On January 21^st, 2017, the Bank of China has officially opened its regional branch headquarters in Serbian capital Belgrade, to provide banking services for cooperation in investments, trade, tourism and other fields, for countries in the region – Serbia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and others. The ceremony was held in the Government`s Palace and attended by President of the Republic Tomislav Nikolic and members of the Government.

This important development follows last June`s state visit of the President of the Republic of China Xi Jinping to Serbia and also, his talks last week with Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic at Davos Economic Summit in Switzerland.

Establishment of the Bank of China`s regional headquarters in Belgrade, is today the main news in all major medias in Serbia and beyond. This morning I commented this event at the private regional network “TV Pink”. Among other, I noted that cooperation under OBOR, as the global initiative, is not important only for development of CEE countries, but for the whole of Europe. Through win win OBOR cooperation Europe and China are getting closer, what is equally positive form economic, cultural and political point of view, particularly now when EU is passing through serious difficulties.

Serbia`s role in the implementation of the China – CEE cooperation under OBOR is growing. Two countries are strategic partners cooperating in various fields.  In the past five years only, partners from the two countries have been constructing or modernizing roads, highways, railways, ports, bridges, tunnels, thermo-electric plant, steelwork factory, strengthening people to people exchange.  As of 1^st January this year, no-visa system for citizens of the two countries came into force. A number of infrastructure projects, already implemented, or under implementation in Serbia, are highly important for modernization of connectivity in the CEE region, or in Europe.

Cooperation under CEE-OBOR has proved to be very important for Serbia`s overall economic development, modernization of industry and infrastructure and improvement of international standing.

 

On January 21^st, 2017, the Bank of China has officially opened its regional branch headquarters in Serbian capital Belgrade, to provide banking services for cooperation in investments, trade, tourism and other fields, for countries in the region – Serbia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and others. The ceremony was held in the Government`s Palace and attended by President of the Republic Tomislav Nikolic and members of the Government.

This important development follows last June`s state visit of the President of the Republic of China Xi Jinping to Serbia and also, his talks last week with Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic at Davos Economic Summit in Switzerland.

Establishment of the Bank of China`s regional headquarters in Belgrade, is today the main news in all major medias in Serbia and beyond. This morning I commented this event at the private regional network “TV Pink”. Among other, I noted that cooperation under OBOR, as the global initiative, is not important only for development of CEE countries, but for the whole of Europe. Through win win OBOR cooperation Europe and China are getting closer, what is equally positive form economic, cultural and political point of view, particularly now when EU is passing through serious difficulties.

Serbia`s role in the implementation of the China – CEE cooperation under OBOR is growing. Two countries are strategic partners cooperating in various fields.  In the past five years only, partners from the two countries have been constructing or modernizing roads, highways, railways, ports, bridges, tunnels, thermo-electric plant, steelwork factory, strengthening people to people exchange.  As of 1^st January this year, no-visa system for citizens of the two countries came into force. A number of infrastructure projects, already implemented, or under implementation in Serbia, are highly important for modernization of connectivity in the CEE region, or in Europe.

Cooperation under CEE-OBOR has proved to be very important for Serbia`s overall economic development, modernization of industry and infrastructure and improvement of international standing.

 

The Trump administration may recognise that the Syrian army is the only institution committed to resisting terrorism in its country

A new coalition of US-based organisations is pushing for a more aggressive US intervention against the Assad regime. But both the war in Syria and politics in the United States have shifted dramatically against this objective.

When it was formed last July, the coalition hoped that a Hillary Clinton administration would pick up its proposals for a more forward stance in support of the anti-Assad armed groups. But with Donald Trump in office instead, the supporters of a US war in Syria now have little or no chance of selling the idea.

One of the ways the group is adjusting to the new political reality is to package its proposal for deeper US military engagement on behalf of US-supported armed groups as part of a plan to counter al-Qaeda, now calling itself Jabhat Fateh al Sham.

But that rationale depends on a highly distorted presentation of the problematic relations between those supposedly “moderate” groups and al-Qaeda’s Syrian offshoot.

Plan for a Clinton White House…

The “Combating al-Qaeda in Syria Strategy Group” was formed last July by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), according to the policy paper distributed at an event at the Atlantic Council on 12 January.

The “Strategy Group” also includes Charles Lister of the Middle East Institute and Jennifer Cafarella of the Institute for the Study of War, both of whom have advocated direct US military force against the Syrian regime in support of the armed opposition.

The new coalition of think tanks began meeting last summer when the politics in Washington seemed favorable toward a political campaign for decisive US intervention in Syria

But it was CNAS that had the political clout to bring the coalition together under what appeared to be very favourable circumstances. Michele Flournoy, the founder and CEO of CNAS and a former third-ranking Pentagon official, was reported to be Clinton’s likely choice for secretary of defence during the 2016 presidential primaries. And the June 2016 report of a CNAS “study group” co-chaired by Flournoy was in line with Clinton’s openly declared support for a more muscular US intervention in Syria.

 

That report had called for a US-declared “no bombing zone” to protect armed opposition groups, vetted by the CIA, from Syrian and Russian attacks. Flournoy had then described the policy in an interview as telling the Russian and Syrian governments: “If you bomb the folks we support, we will retaliate using standoff means to destroy [Russian] proxy forces, or, in this case, Syrian assets.”

The new coalition of think tanks began meeting last summer when the politics in the United States seemed favorable for a political campaign for US military intervention in Syria.

On 30 September, Lister published a lengthy essay calling on the United States to provide shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to ”moderate” opposition groups as well as to threaten attacks on the Syrian army if it violated the ceasefire. Lister was obviously hoping that President Clinton would adopt that policy option a few months later.

…repackaged for a Trump presidency

Now the new strategy group is trying to sell the same proposal to Trump, calling it “a holistic, preventative counter-terrorism policy that empowers moderate Syrians… to overcome extremists in Syria….” It argues that al-Qaeda is seeking to gain control over areas now controlled by “moderate” forces in order to establish “an enduring Sunni extremist order in Syria”.

But the argument that these armed groups, which the US has supported in the past, would be prepared to resist al-Qaeda’s long-term caliphate with more money and arms and US bombing of Assad’s air force, is too divorced from reality to have traction in Washington now. In fact, the so-called “moderate” armed groups have never been truly independent of al Qaeda in Syria. They have depended on the highly disciplined troops of al-Qaeda and its closest allies and the military strategy devised by al-Qaeda commanders to pressure the Assad regime.

The so-called “moderate” armed groups have never been truly independent of al Qaeda in Syria

Lister himself has been clear on this point. Under his proposed plan for the United States to use the threat of military force against the regime, the CIA-vetted “moderate” armed opposition groups were not expected to end their military cooperation with Fateh al-Sham or to separate themselves physically from its forces, as had been provided in both the February and September ceasefire agreements.

Lister stated explicitly his assumption that such cooperation was “unlikely to diminish significantly” – even if his proposal were to be carried out.

Rather, the idea of Lister’s plan was to force negotiations on the Assad regime. That aim would still obviously have required the continued military power of Fateh al-Sham and Ahrar al-Sham to succeed.

Lister and his fellow coalition members are not likely to be able to sell the new administration on the idea that any of the Syrian armed groups the CIA has supported would even consider seriously resisting Fateh al-Sham under any remotely believable circumstances.

Syrian army: The only alternative?

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius recently recalled meeting with leaders of Harakat al-Hazm, considered the most promising “moderate” armed group in Syria, at a safehouse in Turkey in late 2014. He found them “despondent”, because the United States had just carried out a rare air strike on al -Qaeda operatives believed to be plotting a terrorist attack on the West.

They told Ignatius that, because of the US bombing what was then called the Nusra Front would no longer tolerate the group’s operations. Soon after the meeting, the Nusra Front did indeed eliminate Harakat al-Hazm and appropriate all the TOW missiles and other military equipment the CIA had given them.

It recognised that, despite the serious faults of the Assad regime, the Syrian army was the only Syrian institution committed to resisting the terrorist presence in Syria

The Ignatius account reflects a fundamental reality throughout northern Syria, from 2013 onwards, that was simply ignored in media coverage: all of the opposition groups have been absorbed into an al-Qaeda-controlled political-military order. The idea that the “moderate” groups could be a bulwark against al-Qaeda, which is now being peddled by Lister, Cafarella and CNAS, no longer has any credibility even in those quarters in Washington that were once open to it.

A tell-tale sign of the shift in attitude toward those groups’ mood in Washington is the fact that Ignatius used the past tense in referring to the CIA’s programme of arming the “moderate” groups in Syria in his article last month.

The US military leadership was never on board with the policy of relying on those armed groups to advance US interests in Syria in the first place.

It recognised that, despite the serious faults of the Assad regime, the Syrian army was the only Syrian institution committed to resisting both al-Qaeda and Islamic State.

It seems likely that the Trump administration will now return to that point as it tries to rebuild a policy from the ashes of the failed policy of the Obama administration.

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

Photo: Syrian pro-government forces manoeuvre a tank in the newly retaken area of Sahat al-Melh and Qasr al-Adly in Aleppo Old City on 8 December 2016 (AFP)

From January 17^th to 21^st, the Swiss enclave of Davos-Klosters is the venue of the 47^th World Economic Forum. This gathering constitutes one of the exclusive clubs where the principal corporations coordinate orientations and launch strategic alignments. Together with the Bilderberg Club — a less visible and more reduced space of similar characteristics — the Davos Forum aims to become a kind of parallel private global government, placing leadership, entrepreneurial spirit, technological innovation and vertical forms of direction over and above democratic national order and traditional forms of international interrelation such as the United Nations.

In this opportunity, the last day of the meeting coincides suggestively with the inauguration of the forty-fifth US President, property magnate Donald Trump. In spite his having a relatively adequate profile for the meeting –at least with respect to monetary capacity — Trump, elected mandatory of a country belonging to the G-20, was not formally considered in the invitations, since his mandate had not yet begun. Nevertheless, members of his Government were expected, such as the designated Director of The National Economic Council, Gary Cohn — former president of Goldman Sachs and a regular participant in Davos.

Other significant – and somewhat surprising – absences, from the political world, are the German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the French President Hollande. Another announced absence is the Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, who also announced that he will not attend the protocol acts in which Trump will assume his mandate, a decision that is highly relevant, considering that the two countries are related through the economic space of NAFTA.

With respect to the World Economic Forum, the most outstanding participant will without doubt be Xi Jinping, this being the first time that a Chinese President comes to this hyper summit of capitalism.

But Trump, the great absent figure, will be present in all the roundtables, interventions and dialogues. The phantasm of discontent generated by financial hypertrophy and the concentration of capital scares the members of the club of the wealthy and has a name: populism.

The succession of neo-nationalist triumphs, such as Trump or the Brexit, together with the expectation of possible political advances of the ultra-right in upcoming elections in the Netherlands, France, Germany or the Czech Republic, sounded an alarm among the governors of the corporate world. The real threat that protectionism could modify the chess-board of globalization that the corporations have put together to facilitate their movements, is a scenario in the face of which the Davos conclave cannot not remain passive.

The perspective that an important part of the populations suffering from austerity and poverty, because of the systemic debacle, would decide to turn their backs on the regionalisation projects controlled by economic power, such as the European Union, is an image that could hardly be accepted by the Davis clan.

As the call to the 2017 Davos Forum, whose leitmotif is “Responsive and responsible leadership”, points out:. “The weakening of multiple systems has eroded confidence at the national, regional and global levels. And, in the absence of innovative and credible steps towards their renewal, the likelihood increases of a downward spiral of the global economy.”

If it were not for the political events, the Forum would continue advancing impassively towards the capitalist reconversion that it proposes and which has been called the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

This ‘revolution’ — in the words of the Founder and President of the Forum, the almost eighty-year-old German professor Klaus Schwab – “is characterized by the fusion of technologies that are erasing the lines between the physical, digital and biological spheres.”  The earlier technological revolutions, Schwab points out, used water and steam to mechanize production, electricity to massify it and electronics and computing to automate it.

In this ‘new world’ in development, the promoters of Davos — the principal enterprises of the planet — see exponential opportunities for business. In the framework of refined business prospects, designed to outline the possible advantages for those who acquire their products and adhere to their illusions, it is clear that they feel obliged to also allude to the enormous possibilities that this could bring to millions of persons. In these arguments over potential benefits, there is a possible “and complete (!)” reconversion of the degenerative environmental process — that these same enterprises have brought about – with unlimited possibilities that are derived from combined and integrated action — says Schwab — of “artificial intelligence, robotics, the internet of things, autonomous vehicles, 3D printing, nano- and biotechnology, the sciences of matter, new devices for storing energy and quantum computing.”

