresa una canalización reaccionaria de la frustración precedente.

La misma firmeza debe prevalecer a la hora de juzgar las respuestas conservadoras a Trump. La actitud del gobierno chino es particularmente nefasta, puesto que contrapone las ventajas del libre-comercio a la agresividad estadounidense.

Ese mensaje refuta a quiénes ponderan el modelo internacional de China, como una alternativa progresista al neoliberalismo occidental (Escobar, 2016). En un momento de mutaciones tan drásticas, la izquierda necesita enarbolar sus propias banderas anticapitalistas.

 EL TEMBLOR EN AMÉRICA LATINA 

En ningún país del mundo la presidencia de Trump desata convulsiones equivalentes a México. El gobierno está totalmente mareado y Peña Nieto sólo pospuso la peregrinación a Washington, cuando su agresor le explicitó la inutilidad del encuentro. Las críticas a esa genuflexión unificaron a todo el arco opositor.

Los insultos del gringo millonario reavivan la memoria de los avasallamientos sufridos por el país, en un contexto de gran reactivación de la lucha social. Las marchas frente al gasolinazo reforzaron la continuada batalla del magisterio y superaron la reacción ante los crímenes de Ayotzinapa (Aguilar Mora, 2017).

La desorientación que exhibe la clase dominante mexicana se extiende al continente. Todos los mandatarios neoliberales esperaban profundizar con Hilary la restauración conservadora, concertando la Alianza librecambista del Pacífico. Frente al nuevo escenario no logran definir alguna política alternativa. Sólo profundizan la parálisis interna del Mercosur, sin concebir concertaciones defensivas.

Hasta ahora predomina la tendencia a buscar acuerdos de libre-comercio sustitutos, no sólo con la Unión Europea. Argentina y Brasil aceitan eventuales negociaciones con China, registrando la activa agenda de viajes del presidente asiático. Ni siquiera evalúan las consecuencias económicas primarizadoras de esas tratativas.

Si la región queda en el medio de una gran batalla comercial entre Estados Unidos y China, los efectos podrían ser demoledores. Aprovechando la ausencia de políticas soberanas en la región, los dos gigantes disputarían con más ferocidad la colocación de mercancías excedentes y el saqueo de los recursos naturales.

Argentina está particularmente embarcada en esa auto-destrucción. Macri emula a su par estadounidense en la intimidación represiva y la xenofobia anti-inmigrante.

Pero Trump despierta simpatías también en el Cono Sur, entre los políticos que elogian su promoción del mercado interno (Terragno, 2017). Algunos declaran con llamativa admiración que “Trump es peronista” (Moreno, 2017). Explicitan de esa forma el componente reaccionario del justicialismo clásico, que emergió en la época de Isabel Perón.

El lugar de la izquierda está en el campo opuesto de solidaridad con los manifestantes callejeros de Estados Unidos. Esa convergencia se nutre de un rechazo compartido al derechista de la Casa Blanca. El antiimperialismo de América Latina empalma con las demandas democráticas de los indignados del Norte.

Trump inaugura un giro de alcance global. El epicentro de la crisis se ubica primera vez en la principal potencia del planeta. De la misma forma que nadie imaginó la implosión de la Unión Soviética o la conversión de China en potencia económica, tampoco hubo previsiones de la monumental mutación en curso.

Las grandes transformaciones irrumpen sin aviso previo, pero sus efectos están a la vista. Trump es la barbarie capitalista y sus provocaciones exigen forjar una respuesta socialista.

Claudio Katz

Claudio Katz: Economista, investigador del CONICET, profesor de la UBA, miembro del EDI.                                         

Referencia bibliográficas:

Aguilar Mora, Manuel (2017)http://www.sinpermiso.info/textos

Algañaraz, Julio (2017). www.clarin.com/mundo _0_H14vGc0Hg.html

Bond, Patrick (2015) http://vientosur.info/spip.php?article10740.

Cabrera, Luis Martín (2017). www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=221858

Chomsky, Noam (2016) http://revistanorte.com.ar

Davis, Mike (2016). www.sinpermiso.info/textos/trump

Escobar, Pepe (2016) http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=220419

Fraga, Rosendo (2016). www.lanacion.com.ar/1961492

Fraser, Nancy (2017). www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=221955

Gandásegui h, Marco (2017) http://laestrella.com.pa/opinion23981819

Ghiotto, Luciana; Heidel Evelin (2016) www.alainet.org/es/articulo/182379

Gordon, D. M, Edwards, R; Reich, J.M. (1985). Trabajo segmenta­do, trabajadores divididos. Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguri­dad Social, Madrid.

Honty, Gerardo (2016), http://www.alainet.org/es/articulo/182236

Kagarlisky, Boris (2015) www.potemkinreview.com/kagarlitsky-interview.html

Katz Claudio (2017) http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=221819

Krugman, Paul (2017) www.lanacion.com.ar/1976434

Lucita, Eduardo (2016) http://www.laarena.com.ar/opinion 097214-11

Majfud, Jorge (2016) http://www.alainet.org/es/articulo/182149

Moreno, Guillermo (2017) http://www.clarin.com0_ByJM3b-vg.html

Nye, Joseph (2017). www.clarin.com/mundo/nuevo0_S1lL0Xgvg.html

Panitch, Leo (2016). https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/12

Pérez Llana, Carlos (2017). www.clarin.com/opinion0_rk5pMZewe.html

Pozzi, Pablo (2016). http://www.laizquierdadiario.com

Puello Socarrás, José Francisco (2017). https://zur2.wordpress.com

Robert, Michael (2016). http://www.sinpermiso.info/textos

Robinson, William (2017) http://www.alainet.org/es/articulo/182745

Sapir, Jacques (2016)http://www.elviejotopo.com

Silva Flores, Consuelo, Lara Cortes, Claudio (2017) http://www.globalresearch.ca

Terragno, Rodolfo (2017) http://www.clarin.comrkAI9Ha8l.html

Varoufakis, Yanis (2016) http://www.sinpermiso.info/textos