These knights of the order (and under the order) of money are daring and they dare to revolutionize the world. The only thing that seems unchangeable in their imagination is the existence and pre-eminence of economic power over the well-being and the sovereign decision of the majorities.

Nonetheless, in this edition of Davos, it does not appear viable to advance in the absolutist plans of social technologization without taking into account, at least minimally, the social chaos that they have produced in the past. And they will produce even more, if the technological innovations take on the increased velocity that they desire. While today, extreme poverty, hunger and social inequality are already devastating vast latitudes, there is a risk they will increase even more if the “fourth revolution” is managed by these corporations and their lackeys.

A complete and integrated automation in production brings about the elimination of millions of jobs. In absence of an inversion of power relations, between the effective power of peoples and concentrated economic power, we can expect brutal competition among wage earners begging for subsistence in exchange for their total existential surrender.

Even the analysts of the corporate camp foresee a probable widening of the gaps between the better paid segments — those that require knowledge and specialization — and other kinds of tasks — essentially services of little value added, habitually reserved for the poorest among the poor.

From a positive perspective, for human beings the technological transformation could signify a growing liberation from tasks, an increase of creative options and possibilities, an extension of life and well-being, which could lead to a profound and interesting reconsideration on life perspectives that do not have work as the centre, the main condition or the cause of exclusion.  But without a true social and popular mediation, it would simply bring about an increase in business efficiency, leaving a great part of humanity in the garbage bin of maladaptation and the consequent disqualification as waste material.

What the worried businessmen, academics and politicians in Davos fear, associating it with the tragedies of fascism of the past century, what they despise, calling it “populism”` — thus indicating a visceral and plutocratic rejection of the “popular” — is in fact a clear signal that the peoples are emitting in rejection of the prior business visions that promised marvellous benefits for all through the route of neoliberalism.

In a sense, in the present edition of Davos, there may be something that is beginning to be socialized. Uncertainty no longer appears to be an exclusive prerogative of the dispossessed.

16/01/2017

(Translated for ALAI by Jordan Bishop)

 

Nel 1960, il sociologo ed accademico USA Daniel Bell (1919-2011) pubblicò “La fine dell’ideologia”, opera che è diventata un classico nelle scienze politiche ufficiali. La pubblicazione è stata catalogata, dal Times Literary Supplement, come uno dei 100 libri più influenti della seconda metà del XX secolo.

Nonostante che negli anni 1950 ed inizi anni ’60 ci sono stati altri sostenitori della “Fine dell’ideologia” Bell è considerato come il più influente. Anche se si ebbero alcuni cambiamenti, questa scuola di pensiero ha un denominatore comune. Cercando di non semplificare troppo questa importante tendenza, ai fini del presente articolo, è possibile affermare che sorse a causa del percepito fallimento sia del socialismo, nell’ex URSS, come del capitalismo in Occidente. Vale a dire, nacque in opposizione all’ “estremismo”.

Nel novembre del 1968, insieme ad altri studenti di scienze politiche della McGill University di Montreal, fondiamo l’Associazione degli Studenti di quella disciplina. Organizziamo uno sciopero e presentiamo due principali rivendicazioni: la prima, esigere la partecipazione degli studenti nei comitati di contrattazione della Facoltà; la seconda -associata a questo potenziale rafforzamento studentesco- reclamare un insegnamento ed un curriculum più inclusivo.

Quest’ultimo poteva includere pubblicazioni non solo di Daniel Bell -naturalmente considerato obbligatorio e un indiscutibile riferimento nelle scienze politiche-, ma anche di scienziati sociali progressisti, così come le opere di Marx e di Lenin. Allora quest’ultimo era escluso. Dopo dieci giorni di occupazione e sciopero, la richiesta degli studenti fu accettata dall’università.

Bell non vide giungere l’inevitabile insurrezione che si stava preparando negli USA tra i cittadini di origine africana, poco dopo che il suo best-seller uscisse alle stampe. Quelle lotte progressiste, così come quella dei popoli indigeni, hanno la loro origine, all’inizio delle Tredici Colonie. Negli anni 1960, gli studenti USA furono attratti da ideologie e politiche alternative. Di fatto, il movimento giovanile era onnipresente in tutto il Nord America ed in gran parte dell’Europa.

Mentre negli anni ’60 questa tendenza si caratterizzava per diversi aspetti della sinistra politica ed ideologica, e sperimentava i suoi alti e bassi, sembrava l’addio delle tesi della fine dell’ideologia. Tuttavia, l’eredità di Bell continua a perseguitarci.

Nell’ultimo anno, all’incirca, a Cuba si è registrato un continuo aumento di articoli in un linguaggio indiretto circa l’idea della fine dell’ideologia, scritti da alcuni marginali blogger ed intellettuali cubani. All’inizio erano timidi, ma poi sempre più audaci.

Parlano della “sterile dicotomia tra socialismo e capitalismo”, consigliando ai rivoluzionari cubani di essere “equilibrati e profondi nei loro giudizi” quando si tratta di criticare l’imperialismo USA, o di evitare l’estremo di essere “fidelista o anti-castrista,” etichettando come “estremisti” o “fanatici” i marxisti-leninisti o i fidelisti, scrivendo su due grandi errori del rivoluzionario a Cuba, la destra e la sinistra come un “dogma escludente” e, infine, postulando che “la vita è più complessa anche delle ideologie”.

Leggendo questi articoli ritornavano, continuamente, alla mia mente quei giorni universitari del 1968. Come poteva essere possibile che noi ci opponessimo alla fine dell’ideologia, nel cuore del capitalismo, e che ora essa torni a sorgere – tra tutti i luoghi immaginabili- proprio a Cuba? Si potrebbe sostenere che l’opposizione a Cuba sta venendo da “sinistra”, vale a dire da coloro che affermano di sostenere la rivoluzione. Bene, da dove altro potrebbe sorgere se non dalla cosiddetta sinistra?

Non dimentichiamo che Bell si considerava di sinistra e che la sua opposizione all’ideologia era, apparentemente, da una prospettiva di sinistra e non di destra. E’ così che riuscì a costruire la sua credibilità. Bell si era disilluso del socialismo e non vedeva alcuna alternativa, per cui portò una battaglia sia contro il capitalismo che contro il socialismo. Il suo lavoro riflette il suo dilemma personale e politico. Tuttavia, oggettivamente parlando, questa cosiddetta neutralità rispetto agli estremi consistette nel lanciare un salvagente al capitalismo. Non è un caso che Bell sia così apprezzato dalle élite dominanti dell’Occidente.

Ho sempre affermato che la più pericolosa opposizione alla Rivoluzione cubana proviene dalla cosiddetta sinistra, e non dalla destra apertamente Plattista. Si tratta di un cancro nella società cubana che, se si lascia crescere senza una forte resistenza ideologica, potrebbe influire su qualche ingenuo, soprattutto tra i giovani, gli intellettuali e gli artisti.

Allo stesso tempo, quando Bell scriveva i suoi saggi alla fine degli anni 1950, compilati nel suo volume del 1960, Cuba costituiva lo scenario della più evidente confutazione della sua teoria: l’attacco al Moncada, del 1953, il suo risultante programma ed il trionfo della rivoluzione il 1 gennaio 1959. Fidel Castro ed il Movimento 26 luglio costituirono l’embrionale cammino di una nuova ideologia marxista-leninista a Cuba.

Lungi dall’essere un periodo segnato dalla fine dell’ideologia, Cuba diede al mondo la rinascita e la fiducia nella necessità dell’ideologia. Cuba rappresentò il termine della fine dell’ideologia. La rivoluzione cubana sorse durante l’auge della guerra fredda, ma si erse, risolutamente, contro ogni intimidazione da parte della cosiddetta sinistra o dell’imperialismo. Per la sinistra di quel tempo, e ancor più per la destra, questa posizione non corrispondeva al politicamente corretto. Così, Fidel ebbe la perspicacia di non rivelare l’intero scenario nel periodo iniziale. Tuttavia, l’ideologia era al centro del pensiero e dell’azione.

Dal 1953 Cuba è sempre stata -ed è ancora- la quintessenza dello sviluppo dei principi ideologici. Ogni parola scritta e pronunciata da Fidel è intrisa di ideologia. Cuba non è anchilosata, al contrario continua evolvendosi seconda la situazione. In caso contrario, non avrebbe potuto sopravvivere ai suoi nemici per tutto questo tempo.

Sono convinto che uno dei principali obiettivi di fondo della campagna mediatica corporativa internazionale contro Fidel, poco dopo la sua morte, consisteva in una vendetta dell’imperialismo contro di lui per il suo rifiuto a capitolare sul tema dell’ideologia.

Ma perché? -potranno chiedersi i media interminabilmente- la rivoluzione cubana mai sottoscrisse la fine dell’ideologia, come avrebbe dovuto fare, secondo le scienze politiche ufficiali? In tutti questi anni, dal 26 luglio 1953 fino al 25 novembre 2016, Fidel visse e morì come lo richiese agli altri: come un umile rivoluzionario.

Nell’attuale contesto storico, cercano d’impregnare la cultura politica cubana di “neutralità” riguardo l’ideologia: l’opposizione agli “estremi”, “equidistanza” tra il socialismo ed il capitalismo, ecc, non costituisce una sfida al dogmatismo della sinistra come cercano di presentarlo.

La vera sfida è contro il socialismo e l’ideologia marxista-leninista. Negli anni 1960, la teoria di Bell compiaceva i circoli dominanti che volevano mantenere lo status quo. Le elites erano al potere e non avevano paura di essere sloggiate dal loro stesso capitalismo! La Fine della ideologia e la sua critica al capitalismo era solo un pretesto per criticare il socialismo. Nel 1968, presso la McGill University, questo fu il principale argomento degli insegnanti e amministratori conservatori.

Apparentemente loro non erano né a favore né contro alcuna ideologia. “Tutte le opzioni politiche sono benvenute”, assicuravano. Nonostante, Bell fu ancora più accettato. Egli si opponeva, loro dicevano, sia al capitalismo che al socialismo. Tuttavia, coloro che favorivano lo status quo del capitalismo sostennero la fine dell’ideología.

Coloro che si oppone all’ideologia “estrema” della sinistra furono totalmente integrati nell’ideologia capitalista e aiutarono ad elaborarla e diffonderla. Lo scopo della “Fine della ideologia”, negli anni 1960, e ora rispetto a Cuba, è porre fine alle ideologie marxiste-leniniste e socialista.

Arnold August 

 

¿El final de la ideología en Cuba?By Arnold August, January 06, 2017

Italiano : http://firmas.prensa-latina.cu/

Arnold August : Giornalista e relatore canadese

“Every time one of these barrels strikes, it is the seismological equivalent of a 7.6 magnitude earthquake, and it happens around 50 times a day.  (In Syria)You can’t dial 911. You can’t dial the fire service. You can’t call the local police department. They don’t exist.” ~ James Le Mesurier, British ex-military trainer of the NATO-state, multi-million-dollar-funded White Helmets, based in Gaziantep, Turkey.

In an interview with CNN in May 2015, this is the claim made by British mercenary trainer of the White Helmets to Dr Sanjay Gupta. Again, in June 2015, Le Mesurier made a similar claim to an audience during a speech at The Performance Theatre, Lisbon  entitled very grandly, “Act 1: Witnesses to history in the making”.

On the front page of the fraudulently named Syria Civil Defence aka the NATO state sponsored, White Helmets, there is the same claim made by the extensively discredited, Ammar Al Salmo, “leader” of the Syria Civil Defence in Aleppo:

Al Salmo’s “evidence” was pivotal to the US alliance claims that, on 21st September 2016, Russian jets had targeted a humanitarian convoy to the west of Aleppo – Urum al Kubra, causing international outcry and almost precipitating a terrifying escalation of the conflict between Russia and the US on Syrian soil. Claims that were universally debunked, as were so many before them. Syricide on Twitter produced a video that demonstrates the grave anomalies in the Al Salmo report, that was used to trigger international outrage against Russia and the Syrian government.

In November 2016, Raed Saleh, president of the White Helmets and “humanitarian” poster boy for the international community supporting the terrorist support group, gave an acceptance speech for the Right Livelihood Award. During this speech, Saleh reinforced the barrel bomb/earthquake imagery and increased the magnitude to a whopping 8:0

Here is the segment of the speech in which Saleh presents the barrel bomb case. Watch ~

Just after the liberation of East Aleppo by the Syrian Arab Army and allies, BBC Radio 4 interviewed James Le Mesurier who trotted out the usual platitudes regarding his band of “selfless humanitarians”, described, universally as “Nusra Front civil defence” by Syrian civilians freed from almost five years of Nusra Front-led terrorist and extremist imprisonment, supported by the interventionist alliance of the US, UK, EU, Gulf States, Turkey, Israel, Canada, Jordan & Australia & Co.

This time the BBC, themselves, announce that one barrel bomb is equivalent to an earthquake of an 8:0 magnitude, so parroting the White Helmet and NATO-state-aligned NGO narrative without hesitation. Listen to the interview here. 

We have compiled statements by James Le Mesurier into a short video. They include the bare-faced lie, presented to CNN, that in Syria there is no emergency number to call for rescue or fire services, an attempt by this UK regime intelligence operative & OBE recipient, to disappear the REAL Syria Civil Defence, established in 1953: Watch ~

Do they have us over a Barrel?

Just a casual check on scientific charts correlating Richter scale magnitude with corresponding amounts of explosives will show that anything above a 7.0 magnitude would require as much as 20 billion kilograms of TNT, or according to other charts as much as 10 megatons, something approaching the output of an atom bomb, greater than the one used against Hiroshima by the US.

21st Century Wire had previously debunked CNN claims, in October 2016, that a White Helmet centre in Damascus had been targeted by a barrel bomb:

A NOBEL LIE: CNN’s Claim That ‘White Helmets Center in Damascus’ Was Hit by a Barrel Bomb

In August 2015, Ken Roth, director of Human Rights Watch, tweeted that “Assad’s barrel bombs” were equivalent to the US nuclear bomb that had destroyed Hiroshima.

YallaLaBarra’s blog addressed Ken Roth’s unhealthy obsession with barrel bombs:

“This was the first of a whopping 200 Syria tweets that he has posted about “barrel bombs”. These don’t include at least an equal number of other anti-government tweets that range from Assad’s “use of chemical weapons against his people” to fawning praise of militants in Syria. Between 12 November 2013 and December 2014, Ken Roth tweeted about “barrel bombs” (BB) a total of 65 times. This is no small number, but it pales in comparison to the 135 barrel bomb tweets he posted in 2015 – thus far. During the first 8 months of 2015, the frequency of barrel bomb tweets varied from month to month. For example, after having posted 27 BB tweets in February of 2015, he surprisingly controlled his urges and kept it at under 15 for each of the following 4 months (March -June). In July his obsession got the best of him and he graced us with 28 BB tweets.Things got worse in August with a staggering 40 BB tweets. One of the reasons the BB tweeting became so trigger happy in the last two months is because he is now frantically inserting “barrel bombs” into tweets that are unrelated to the topic.”

Now lets consider the earthquake magnitude claim, bearing in mind that, at various stages, members of the NATO-aligned White Helmets and associated NGOs, & corporate media outlets have stated that as many as 50 of these earthquakes are hitting Syria per day for possibly the last six years.

Here’s a look at the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, which struck January 12, 2010. The earthquakemeasured a “mere” (by White Helmet standards) 7.0 magnitude:

Corporate Media Plays Along

On the 10th January 2017, the Independent’s headline was – “Assad ‘dropped 13,000 barrel bombs on Syria in 2016’, watchdog claims” .

So according to this headline, Syrian president, Bashar Al Assad, personally dropped 13, 000 (equivalent to) atom bombs on his own country and people in 12 months. Even the war-hungry US administration, with its penchant for obliterating entire nations would struggle to match that accolade!

The “watchdog” that has been cited by The Independent is none other than the Syrian Network for Human Rights, a long term purveyor of the barrel bomb myth and one of the multitude of NGOs affiliated with the anti-Syria-war-propaganda-impresario, George Soros, along with the Ford Foundation & the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Helicopters Carry Two Bombs

James Le Mesurier confirms what independent warfare analysts had previously told me, that a helicopter will carry two barrel bombs at at time.

SNHR report:

“The report documents that Syrian regime helicopters dropped 12,958 barrel bombs in 2016. Most of these barrel bombs were dropped in Damascus suburbs governorate, followed by Aleppo and then Hama, Idlib, Daraa, and Homs. Furthermore, November 2016 saw the most of these barrel bombs with 1946 dropped followed by June, and then January and August.”

In order to achieve this, the Syrian Airforce would have to fly 19 helicopter missions per day every day for the whole year. That is with limited airports available to them, the effect of sanctions,resulting in fuel shortages, and taking into consideration daylight hours and distances to and from alleged targets. Not to mention, downtime, maintenance etc.

Also, if there had been 19 helicopter flights per day over this time period, is it not strange that we dont see footage of these helicopters other than the oft recycled images & video that are used to depict these attacks? The NATO state funded, Turkish based and trained “citizen journalists” cameramen and women, “activists” have the equipment to record such flights, surely?

In this video which is a 9 minute alleged compilation of barrel bomb attacks, we actually see what looks suspiciously like reused shots of barrel bombs, or rudimentary finned Mortar-type bombs, being dropped by helicopters. The majority of the footage is actually of airforce, air to ground missile attacks on various terrorist and extremist held positions in Syria. There is the clear sound of Combat jets prior to the bombing.

James Longman of the BBC, embedded with such “activists & citizen journalists” in Homs & Damascus in 2011, during the early days of the NATO state-fomented armed uprising against the Syrian state, told the Frontline Club that they had impressive technological/media capabilities. So why is there not better coverage of the 19 helicopter missions per day?

The Nusra Front-led factions, with whom these so called “activists” and “citizen journalists” are embedded, certainly have the “equipment” to shoot helicopters down..as with the Russian helicopter flying in humanitarian aid in August 2016.

The Numbers Game

In their report, SNHR claim:

“According to the report, the barrel bombs that were dropped by Syrian regime warplanes in 2016 resulted in the killing of 653 civilians including 166 children and 86 women.”

How reliable these figures are, is hard to analyse. The majority of the statistics reported by these weaponized NGOs come from the SOHR (Syrian Observatory for Human Rights) that is notorious for mingling “civilian” deaths with those of the NATO-state funded and armed terrorist & extremist factions. The SOHR is in reality, Rami Abdulrahman, an EU funded one-man-band operating out of Coventry in the UK and communicating with “activists” via Skype.

“Abdulrahman of the SOHR admitted in 2012: “I have thousands of rebels in the civilian list. I put all the non-defectors in the civilian list…It isn’t easy to count rebels because nobody on the ground says ‘this is a rebel.’ Everybody hides it.” In another interview he confirmed the view that “most of Syria’s dead were combatants, not civilians.” ~ The Death Toll in Syria, What do the Numbers Really Say?

According to a former US diplomat who had served in Syria:

“I have serious problems with all the talk about military intervention in Syria. Everyone, especially the media, seems to be relying solely on anti-regime activists for their information. How do we know 260 people were killed by the regime in Homs yesterday? That number seems based solely on claims by anti-regime figures and I seriously doubt its accuracy.” ~ Veteran US Diplomat Questions Syria Storyline by Sharmine Narwani.

According to their previous meme, for the period between March 2011 and March 2016, over 35, 956 barrel bombs have been dropped by the Syrian airforce, killing 14, 652 civilians. Now this is a fascinating piece of analysis by SNHR, as even, NATO intervention sympathiser, Elliot Higginsaka Brown Moses of Bellingcat states that the first recorded barrel bomb attack in Syria, was in August 2012. A fact, corroborated by Wikipedia, in their list of barrel bomb attacks.

So if we rely upon Soros-allied SNHR, the barrel bomb attacks started 17 months before they were first recorded. Impressive. This immediately skews the numbers they are presenting.

In “The Barrel Bomb Conundrum”, Craig Murray states, (emphasis added):

“It is a fascinating example of a propaganda meme. Barrel bombs are being used by Syrian government forces, though on a pretty small scale. They are an improvised weapon made by packing conventional explosive into a beer barrel. They are simply an amateur version of a conventional weapon, and they are far less “effective” – meaning devastating – than the professionally made munitions the UK and US are dropping on Syria, or supplying to the Saudis to kill tens of thousands of civilians in Yemen, or to Israel to drop on children in Gaza.”

East Aleppo Liberation Opens Pandora’s Box?

If an earthquake has occurred anywhere in Syria, it is the tectonic plates of corporate media obscurantism and deceit being torn assunder by the truth that has emerged from the liberated districts of East Aleppo.  Civilians escaping their almost five year ordeal of life under Nusra Front-led occuption and brutal imprisonment, exposed the truth behind the corporate media pre-fabricated narratives that had in effect prolonged the suffering of these people, while amplifying the voices of their captors, described euphemistically as “rebels” by the majority of the predatory NATO-aligned “mockingbird” media and NGOs

No mention is made by this media-propaganda juggernaut of the 11,000 recorded and documented dead civilians, among them thousands of children, murdered by the “hell cannon” mortar fire, sniper fire and explosive bullets from Nusra Front-led terrorists in East Aleppo fired deep into Syrian state protected West Aleppo. These figures were given to me by Head of Forensics in Aleppo, Dr Zahar Hajjo and confirmed by Eva Bartlett during her debate with Dilly Hussain on RT.

Nor is there any mention of the recent discoveries of what look suspiciously like barrel bombs, previously stored by Nusra Front and assorted extremist factions in ammunuition depots in the liberated areas of East Aleppo:

There has also been a recent discovery of a vast quantity of gas canisters in the liberated Kalaseh district of East Aleppo.

 Lets have a look at the technical specification of the barrel bomb. According to an animated depiction of the composition of the barrel bomb, they are filled with “twisted shards of metal shrapnel. When detonated the metal explodes in every direction causing tremendous damage to the immediate area”.

Compare this to a description of the Nusra Front Hell Cannon mortars, from an Aleppo resident:

“The terrorists are using mortars, explosive bullets, cooking-gas cylinders bombs and water-warming long cylinders bombs, filled up with explosives and shrapnel and nails, in what they call “Hell Cannon”. (google these weapons or see their YouTube clips. The cooking-gas cylinder is made of steel, and it weighs around 25 kg. Imagine it thrown by a canon to hit civilians? And imagine knowing that it’s full with explosives?… Yet, the media is busy with the legendary weapon of “barrel bombs”! They came to spread “freedom” among Syrians! How dare they say that Syrian army shouldn’t fight them back?”

Can you tell them apart? 

Many civilians that I interviewed as they were streaming out of the liberated areas of East Aleppo told me that the Nusra Front-led terrorist and militant gangs had often attacked civilian homes, schools and hospitals in the same areas and then blamed it on the Syrian national army.

Is it so far fetched to suggest that the barrel bomb myth is just that, a myth propagated by those who are claiming to be under attack while attacking civilians in the areas occupied or besieged by these terrorist factions?

Here is one such testimony from one of the first civilians I spoke to, on the 10th December 2016, in Hanano which had been fully liberated two days previously. Watch: 

Conclusion

It is surely time to put the barrel bomb to bed? It is now an outdated and debunked, mass produced myth. 50 earthquakes per day of an 8.0 magnitude would have obliterated the entire region. Enough of these theatrics designed to obfuscate the very real bloodshed that is being witnessed daily in Syria as a result of the dirty war being waged against it by the US neocons and war hawks, hell-bent on regime change and the weakening of the sovereign nation to please their Israeli allies in the region.

I leave you with a timeless classic, “The Barrel Bomb Song” featuring Ken Roth, a fitting epitaph for one of the most flagrant media fabrications and distortions of the almost six year war of aggression against Syria led by a multitude of NATO & Gulf state funded and armed atrocity committing extremists.

The Russian Aerospace Forces and the Turkish Armed Forces have been conducting a joint military operation in the area of al-Bab, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Wednesday. The operation involves 9 Russian warplanes [4 Su-24, 4 Su-25 and 1 Su-34] and 8 Turkish warplanes. At the same day, the Syrian army gained two more villages south of al-Bab – Afrin and Rasm al-Abed – which had been controlled by ISIS and entered into Shamer. Joint efforts of Damascus, Moscow and Ankara will easily lead to liberation of Aleppo province from the rests of ISIS terrorist if the Turkish military is able to keep under the control their moderate jihadists operating in the area.

The military situation remains tense in Deir Ezzor. Government troops, backed up by warplanes, are repelling ISIS attacks. However, the pocket is still split into two and this is a big problem for defenders.

The Ahrar al-Sham militant group announced on Wednesday that it will ignore talks between the government and representatives of the so-called ‘opposition’ in the Kazakh capital of Astana next week. The group blamed Moscow and Damascus for violations of the ceasefire and airstrikes across Syria, adding that this was the man reasons behind decision. Ahrar al-Sham was the most powerful entity armed groups that signed the ceasefire deal brokered by Russia and Turkey in December 2016.

According to Ahrar al-Sham, the Syrian army’s operation in the Wadi Barada area northwest of Damascus is an example of violations of the ceasefire agreement. The group forgot to add that government forces launched operation there after Ahrar al-Sham and its friends from Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) damaged the water supply line to Damascus.

Last night, the Syrian army and the National Defense Forces (NDF) captured the crossing of Abo Salem and Wadi Tamamah north of Dayr Miqrin in Wadi Barada. This move isolated the village of Afrah from the rest of militant-held pocket and allowed to increase a military pressure on Ayn al-Fijah, Dayr Miqrin and Kafr Az-Zayat. Earlier this week, army and NDF troops entered the village of Ayn al-Fijah. Clashes are now ongoing there.

Another powerful militant group, Jaish al-Islam, will likely participate in the Astana talks. According to reports, Mohammed Alloush, one of the group’s leaders, may head the delegation. Jaish al-Islam controls waste areas in the Eastern Ghouta region and has recently faced a notable military pressure by the Syrian army. The critical military situation, especially near Hazrama, is likely behind the decision to participate in the talks.

Summarizing these reports, it’s clear that Moscow and Damascus keep to implement their main strategy, putting military pressure on various armed anti-government factions to force them to negotiations with the Syrian government. Meanwhile, groups and factions, which show their inability to separate themselves from Jabhat Fatah al-Sham and to negotiate with the government, become a legitimate target of military efforts by the joint Rusian-Syrian-Iranian forces.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

The Syrian army and the National Defense Forces (NDF), supported by attack helicopters, have advanced southwest of the Tiyas Airbase, recapturing from ISIS several hills overlooking Phosphate area near al-Qaryatayn. The village of Al-Baridah is the most likely target of the offensive.

Pro-government sources report that over 30 ISIS members were killed in the recent clashes. ISIS supporters say that the army lost 1 battle tank, 2 vehicles equipped with a machine gun and a Shilka anti-aircraft gun.

The ISIS offensive in Deir Ezzor bogged in the Syrian army’s defenses. Government troops, supported by the Russian-Syrian air power, have repelled at least 5 ISIS attacks in various parts of the city, killing and wounding some 15 militants. However, the army has not been able to successfully counter-attack to increase its chances to link-up the separated pockets.

ISIS is now deploying reinforcements to develop the tactical success gained in the city.

At least three YPG members were killed and five wounded in an ISIS attack on a YPG security center in the village of Suwaydiya in the province of Raqqah. The YPG, backed up by the US-led coalition, is now preparing for further military operations in the Raqqah countryside in order to isolate this major ISIS stronghold.

Last night, the US Air Force bombed a military camp belonging to Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) near Daret Izza in western Aleppo, according to pro-militant media outlets. Up to 110 members of Jabhat Fatah al-Sham and Nour al-Din al-Zenki were killed as result of the air raid. Members the so-called “White Helmets” were first to arrive the scene to help terrorists.

On January 19, Jabhat Fatah al-Sham attacked a number of Ahrar al-Sham checkpoints and local headquarters in the militant-held province of Idlib.

After a series of clashes, Jabhat Fatah al-Sham units seized from Ahrar al-Sham the Khirbet al-Jawz crossing on Turkish border, few checkpoints and a local headquarters in Khirbet al-Jawz. Some Ahrar al-Sham members were taken captive. An infighting between the militant groups were also reported near Darkoush, Jisr ash-Shugur and Bdama.

The groups blame each other in the social media for undermining the “values of Syrian revolution”.

Local sources say that the clashes are result of the ongoing “political” standoff among militant groups for the power in the province of Idlib which became the main militant stronghold in Syria after the liberation of the Aleppo city. Earlier this week, Ahrar al-Sham announced that the group will not participate in the Astana talks and preferred to play in local games in Idlib.

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

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir currently stated that the Syrian talks in Astana would lead to ceasefire in the country.

The outgoing U.S. President Barak Obama will freeze some of the economic and trade sanctions on Sudan, different news agencies reported on Thursday.

The suspension which was contested by some members of Obama administration, is mainly based on “the findings of Sudan’s security cooperation with Washington”. “It was mainly backed by the State Department,” an American source told Sudan Tribune.

The media cited Sudan’s collaboration in the fight against terrorism, including limiting the movements of Islamic State fighters.

Regarding the file of peace in Darfur, the partial freezing takes into account the end of military bombardments on civilians areas in the western Sudan, improvement of humanitarian access to civilians in the conflict affected areas.

Also, the decision takes into account Sudanese government efforts to achieve peace in South Sudan and its neutrality in the conflict that started in December 2013. American officials say Khartoum refused to allow rebels to operate from its territory and also stemmed the flow of weapons into the troubled country, despite Juba support to Sudanese rebel groups.

Citing officials at the While House, The Associated Press says Washington will “announce a five-track engagement process with the Sudan, including the easing of sanctions, responding to positive actions by the government. They say these include improved Sudanese counterterrorism efforts”

However, the suspended sanctions could be reinstated if the Sudanese government backtracks on its progress.

U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan, Donald Booth, kept working tirelessly on the file of peace in Sudan. Several sources said President Obama wished to close the file of Sudan sanction before to leave the White House like Cuba and Burma.
Congressmen and rights activists say still conditions in Sudan are far from their expectations and have demanded to maintain to maintain the sanctions on the regime of President Omer al-Bashir.

The State Department and the Department of Treasury since last October, held three meetings in Washington, London and Dubai to encourage commercial banks to avoid de-risking humanitarian and non-governmental remittances stressing the trade and financial embargo target only the Sudanese government.

Despite the strong impact of the sanctions on the Sudanese government, officials at the State Department points to the negative impact of the measure on the ordinary Sudanese. It also feeds anti-Americanism in the region and Islamic world they say.

Sudan has been under American economic and trade sanctions since 1997 for its alleged connection to terror networks and remains on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terror. The first batch of sanctions restrict U.S. trade and investment with Sudan and block government’s assets of the Sudanese government.

Additional sanctions in relations with the conflict in Darfur region were introduced by two Executive Orders in 2006.

The Trudeau government has significantly undermined its stated commitment to human rights by going ahead with a $15-billion sale of light armoured vehicles (LAVs—combat transports that can be armed with lethal high-calibre weapons) to Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi regime’s vicious repression of its own population is well documented by human rights groups, and a two-year bombing campaign against Houthi rebels in neighbouring Yemen has claimed as many as 10,000 lives, more than half of them civilians by United Nations accounts. Depending on when they arrive, the Canadian-made LAVs could enter the battle on the Saudi side, and would be used in future, as they were in Bahrain in 2011, to quell domestic protest against the regime or its allies.

“We are concerned that this is the largest arms deal in the history of Canada and the military equipment is going to a country which is a human rights pariah, holding among the very worst such records, according to every organization that tracks this issue,” says Cesar Jaramillo, executive director of Project Ploughshares, a Waterloo, Ontario–based NGO focused on preventing war and building peace.

If Saudi Arabia, with such a dire human rights record, both internally and externally, is eligible to receive Canadian military exports, then which country would not be?

The U.S.-backed Saudi royal family suppresses virtually any dissent, criticism, democratic aspirations and civil rights. Saudi women are among the least free in the world; in 2013, King Abdullah granted women the right to run and vote in municipal elections, but they are still not permitted to drive, and make up a very small fraction of the national workforce. Beheadings or long jail terms, extensive flogging, the cutting off of hands and torture are common sentences for political crimes.

Saudi Arabia’s actions have also destabilized the region, for example, by invading Bahrain in 2011 and then Yemen in March 2015. The latter conflict has destroyed a country that was already one of the poorest in the world. Saudi bombing has targeted Yemen’s markets, houses, schools, factories, hospitals and health clinics (all war crimes), injuring 35,000 and starving the country’s 7.6 million people through the imposition of a blockade, according to the UN’s Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

The Saudi regime is also a financier of international terrorism, including the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), as revealed in a recent leak of Hillary Clinton’s emails from when she was U.S. Secretary of State. “We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region,” said a memo dated August 17, 2014. A 2009 email sent under Clinton’s name, also leaked by Wikileaks, says “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan].”

Yet, in April 2016, Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion referred to the Saudi warfare state as Canada’s “strategic partner in an increasingly volatile region, particularly in the armed conflict against the so-called Islamic State” (emphasis added). The Liberal government is therefore determined to stand by a Conservative-brokered sale of LAVs—from one ally to another. “We will not weaken the credibility of the signature of the Government of Canada,” said the same government press release.

Ottawa also justifies the LAV sale by highlighting the economic benefits, such as the 3,000 jobs it claims will be sustained at General Dynamics Land Systems’ Canadian plants. However, most Canadians asked about the issue want the government to cancel the sale (an Angus Reid poll in February 2016 found only 19% support for the deal). “It is a pernicious argument to assert that Canadian jobs must depend on the killing, maiming, injuring and repressing of innocent civilians abroad,” says Peggy Mason, president of the Rideau Institute in Ottawa.

Jaramillo agrees. He points out there “are very strong ethical questions to be asked about linking the economic well-being of Canada to the suppression of human rights in other countries.” If jobs are the key consideration, he asks, “then what’s to stop Canada from selling weapons to ISIS or to the Mexican drug cartels? Sadly whenever commercial interests are pitted against the protection of human rights, the former often win.”

Richard Sanders, co-ordinator of the Ottawa-based Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT), says if the Canadian government were really interested in creating jobs it would be investing in more labour intensive sectors such as health and education, “which also have added social benefits that weapons exports obviously don’t provide.” In contrast, the military industry “creates relatively few jobs as it is so capital intensive,” he says. “It is one of the least efficient ways to create jobs.”

In Canada, military exports are reviewed to ensure there is no reasonable risk of the buyer government using Canadian weapons against civilians or otherwise to violate human rights. According to a report in the Globe and Mail in November, Minister Dion blocked a shipment of military goods to Thailand last year because the military junta running the country since 2014 has silenced the press, imprisoned political opponents and prevented public protests. The Globe has persistently highlighted the contradictions of a Canadian policy that blocks some arms sales but allows them to countries with a human rights record as poor as Saudi Arabia’s.

Sanders, who has been studying Canadian arms exports for 30 years, says Canada’s export controls actually “have no teeth whatsoever.” Canada has guidelines but no firm rules, which explains why the government is able to sell billions of dollars worth of military technology to the United States, the most warring country on the planet. “The controls are a facade which protect the official mythology that Canada is a promoter of peace and human rights. That is their real function. The narrative that Canada has these so-called rules fits into the grand myth that this country is a force for peace in the world.”

Sanders emphasizes that when we are speaking about the impact of Canada’s arms sales on peace and human rights, the U.S. is the unmentioned “elephant in the room.” The U.S. government “is constantly at war,” he says. Canada’s exports to the U.S. consist of essential components for about 40 major U.S. weapons systems used in Iraq and Afghanistan. These included helicopters, warplanes and gunships, but also electronics for radar and communications, and targeting and guidance systems that do not go through any export screening at all.

“Washington is also the godfather of Saudi Arabia and many other countries that violate human rights,” says Sanders. “The mainstream peace movement seems to want to shy away from this central issue.”

Jaramillo agrees this “historic loophole” is a major issue. “This is the biggest chunk of exports annually and they get almost blanket approval from Ottawa. Of course, the U.S. has direct or indirect involvement in any number of conflicts around the world and is the biggest arms exporter globally.” Jaramillo opposes such exceptional treatment for any nation and wants Canada to treat all its trading partners in a similarly transparent manner. For him, all military exports should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

The Canadian government has failed to respond adequately to a number of Ploughshares’ concerns about the Saudi arms deal and “may be wilfully blind” to the reasonable risk that the monarchy might use the LAVs against civilians, says Jaramillo. “At the end of the day, what matters are the actual arms deliveries that are going to threaten civilians’ lives, enable human rights violations, cause human suffering, embolden dictators and sustain oppressive regimes.”

Asad Ismi is an independent journalist and activist who covers international affairs for the CCPA Monitor. 

With the country ridden by woe and revulsion; with the discontent so profound and vicious, the Trump presidency began.  It did so by way of comparison – of the chalk-cheese variety.  In 2008, when the shining armour of Knight Obama took centre stage, there were sighs, ecstatic releases, heavy exhalations of hope.  The theme, then, to start this presidency: numbers of attendees.

The notes and observations initially resembled a cock fight of history. Pictures were disseminated through the main news sites: the conspicuously larger numbers at the 2009 inauguration measured against the thinner ones in 2017.  The “popular vote” was mentioned, a sneer against legitimacy. (Inside every believer in democracy is a dormant petty tyrant.)Ignorance also finds a loud, jabbering voice, not all of it stemming from Trump’s aisle.  He is characterised as exceptional – negatively so.  There is a dogmatic refusal that he is not the legitimate president.

It is easy to ignore, in the age of the vacuous tweet or the dribbling that counts for a Facebook post, that there were presidencies that almost took the world to nuclear conflict.  There were presidencies that established torture and extraordinary rendition as necessary practices.  There were presidencies engaged, much against the wishes of the initial founders of the US Republic, in the blood soaked game of empire, with its alliances and territories of control.  Even the armour on Knight Obama began to suffer from imperial rust.

Where there is little to say – Trump’s presidential record is embryonic; where there is sheer bewilderment, minds vanish and vacation into the night of dark ponderings.  Visceral senses take over.  In Trumpland, those senses have become the format of a program, the US as the greatest reality television show. But it would be ridiculous to see this as pure televisual evocation, as the total negation of reality.

For one, he is the astringent fruit of a broken US, a cruel reality that has somehow been locked away in a cupboard of theoretical curiosities. “This American carnage,” as he termed it, “stops right here and stops right now.”  The carnage, he explained on the steps of the Capitol, involved closing factories, vicious crime rates, a failed education system.

Visions of fracture, disappearance, decay.  “We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and to restore its promise for all our people.” The theme of repair writ through, with the accusation that the managers had failed the country. “Together, we will determine the course ofAmerica, and the world, for many years to come.”

The return of power to the people, a populist seizing of the day that suggests revolution.  “January 20^th, 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became rulers of this nation once again.  The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.”

Well that may be, but there is little doubt that the art of being frivolous will also be practiced.  The message of reclaiming sovereignty may well be strong one, but the new president remains, at heart, a businessman.  Trump, as president, was delighted by his pens and the signatures in the President’s Room soon after being sworn in.  “Are we getting some more pens back there?” he ribbed.

Trump’s triumph, the essence of mockery, has been the cathartic cleansing of the mirage of harmony, of conciliation, and acceptance.  It was a rough, extensive puke at the pointy-headed intellectuals, as the four time Alabama governor George Wallace termed them.  It was a decidedly firm middle-finger directed against the acceptance of the electoral experts, or experts of any sort.  Nostalgia tied the knot with a snorting revenge.

That nostalgia has already taken its first bite: a scrubbing of the government website of various Obama administration initiatives.  Gone from the White House site is any reflection about the existential threat posed by climate change. It is too gloomy, not America First enough.

Nostalgia, therefore, would not tolerate it. Instead, what Trump has supplied is “An America First Energy Plan”: “For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry.  President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the US rule.”

The goal of such adjustments to reality?  To “greatly help American workers, increasing wages by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years.”[1] America First is not a terrain of complexity, but one that appeals to red tape cutting simplicity. Out of that idea, jobs are supposedly going to emanate like bright sparks.

This inauguration has been a painful birth.  The mother continues to writhe in disgust and amazement, pondering whether the child needs strangling, if not smothering.  But in the end, it has remained yet another inauguration, another birth, the dawn of another era.  Dullness will find some way of entering the Oval Office, lumbering away to make matters plain and perhaps less terrifying.

There might – the thought is considered surprising – be a tedium, only ruptured by the chatter of the news room or the speculation of the pundit.  Trump may start using the @POTUS handle to tweet, which would be a representative surrender to establishment officials over the populist hotline of Twitter.  The court expert will be heard, and the President will operate accordingly.  Whether he will be permitted to do by electoral blessing remains the dangerous, unanswered question.

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

Notes

 [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy

An agreement signed by Russia and Syria stipulates that up to eleven Russian warships will be able to dock in the Syrian port of Tartus at any one time. The move is designed to boost defense capabilities, the document states.

“The maximum number of the Russian warships allowed at the Russian naval facility at one time is 11, including nuclear-powered warships, providing that nuclear and ecological security rules are observed,” the agreement says.

The nuclear-powered heavy cruiser Peter the Great © / Sputnik

 H.E. President Bashar Al-Assad gave the following interview to the Japanese TBS TV channel:

Question 1:  Thank you Mr. President, thank you for availing us of this opportunity to know your perspective of what is happening in Syria, and the future of this country. First of all, I have one question: now that the Astana talk nears, what do you seek and expect from this conference?

President Assad: First of all, you’re most welcome in Damascus, and I am glad to speak to the Japanese audience for the first time during this war on Syria. We don’t have expectations, let’s say, we have hopes from Astana, that it’s going to be a podium for talks between different Syrian parties regarding everything, but I think it’s going to focus more at the very beginning – it’s going to be the priority, as we see it – is about the ceasefire in different places in Syria in order to protect lives, to allow the humanitarian aid to reach different areas in Syria. It’s not clear yet whether this meeting is going to be about any political dialogue, because it’s not clear who’s going to participate in it. So far, it’s about talking between the government and the terrorist groups in order to make ceasefire and to allow those terrorist groups to join the reconciliations in Syria, which means giving up your armaments and having amnesty from the government. This is the only thing that we can expect in the meantime.

Question 2: And do you accept the formation of transitional government to be discussed in this conference?

President Assad:  Anything that will be discussed should be based on the constitution, because it’s not about the government and the opposition or the government and the terrorist groups; it’s about every Syrian citizen who has the right to define the future of Syria. So, in our constitution there’s nothing called transitional government. You can have regular government that represents different parties and different political entities in Syria. This is our proposition. So, yes, if anybody wants to join this government, what we call it national unity government, this is viable for every party outside or inside Syria, and after that government, you can talk about, let’s say, legislative elections or parliamentarian elections, that would be followed by another government later, which is based on the results of the elections.

Question 3: New United States President Mr. Donald Trump is going to be inaugurated soon. What do you expect of Mr. Trump, and what kind of policy change do you expect from this?

President Assad: As you know, he’s one of few American presidents that weren’t in politics before. Most of the previous presidents, they used to have certain kinds of political jobs or positions. This one is not so. If you read different media, even the American media, they look at him as unpredictable, because they know little about his vision. The only thing that we have that we can base our judgment upon is his rhetoric during the campaign, and if you want to pick up the thing that we can say that it’s good in those rhetorics is our priority today, which is fighting the terrorism, and that’s what he said, President Trump, he said that his priority is to fight ISIS. Of course, ISIS is one of the aspects of terrorism, one of the organizations; when you talk about ISIS you have to talk about al-Nusra, and you have so many Al Qaeda-affiliated groups now within Syria, but he meant by ISIS, I think, the terrorism, so I think this priority that he put is very important. So, we expect, and we hope, that the next administration will be genuine in implementing this rhetoric regarding the terrorism and help not only Syria, because the terrorism today is not a Syrian problem; it’s a Middle Eastern and global problem. So, we hope that they are genuine to forge a real and realistic alliance to fight the terrorists in the region, and that of course will include Syria first of all.

 

Question 4: And I have read one interview in which you mentioned lobbies in Washington DC. They are disturbing the policy change, you think so?

President Assad: It’s very clear that the mainstream media, the different establishments, the different lobbies… this is one combination, one combination that they don’t need to see any change, because they have their own interest in the policy of the United States, in the destructive policy of the United States that we’ve been seeing at least for the last nearly 17 years since George Bush came to power in 2000. We only see the United States launching a war, directly or indirectly through proxies, and those different companies, lobbies, media, they have interest in this kind of problems. It could be financial interest in most of the cases. So, it’s very clear today that they are going to put obstacles and to impede any direction of the policy of the new President regarding either fighting terrorism or respecting the sovereignty of other countries, or even having detente around the world through the good relation with Russia, or with any other great power, like China, for example.

Question 5: In the course of the fight against the so-called Islamic State, would you seek coordination with players like Turkey, Kurds, and the United States?

President Assad:  First of all, if you want to be very transparent, ISIS was created under the supervision of the United States, whether in Iraq in 2006; before it was ISIS, it was IS, Islamic State, it was in Iraq only, restricted to Iraq. Then when the conflict started in Syria, it became ISIS, of Syria and Iraq, and later Turkey sponsored this State, because they used to use the Syrian oil fields in order to export and to get money and to recruit more fighters, and Turkey was directly involved in the smuggling of oil, with the involvement and complicity of Erdogan himself with ISIS. So, we cannot expect to have genuine fight against ISIS by Turkey or the United States, and the recent, more stark example is the attack on Palmyra a few weeks ago, when they could retake Palmyra under the supervision of the Americans, under the surveillance of the American drones; they came through the desert and they occupied Palmyra. Today, we are talking, and ISIS has been attacking Deir Ezzor in the eastern part of Syria, and the Americans did nothing to stop ISIS. This is where the so-called international alliance against terrorism has been working for more than one year and a half now, and they achieved nothing, because they are not serious. For Turkey, Erdogan is Muslim Brotherhood, he’s instinctively and innately sympathetic and linked and close and adhered to the ISIS and to Al Qaeda because they have the same ideology, he cannot be away from them. He tries to do some maneuvers, to show that he’s against those terrorists, ISIS and al-Nusra, but actually on daily basis he supports those organizations, and without his support, they cannot survive.

Question 6: In Aleppo, and elsewhere, your armed forces and Russian forces have been criticized for bombing residential areas, quarters, and hospitals from air. Would you say those human tragedies were inevitable to liberate Aleppo?

President Assad:  Actually, the ones who accused Russia and Syria about the bombardment or committing crimes and so on are the same countries who supported the terrorists, starting from the United States, UK, France, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, and other similar countries. Those who supported the terrorists directly through the media, through the politics, and through sending armaments and money and every logistical support, have no right to cry for the Syrian citizens, because they are the reason why the Syrian civilians, innocent people, have been killed during the last six years. This is first.

Second, our role, as a government, by the constitution, by the law, and our moral obligation toward the Syrian people and the Syrian citizens, is to liberate them from the terrorists. Would anyone accept that a government would see any area in any country under the control of terrorists killing people and destroying everything and implementing their hateful ideology, the Wahabi ideology, on the people, and expect the government to stand by and watch? Of course, if you want to talk the casualties, every war has casualties, every war is a bad war. Every war has blood and killing, every war, any kind of war; you cannot talk about good war, this is self-evident. But if you have to resort to a war to fight terrorism, you will have casualties, unfortunately. We did our utmost not to have any casualties, but those who’ve been out crying for the civilians, did they present any shred of evidence about Syria killing civilians, or Russia? The other question: how can a government morally kill its own people? And if we kill our own people, the civilians, how can we withstand six years, as a government or as army or as President? This is not logical, this is not realistic. We are here because we have the public support. But at the end, as I said, there’s always casualties, and we hope that we can really end this war as soon as possible; this is the only way that we can save Syrian blood through.

Question 7: Your force has been suspected to be using bombs containing chlorine gas. Would you deny it?

President Assad:  Actually, you are talking about chemical weapons, talking about chemical weapons means killing thousands of people in very short time, something that hasn’t happened in Syria since the beginning of the crisis. But the most important thing is that morally, as a government, you wouldn’t do it, you wouldn’t, as I just said, kill your own people, you wouldn’t use mass destruction weapons against your own people, that’s impossible. But third, which is more important, is that in 2013, we signed on the treaty of the banning of chemical weapons, and we gave up our arsenal of chemical weapons since 2013, and we don’t have it anymore. But actually, the terrorists are the ones who used those kinds of armaments, the first time in 2013, and in the spring of 2013 we asked the United Nations to send a delegation for investigations, and the Americans blocked our attempt, because they knew that time that if the delegation came to Syria, it will find the concrete evidence that the terrorists have used chlorine gas against our soldiers. So, I will completely deny what’s in this statement, which reflects the narrative, the Western narrative, regarding Syria, and this is part of demonizing the Syrian government and the Syrian Army.

Question 8: There are millions of refugees and IDPs, including small children, hundreds of thousands of deaths. How do you think of responsibility as President?

President Assad:  Of course, when you talk about refugees, it’s a tragedy, when you talk especially about children, young children, youths, they are innocent people, they don’t have anything to do with this war, regardless of the affiliation. Actually, when you talk about children, they don’t have any political affiliation; they are just innocent people, but they are the ones who pay the price before any other one in the society. So, you’re talking about a tragedy we’ve been living with on daily basis. That’s why that feeling that I’m talking about, that we live with every day, is the incentive for us as officials to do our utmost to get rid of the terrorists who created this problem, and to bring peace and stability back to Syria. That’s the question that the Syrians ask to the President. Of course, as a Syrian, I’m sympathetic with every Syrian who suffered because of the war, but their question now is not what you feel; their question is what are you going to do? When are we going to get rid of those terrorists? But the most important aspect that many in the West and the world don’t mention is that part of the refugees problem is not only related to the terrorists themselves; it’s related to the embargo that’s been implemented on the Syrian people by the West and their allies. This embargo didn’t work against the government; it worked against every Syrian citizen, it affected the life of every Syrian citizen. That’s why many refugees left their country, not only because of the threat of the terrorists, but actually because the basic needs of their life, of their livelihoods, are not available for them to continue their normal life, whether food, whether education, healthcare, anything, it’s not available anymore, so they have to leave Syria to live somewhere else to live the minimum of the life that anyone would seek.

Question 9: Then, in course of the peacemaking process, would you consider your resignation as an option, when you think it’s necessary for reconciliation?

President Assad:  The resignation of the President or the continuation of that President in his position is a national issue, it’s related to every Syrian, because in Syria the President would be elected directly by the Syrian people, so this is not the right of the government or the right of the opposition; it’s the right of every Syrian, so the only decision-maker in that regard is the ballot box. Whoever wants the President to leave, they can go to the ballot box and say “no, we don’t want him.” This is the democracy everywhere in the world. So, no, it’s not something we discuss either with the opposition or with any other country. This is a Syrian issue, and this is part of the constitution, it’s related to the constitution. When we have election, or could be early election – it’s not on the table now – but this is the only way to say whether I have to leave or not. Again, I’m not the reason of the problem. As President, I have to help my country during the crisis, not to flee, not to escape, not to say “I have to leave and let the people fend for themselves.” No, this is not the solution. In the crisis, the President should be at the helm, should take care of the crisis, then after the crisis is finished, he can say maybe he wants to stay or wants to leave, and this is where the Syrian people would tell him “stay” or “no, you have to leave, we don’t want you anymore.”

Question 10: What role would you expect Japan to play in peacemaking and rebuilding Syria; reconstruction and rebuilding Syria, Japan’s role?

President Assad:  Let me be frank with as a Japanese guest in Syria: since our independence, since the launching of the relation between Syria and Japan decades ago, Japan played a very important and vital role in the development of different countries including Syria; supporting the infrastructure, etc. And Japan was always unbiased regarding the different issues concerning the Middle East. It always respected the international law till the beginning of this crisis it was the first time for Japan to breach this trend when they say that the Syrian President should go. The question: is it based on the values and morals of the Japanese people? Definitely not. Everybody knows how morally-motivated the Japanese citizens are, everybody knows it. Is it based on the international law? No, we are sovereign country, we are an independent country, no one in the world has the right to say who should stay and who should go. Unfortunately, that was in line with the American and Western policy. Again, Japan joined the embargo on Syria, Japan used to help the Syrian people. Is the embargo on the Syrian people related to anything regarding the interests of the Japanese people or their values or their laws, or their constitution or anything? I don’t think so. So, how can Japan play that role while they don’t have embassy so they don’t see what’s going on here? Actually, politically, they are blind like so many Western countries that they don’t have any relation with our government or with our country, so they cannot play any role because they don’t know what’s going on. Their information is coming from Western countries, which is absurd for us. Reconstruction of Syria, you cannot talk about reconstruction while you are making an embargo; you cannot give me the food with one hand and take it from me with the other hand. So, it’s about the politics of the Japan; they have to go back to the international law, we are sovereign country, they always respected Syria, and we expect them to go back to that line that distinguished Japan from most of the countries around the world. This is where Japan can, of course, definitely, play an important and vital role regarding the peace and saving blood, and the reconstruction of Syria to help those people. Most of the refugees, they don’t need somebody to tell them “you’re welcome” to Germany or to France or to any other country; they want to go back to their country, they don’t want you to help them there, they want you to help them here. That’s how we see the role of Japan in the future, and we have hope that Japan will go back to the Japan that we used to know during the previous decades.

Journalist: As you know, Japan has experience and role in nation building seventy years ago, Japan may advice to your country’s rebuilding and reconstruction.

President Assad:  Definitely, of course. We hope so.

Question 11: As you know Japanese journalist Jumpei Yasuda, he’s very capable journalist, he’s my friend, has been captured in Syria since June 2015. Do you have any information of his whereabouts and situation?

President Assad:  Till this moment no, we don’t have any information about him. We feel sorry about this and we are, as Syrians, the ones who can understand the feeling of his family, because we have so many missings in Syria; many Syrians have been missed during this war, and we understand the feeling of his family, and we feel sorry for that. But if there is any information, I would have given it to you.

Journalist: He is kept hostage by al-Nusra Front.

President Assad:  I think the one who can help in bringing the information are the Turks, because they are the supervisors of al-Nusra; they must have every information al-Nusra have, with their intelligence and their government.

Journalist: And has Japanese government contacted your government?

President Assad: Unfortunately, no. There is not a single contact between the Syrian government and the Japanese government regarding any subject, including this Japanese journalist, who is a Japanese citizen at the end.

Question 12: You defined the Japanese role through their… Japan is belonging, you think, belonging to the coalition member of the United State, you think?

President Assad: In Syria?

Journalist: Yeah.

President Assad: But the question: what did that coalition achieved, actually, nothing. ISIS was expanding since the beginning of the airstrikes, which were cosmetic airstrikes, I’m being very frank with you, till the Russians intervened against ISIS, the end of September 2015, where ISIS started to shrink. So, that coalition achieved nothing; they only killed Syrian soldiers who have been fighting ISIS in that area, they destroy the infrastructure of the Syrians that has been built during the last seventy years since the independence, in every sector of that infrastructure, whether the oil fields, schools, bridges, refineries, everything has been destroyed by that coalition. This is the only achievement of that coalition, unfortunately.

Question 13: Your plan to rebuild this country, how long does it take? Your timetable?

President Assad: We have started before the end of the crisis, we put the plans and we started with suburbs around Damascus and now we are planning in Aleppo and other cities to reconstruct new suburbs that’s been destroyed, but in a modern way. So, we haven’t waited, and we are not going to wait till the end of the crisis; we can start right away, as the Syrian people are determined to rebuild their country. We built Syria, Syria was not built by any foreigners; we built it with our engineers, with our labors, with our own resources, with the help of some friends – financial help, not technical help. So, we have the ability to rebuild Syria. It takes time because it needs a lot of money. The Syrians, every Syrian is going to build his own house according to his resources even if it is limited, you have expatriates, you have the refugees who left Syria, some of them are in good condition, they want to come back, and with the support of our friends Russia, China, and Iran. Many other countries started discussing the reconstruction of Syria, and they’re going to help with their financial resources. So, you have so many resources to rebuild Syria. It’s not about time; it will take time. Any reconstruction will take time, but the most important thing is that you have the ability to rebuild your country. We are not worried about that. What we are worried about is how can we rebuild the minds of the people that have been under the control of ISIS and al-Nusra for many years; that their minds have been polluted because of the instilled ideology in their minds, this, as I said, as I called it, hateful or Wahhabi Ideology. They saw the death and the killing, and some of the children killed with their hands innocent people. How can we rebuild those minds, or rehabilitate those minds? That’s our big concern after the crisis.

Journalist: Thank you, thank you so much.

President Assad: Thank you.

Video interview  

The Trump era starts now – with geopolitics and geoeconomics set for a series of imminent, unpredictable cliffhangers.

Óscar Romero was known as the voice of the voiceless. During a time of great repression and violence in El Salvador, from 1977 to 1980, he was the Catholic archbishop of the nation’s capital and a leading figure in Central America. Romero gained admiration throughout the world because he had the courage to speak out in favor of the millions of Salvadorans without money or power who suffered terribly at the hands of the autocratic military. In specific and strident terms, he denounced Salvadoran soldiers for torturing and killing innocent civilians, and he criticized the economic elites – known as the oligarchs – for underwriting the violence. For that, Romero was murdered on March 24, 1980, while saying mass in a chapel on the grounds of a hospital for cancer patients.

The shooting of Archbishop Romero made headlines around the globe and helped spark a twelve-year civil war in El Salvador that left over 75,000 people dead. Although a single gunman fired the fatal bullet, the plot to assassinate Romero sprang from a death squad network of military leaders, wealthy businesspeople and former soldiers. The U.S. government had played an important role in the development of these paramilitary forces in El Salvador, and several Salvadorans implicated in the death squads lived in or traveled to the United States. Some developed relationships with influential figures in Washington.

Starting in 2002, as a young attorney with the Center for Justice & Accountability (CJA), I had the honor of investigating Romero’s murder and participating in a lawsuit against one of the killers, Álvaro Saravia. CJA became involved in the case because Saravia was living freely in California, and a key part of the organization’s mission is to take legal action against human rights violators found in the United States. During the case, my colleagues and I, working with Salvadoran partners, met with members of the group that murdered Romero, spoke to witnesses about the funding of the death squads, and eventually won a $10 million verdict against Saravia. My new book, Assassination of a Saint, tells the story of our investigation and lawsuit and explains the complex historical context that led a group of men in a heavily Catholic country to murder the most prominent figure in the Catholic Church.

This will be an important year for Romero’s legacy. After decades of inaction, the Vatican has now declared Romero a martyr, and Pope Francis appears set to canonize Romero as a saint in 2017. The Salvadoran Supreme Court has also invalidated a long-standing amnesty law, opening the possibility that conspirators still living in El Salvador could one day face accountability there. While the authorities have yet to pursue a prosecution, and the country continues to suffer widespread violence and corruption, the historic developments in San Salvador and Rome provide a measure of hope for the future and reinforce Romero’s enduring message of peace and justice.

Matt Eisenbrandt is a human-rights attorney who has devoted his career to finding legal means to prosecute war crimes. In the early 2000s, he served as the Center for Justice and Accountability’s Legal Director and a member of the trial team against one of Óscar Romero’s killers. He is an expert in the field of U.S. human-rights litigation and now works for the Canadian Centre for International Justice.

Rome Court Concludes 3-Year Trial on Multinational Repression in Latin America

National Security Archive Provided Declassified Evidence to Tribunal, Hails Historic Ruling

A tribunal in Rome, Italy, today sentenced two former heads of state and two ex-chiefs of security forces from Bolivia and Peru, and a former Uruguayan foreign minister to life imprisonment for their  involvement in the coordinated, cross-border system of repression known as “Operation Condor.”  The National Security Archive, which provided testimony and dozens of declassified documents as evidence to the tribunal, hailed the ruling.  Today’s posting on the Archive’s web site includes several exhibits from the trial.

One declassified Department of State document that the Archive provided to prosecutors stated that Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay

“have established Operation Condor to find and kill terrorists … in their own countries and in Europe.” “… [T]hey are joining forces to eradicate ‘subversion’, a word which increasingly translates into non-violent dissent from the left and center left.” Their definition of subversion, according to the document, was so broad as to include “nearly anyone who opposes government policy.”

The document notes that former Foreign Minister Blanco of Uruguay was one of those behind this vision.

In another document introduced in the trial, Peru’s former defense and prime Minister Richter Prada claims that three Argentine fugitives were “legally expelled and delivered to a Bolivian immigration official in accordance with long-standing practice.” The document goes on to say that the  fugitives are probably “permanent disappearances.”

The Rome trial considered the disappearance of 42 dual citizens – 33 Italian-Uruguayans, 5 Italian-Argentinians and 4 Italian-Chileans. The tribunal sentenced to life in prison former military dictator Francisco Morales Bermudez and the prime minister at the time, Pedro Richter Prada from Peru; former dictator Luis Garcia Meza and minister of interior Luis Arce Gomez from Bolivia; and former Uruguayan Foreign Minister Juan Carlos Blanco (1973-76). Two Chilean military, Hernán Jerónimo Ramírez and Rafael Ahumada Valderrama, were also sentenced to life. Recently deceased former head of the Uruguayan National Security Council, Gregorio Alvarez, was also one of the initially accused, along with the head of the Chilean secret police (DINA), Manuel Contreras, and DINA operative Sergio Arellano Stark (both deceased).

Surprisingly, the tribunal  acquitted infamous Uruguayan intelligence operatives in Argentina from 1976 Nino Gavazzo, Jose Arab, and Jorge Silveira; along with Jorge Troccoli, a Uruguayan marine intelligence officer operating in Argentina in 1977.  Ten other Uruguayan military were acquitted. Interviewed in Rome, former prosecutor and current director of the Uruguayan National Institution of Human Rights Mirtha Guianze deplored the tribunal acquittals. Relatives of the Uruguayan victims have indicated they will appeal.

The trial had its origin in a complaint filed in 1999 by six relatives of victims: Cristina Mihura, wife of Bernardo Arnone; Marta Casal del Rey, wife of Gerardo Gatti; María Luz Ibarburu, mother of Juan Pablo Recagno; María Bellizzi, mother of Andrés Bellizzi; Aurora Meloni, wife of Daniel Banfi, and Claudia Allegrini, wife of Lorenzo Viñas.

In 2001, Cristina Mihura and prosecutor Giancarlo Capaldo visited the National Security Archive seeking assistance in locating and compiling documentary evidence. Capaldo requested the indictment of the defendants in 2006. The trial started in 2013 and the hearings and debate in February 2015.

According to Carlos Osorio, the Archive’s Southern Cone analyst, “the sentences are the result of the unquenchable thirst for justice of dozens of relatives and victims.” Osorio testified before the court on May 19-20, 2016, and supplied the court with 100 declassified records.

Listen to Archive analyst Carlos Osorio (pictured above at the Argentine embassy in Washington on March 23, 2015) testify at the Rome trial, where he provided dozens of declassified documents as evidence.

Osorio Testimony 5/19/2016

Osorio Testimony 5/20/2016

READ THE DOCUMENTS

Summary of Document 1

“You will have to make an international effort to have your problems understood. Otherwise, you, too, will come under increasing attack. If there are things that have to be done, you should do them quickly. But you must get back quickly to normal procedures.” When Guzzetti suggests that “The terrorists work hard to appear as victims in the light of world opinion even though they are the real aggressors,” Kissinger agrees. “We want you to succeed,” he concludes. “We do not want to harass you. I will do what I can … “

 

Longstanding adversarial relations, hugely exacerbated by Obama’s neocon administration, won’t be easy to change…

Trump genuinely appears to want better bilateral relations. Huge challenges confront him, including possible impeachment if he diverges from longstanding US foreign policy.

What he intends remains to be seen, likely focusing on Russia after his first 100 days, devoted mainly to domestic issues, according to what he explained earlier.

An previous article discussed his 8-point first 100 days plan. It includes:

1. Appointing judges who’ll “uphold the Constitution” – likely code language for supporting conservative, anti-progressive policies.

2. Restricting immigration to help Americans get “good-paying jobs.”

3. Holding countries “cheat(ing) on trade” accountable – how not explained, if by imposing stiff tariffs, they’ll likely be countered by similar ones on US products, the way trade wars begin.

4. “Cancel(ing) rules and regulations that send jobs overseas.” Companies need incentives to keep jobs at home. As private enterprises, they’re free to operate anywhere.

5. Lifting restrictions on energy production – nothing in his plan  shifts from greenhouse-producing fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear power to renewable green sources.

6. “Repeal(ing) and replac(ing) jobs-killing Obamacare.” What’s vitally needed Trump opposes – universal healthcare, everyone in, no one left out, assuring all Americans have the most important human right along with food, shelter, clothing, and governance serving everyone equitably.

7. “Passing massive tax reform to create millions of new jobs and lower taxes for everyone.” Economic growth creates jobs, not tax cuts, largely benefitting high-income earners, most ordinary people getting little or nothing.

8. “Impos(ing) tough new ethics rules…to the office of Secretary of State.”

Trump said nothing about ending US imperial wars or repairing relations with Russia. Stressing “America first” ignores its responsibility to respect the sovereign rights of all nations.

It’s customary for an incoming president to focus mainly on domestic issues straightaway, especially with so much damage to repair, notably under Bush/Cheney and Obama.

With America at war in multiple theaters, it’s crucial to address what’s going on and take responsible steps to change things – hard as it’ll be to do, maybe impossible.

Normalizing relations with Russia and China is vital to avoid possible nuclear war – more important than anything else on Trump’s plate, in the interest of world peace and stability. Lacking them risks catastrophe vital to avoid.

On January 20, Sergey Lavrov said “Donald Trump has stated repeatedly that his priority in the international arena will be the fight against ISIS as the main terrorist threat to the whole of mankind.”

“We completely share this approach and hope that under the new conditions, international cooperation and coordination of efforts by all the main players on this antiterrorist front will be far more effective.”

Lavrov hopes Washington under Trump will participate responsibly in helping to resolve Syria’s conflict – unlike how Obama obstructed it, waging imperial war, seeking regime change.

On Saturday, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said a Putin/Trump meeting may happen in months, not weeks, Russia’s leader to be ready whenever it occurs, in Moscow, Washington or in neutral territory.

The sooner both leaders meet, the better the chance for improved bilateral relations and world peace – no easy objectives to achieve with US dark forces strongly against them.

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.

 

During his Secretary of State confirmation hearing, recently retired ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson came under questioningby Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) about his stance on Saudi Arabia’s awful human rights record, a country which contains the biggest oil reserves on the planet and is a long-time ally of the U.S.

While Tillerson offered mild criticism of Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women, LGBQT people, and others, several Senators found his response far from full-throated and said as much. A DeSmog investigation shows that Exxon has long been involved in Saudi Arabia’s oil and gas industry. Not only did the company, through its predecessor Standard Oil, help launch the industry there and co-owned the country’s first major export pipeline, but to this day it maintains deep business ties with Saudi Arabia and the industry in a variety of sectors, both there and in the U.S.

The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations will vote on whether to confirm Tillerson on January 23, and Rubio’s vote one way or the other could make or break President-elect Donald Trump’s choice of Tillerson for Secretary of State. It appears human rights will play a central role in Rubio’s decision, which he has not yet made. However, Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) has threatened to bring Tillerson’s nomination to a full floor vote regardless of whether he passes in committee.

Corker took $6,000 in campaign contributions from Exxon during his 2006 electoral victory effort and another $10,000 for his 2012 re-election effort.

Exxon’s Saudi America

Exxon and Saudi Arabia have state-side projects too. Currently, Saudi state-owned company Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC) is working alongside Exxon through the company Gulf Coast Growth Ventures to permit and build a natural gas refinery facility along the Gulf of Mexico to manufacture plastics.

“Sites under consideration are in St. James and Ascension Parishes, Louisiana and San Patricio and Victoria Counties, Texas,” details the Gulf Coast Growth Ventures website. “We are very early in the process and have extensive studies and due diligence to perform before making a site selection decision among the four sites under consideration.”

Though not clarified on the company website, presumably that gas would be obtained via hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), given the horizontal drilling technique’s rampant use in Texas’ Eagle Ford, Barnett, and Permian Basin shale formations, as well as in Louisiana’s Haynesville Shale basin. The facility’s website only maintains that “feedstock for the facility will be acquired from domestic sources,” but industry publication Platts reported that much of that could be sourced from the Eagle Ford.

Meanwhile, a grassroots movement has arisen in opposition to the plant’s proposed site in Portland, Texas, calling itself Portland Citizens Unite. While Exxon has made appearances at city council meetings to advocate for the facility, it’s a hard sell. Portland’s city council passed a resolution on January 3 in opposition to the plant’s proposed locale.

Image Credit: City of Portland, Texas

Exxon and SABIC have also created a front group supportive of the project named We Are United for Growth, which showed up in green t-shirts (to represent giving the project a “green light”) at a recent Portland City Council meeting. SABIC says that it expects a final decision on whether to go ahead with the project by sometime during the second quarter of 2017.

Exxon in Saudi Arabia

Back in Saudi Arabia, Exxon also has a heavy footprint. In a 2016 company brochure, Exxon boasts of its close ties to the Saudi petrostate via three crucial petrochemical refining facilities.

“Today, ExxonMobil is one of the largest foreign investors in the Kingdom and also one of the largest private sector purchasers of Saudi Aramco crude oil,” reads the brochure. “Through our joint venture (JV) interests, we have participated in the petroleum refining and petrochemicals manufacturing industries in the Kingdom for over 35 years.”

Take the Saudi Yanbu Petrochemical Company (YANPET), a 50-50 joint venture between Exxon and SABIC, open in Saudi Arabia since the 1980s. This facility, similar to the Gulf Coast Growth Ventures one, creates the chemical compound ethylene, which is then used to manufacture plastics. YANPET is viewed as a worldwide model in the industry.

“Yanpet is a fully integrated plant, making it one of the largest and lowest-cost producers in the world,” writes Exxon. “It is recognized as a petrochemical industry global pacesetter.”

Saudi Aramco Mobil Refinery (SAMREF) is another of the major Exxon co-owned refineries in Saudi Arabia, this time with Saudi Aramco. Saudi Aramco owns and operates the Ghawar Field, the largest onshore oil field in the world, as well as the Safaniya Field, the world’s largest offshore oil field.

Opening in 1984, SAMREF situates itself as “one of the most sophisticated refineries in the Middle East, supplying products to a number of markets around the world,” according to Exxon. “SAMREF processes approximately 400,000 barrels per day of Arabian crude, and approximately half of its output is consumed domestically.”

And then there’s the Al-Jubail Petrochemical Company (KEMYA), a 50-50 SABIC-Exxon joint venture, which also manufactures plastics. On the supply side, Exxon owns a 49 percent stake in the Arabian Petroleum Supply Company (APSCO).

“APSCO operates its aviation fueling services in almost 21 national and international airports. APSCO is a long term supplier of aviation fuels to the national carrier, Saudi Arabian Airlines at several airports in the kingdom,” details its website. “Also, APSCOprovides bunkering and marine lubricants in several national and international ports on a 24 hours basis, utilizing a fleet of bunkering ships.

Exxon and Saudi Aramco are among the largest emitters of carbon in the world, according to a groundbreaking 2014 study by Richard Heede, completed for the Climate Accountability Institute.

Image Credit: CarbonMajors.org

“Often Been Reluctant”

The kindred bond between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia centering around fossil fuels is well-documented, becoming a central tenet of U.S. foreign policy after the famous handshake between President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Saudi Arabia founder Abdulaziz Ibn Saud in 1945.

In fact, as a parting gift from the White House, the Obama administration offered $115 billion in weapons to Saudi Arabia in September.

“We’ve often been reluctant to put as much pressure on states that we are dependent upon for oil, than in situations with states where we’re not dependent on oil,” said U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) during Tillerson’s January 12 confirmation hearing.

Would Rex Tillerson, given the corporate ties that bind him to Saudi Arabia and his long-standing support for the country, reverse course on this status quo as U.S. Secretary of State? That’s doubtful, to say the least.

The launching of coordinated air strikes by Russian and Turkish warplanes against Islamic State (ISIS) targets in northern Syria Wednesday has further exposed the crisis gripping Washington’s intervention in the war-ravaged Middle Eastern country, as well as the deepening contradictions plaguing the NATO alliance on the eve of Donald Trump’s inauguration as US president.

The bombing campaign struck targets around the Syrian town of al-Bab, the scene of bloody fighting between Turkish troops and ISIS militants over the past several weeks.

From a political standpoint, the joint action by Russia and Turkey, a member of the NATO alliance for the past 65 years, is unprecedented. It stands in stark contradiction to the anti-Moscow campaign being waged by Washington and its principal NATO allies, which has seen the cutting off of military-to-military ties, the imposition of sanctions, and the increasingly provocative deployment of thousands of US and other NATO troops on Russia’s western borders. Just last week, the US sent 3,000 soldiers into Poland, backed by tanks and artillery, while hundreds more US Marines have been dispatched to Norway.

Turkey’s collaboration with Russia represents a further challenge to the US-led alliance under conditions in which Trump has severely rattled its European members with recent statements describing NATO as “obsolete” and charging its members with not “taking care of terror” and not “paying what they’re supposed to pay.”

The joint air attack was carried out under the terms of a memorandum reached between the Russian and Turkish militaries the previous week, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

The document, signed on January 12, was designed to prevent “incidents” between Turkish and Russian warplanes, as well as to prepare “joint operations … in Syria to destroy international terrorist groups,” Lt. Gen. Sergei Rudoskoy said in a statement.

Russian-Turkish relations reached their nadir in November 2015 when Turkish fighter jets ambushed and shot down a Russian warplane carrying out airstrikes against Islamist fighters near the border between Turkey and Syria. The incident brought Turkey, and with it NATO, to the brink of war with nuclear-armed Russia. At that point, Turkey was serving as the main conduit for foreign fighters, weapons and other resources being poured into Syria to wage the US-orchestrated war for regime change, while Russia was intervening to prop up its principal Middle East ally, the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

In June of last year, Ankara sought to mend it relations with Moscow, which had retaliated for the shoot-down with economic sanctions. Relations grew closer in the wake of the abortive July 2016 military coup, which the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan blamed on the US and its allies.

The turning point in bilateral relations between Turkey and Russia came at the end of last year, with the Russian-backed Syrian army’s routing of the Western-backed, Al Qaeda-linked militias in their last urban stronghold of eastern Aleppo. Turkey joined with Russia in brokering a withdrawal of the last “rebels” from the area and a nationwide ceasefire, which continues to prevail in much of the country.

Washington was pointedly excluded from the negotiations surrounding both Aleppo and the ceasefire. Only at the last moment has Moscow invited the incoming Trump administration—over the objection of Syria’s other major ally, Iran—to participate in talks aimed at reaching a political settlement over the six-year-old war that are to convene in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, next week.

The joint Russian-Turkish airstrikes around al-Bab came in the wake of bitter protests by the Turkish government over the refusal of the US military to provide similar air support for Ankara’s troops in the area. The Pentagon’s reluctance stemmed from the conflicting aims pursued by Turkey, which sent its troops into Syria last August in what the Erdogan government dubbed “Operation Euphrates Shield.”

Ostensibly directed against ISIS, Ankara’s primary target was really the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its military wing, the People’s Protection Unit (YPG). The Turkish government views these groups as affiliates of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), against which it has waged a protracted counterinsurgency campaign within Turkey itself. The offensive against ISIS-controlled al-Bab is aimed principally at preventing it from falling to the YPG and at blocking the linking up of eastern and western Kurdish enclaves along Turkey’s border.

For its part, Washington has utilized the YPG as its principal proxy ground force in the US attack on ISIS, sending in US special forces troops to arm, train and direct these Kurdish fighters.

The US refusal to back Turkish forces around al-Bab with airstrikes led to angry denunciations of Washington by the Turkish president, who charged that the US was supporting “terrorists” instead of its NATO ally. Ankara also began delaying approval for US flights out of the strategic Incirlik air base in southern Turkey and threatened to deny Washington and its allies access to the base altogether.

It was likely these threats, combined with the Turkish-Russian agreement to conduct joint strikes, that led the Pentagon to reverse its previous refusal to support Turkish forces and launch limited bombing runs around al-Bab as well this week.

This crowded and geostrategically tense battlefield is likely to grow even more dangerous following Trump’s ascension to the White House.

Trump has reportedly called for the Pentagon to come up with proposals to deal a decisive defeat to ISIS in Syria and Iraq within 90 days. Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Wednesday that he would “present options to accelerate the campaign” against ISIS to retired general James Mattis, Trump’s incoming defense secretary.

Citing unnamed Pentagon officials, CNN reports that “The Defense Department is prepared to provide the new administration with military options to accelerate the war against ISIS in Syria that could send additional US troops into direct combat.”

“One option would put hundreds, if not thousands, of additional US troops into a combat role as part of the fight to take Raqqa,” the Islamic State’s Syrian “capital,” according to the television news network. “… in the coming months, the Pentagon could put several US brigade-sized combat teams on the ground, each team perhaps as many as 4,000 troops.”

Plans are also reportedly being drawn up to escalate military provocations against Iran, which Mattis, in testimony before the Senate, described as the “biggest destabilizing force in the Middle East,” adding that the Trump administration must “checkmate Iran’s goal for regional hegemony.”

There is every indication, Trump’s rhetoric about improving relations with Moscow notwithstanding, that US imperialism is preparing for another eruption of militarism in the Middle East that will pose an ever greater threat of spilling over into a new world war.

It happens every four or eight years. America’s 22nd Amendment states:

“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

“But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.”

Ratified by the required three-fourths of the then-48 states, it became the law of the land on February 27, 1951. It was introduced in response to Franklin Roosevelt’s four-time electoral triumphs. No other president served more than two terms, a precedent set by George Washington.

He declined to serve longer, saying he “didn’t fight George III to become George I.” His farewell address warned against involvement in “entangling” alliances.

He advised focusing mainly on domestic issues, counsel not followed except by John Adams, Jefferson and Madison.

More recently, things went disturbingly downhill. Washington would likely cringe at what’s ongoing. US presidents since James Monroe ignored his advice.

America is a warrior nation, a modern-day Sparta with nukes, its leaders and bipartisan congressional members disdainful of peace and stability, recent history most belligerent of all.

Changing of the guard in America usually occurs smoothly – this year very much out of step with tradition, events throughout the campaign and post-election unprecedented in US history.

Despite establishment forces and the press overwhelmingly supporting one major candidate over the other, the resoundingly denigrated outsider triumphed convincingly.

No matter. Efforts to delegitimize and undermine Trump persist, inauguration day and its aftermath promising to be tumultuous.

Hillary remains a sore looser. Graciousness was never her long suit. Wickedness defines her. Trump’s troubles may be just beginning. Dark forces wanting her to succeed Obama aren’t likely to give him a moment to breathe freely.

His tenure may be the most tumultuous in US history since the Civil War period – how it plays out and its ending yet to be determined.

It’ll take more than thick skin to handle what’s likely to come at him. America’s deep state gets what it wants. If replacing Trump with a more reliable establishment figure is intended, there’s little he can do to stop it

The Trump era begins at midday Friday – for as long as it lasts, a big changing of the guard uncertainty unlike any previous time in US history.

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.

It’s not the metaphorical political meltdown of Belgium that neighbouring governments fret about, but a nuclear meltdown. The Netherlands, Luxemburg and Germany have all asked Belgium’s government to close its most risky reactors with immediate effect. The city of Aachen and 30 other major cities and districts are also suing Belgium for not closing them. The German government no longer trusts the Belgian Nuclear Safety Agency and wants permission for its own agency to do safety checks. So far, foreign pressure is falling on deaf ears.

Belgians have even more reasons to worry. On 10 January 2017 a new emergency plan was presented in a commission in Belgium’s Parliament. The evacuation perimeter was conveniently halved to 10km to avoid an evacuation of Belgium’s second and third cities in case of a meltdown. Nuclear Transparency Watch, a European organisation created by Members of the European Parliament of all political colours, called Belgium’s plans totally inadequate and incoherent.inad

So rather than signing agreements with Belgium about sharing information, where are the sanctions for Belgium? There are both EU and UN regulations that could shut the reactors down, as more than a million people requested a year ago. Belgium’s neighbours have reasons to get tough.

Belgium is your backyard

Belgium’s recent nuclear history reads like a mirror of Germany’s, where the highest court decided that Merkel’s decision to speed up the nuclear phase-out after the Fukushima incident was justified. Belgium did just the opposite. The Belgian government reversed a nuclear phase-out law from 2003 only a year after the Japanese reactors exploded, pushing retirement back from 2015 to 2025. The last bill to postpone retirement with 10 years was approved at the end of 2016. The Government can ‘take comfort’ at the fact that 2017 started better than 2016: in 2016, the first ‘incident’ happened just two days into the New Year on January 2; in 2017 the first incident (in which one person got severely injured) took place eight days later on January 10 with an unexpected shutdown as result.

Yes, the protesting former president of the European Parliament Martin Schulz was born and raised close to Belgium’s border and yes, I was born and raised 15 km from four nuclear reactors in Doel, in the city of Antwerp (half a million people). But before you call us NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) activists: our backyard contains six to seven million people that in the event of a nuclear meltdown would never be able to go home again. Depending on the wind direction on the day of a meltdown, a radioactive cloud will poison additional people in London, Paris, Amsterdam or Aachen as well. The possibility of that scenario has increased in recent years.

Cracks, extortion and sabotage 

In 2012 it became known that the mantle around the old Tihange 2 reactor shows signs of erosion. Further research in 2015 concluded that there are thousands of cracks of up to 15 cm. Later that year, 10 security incidents were recorded in Tihange in just six weeks, leading Belgium’s nuclear safety agency to suspend four members of staff and raise serious questions about the safety culture. In 2015, Belgian’s nuclear plants spent longer in shutdown or “maintenance” than in being operational.

Who said nuclear energy was a reliable source of energy?

But it is the Doel plant that reads like the script of an apocalyptic Hollywood blockbuster, part one. The plant was sabotaged in 2014. The sabotage was found before things spiralled out of control, but the culprit(s) remain unknown. A year later, police found hidden cameras that followed the movements of a nuclear researcher, raising alarming questions about criminals extorting staff. Research also revealed a staggering number of cracks in the mantle that is supposed to keep the Doel 3 reactor in check: 13,047. The cracks are on average 1 to 2 cm wide, but the largest ones are up to 18cm. And with 35 years of operational history, the researched Doel 3 is the second “youngest” of Doel’s four reactors. Belgium’s nuclear safety agency concluded after the tests in Tihange and Doel that the erosion of the mantle was due to normal reactor activity. They can thus be expected to be present in all plants in the world of similar age and to keep multiplying through normal reactor use.

The economic and terrorist threats

In terms of potential economic impacts, Doel is by far number 1 in Europe. The major Fukushima disaster knocked 2 to 10% from Japan’s GDP, but when Doel goes into meltdown, the cost is estimated to be 200% of the GDP of Belgium. In such a scenario, GDP won’t really mean much. Most of Flanders and the capital of Europe will become inhabitable zones, sending millions of refugees to France, The Netherlands, Germany and the UK. Will they open their borders for a flood of immigrants from Belgium?

And then there’s terrorism. For the last two years, Belgian authorities have claimed we are living under emergency level 3, just one notch below the State of Emergency that France is living under. This means a terrorist threat is “serious” and an attack “probable”. France has already experienced a series of undeclared drone flights over various nuclear power stations. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists later explained that the danger of that is not about drones carrying small explosives and crashing on the plant because in theory a nuclear plant can cope with a jumbo jet crash (although this has never been tested). But drones can easily carry AK47s and drop them inside the territory of the plant, even at night.

In another scenario laid out by the atomic scientists, drones can attack the power lines and then the diesel generator back-up system. It requires a bit more organisation than driving a truck into a crowd, but less than teaching a terrorist team how to fly a jumbo jet, hijack several at the same time and fly them into the two WTC towers and the Pentagon. As we have learned the hard way in recent years, Belgium also happens to be a favourite hide-out for terrorists. Belgium’s authorities want us to believe that the terrorist risk has never been so high, but they don’t want you to connect that with our nuclear plants and with unexplained drone flights over nuclear plants.

Corrupted centralised power plants

All this raises the question: is it still smart to count on a few vulnerable centralised power plants? And what about the waste of state money that seems to come hand-in-hand with nuclear power? Bulgaria wasted 1,221 billion euro on a plant that never materialized. Bulgaria is also still spending money to deal with the legacy of uranium mining, even though the last mine closed in 1992. When I visited the surroundings of the now closed Buhovo mine, stones of a size that would fit a child’s hand showed radiation 100s of times above normal. They were ready to be picked up and played with at a popular local picnic place.

Conflicts against nuclear power plants and the formulation of constructive alternatives are popping up outside Europe as well: from India to Japan. So are the conflicts and externalised costs around the uranium that now feeds most of our reactors, from Niger to Namibia. Although there’s one other country that has become the EU’s main supplier: Russia. But as environmental justice, geopolitical weakening or financial debacles don’t seem to stop the nuclear addiction: will it have to take another meltdown? Policymakers seem to have forgotten that our countries signed up to the precautionary principle, which the EU still has in its Treaty. Maybe it’s time that the Germans, who are kicking nuclear out of their country, march once more on Belgium. As a Belgian citizen I do kindly request to come in peace and only armed with the renewable energy solutions that swept your country.

Nick Meynen was the organiser of a 72km long anti-nuclear energy march from Doel to Brussels. He works for the ENVJUSTICE project and writes articles and books on environmental issues.

A Belgian court has ordered the arrest of the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel, Tzipi Livni, when she steps off the plane on her arrival in the Belgian capital Brussels on 23 January, official EU sources revealed on Thursday.

On 23 June 2010, a group of victims filed a complaint in Belgium to the Federal Prosecutor against certain Israeli civilian and military officials at the time, including Tzipi Livni, for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the Gaza Strip, according to Palestinian News Network(PNN).

The Federal Prosecutor’s Office confirmed that Livni would be intercepted by the Federal Judicial Police during her stay in Belgium to be heard and questioned following the complaint lodged against her and that it would ensure the necessary follow-up to this case.

Livni was the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time of the Israeli military operation  “Cast Lead” in the Gaza Strip, which took place from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009. She is scheduled to arrive in Brussels on 23 January to participate in a conference in the European Parliament.

German opposition leader Sahra Wagenknecht on Tuesday added her voice to calls to dissolve the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the wake of US President-elect Donald Trump’s controversial remarks concerning the military alliance

“NATO must be dissolved and replaced by a collective security system including Russia,” Wagenknecht told Germany’s “Funke” media group.

Wagenknecht, who leads the opposition Left Party in parliament, added that comments made by the future US president “mercilessly reveal the mistakes and failures of the [German] federal government.”

‘Very unfair’

In an interview published by German tabloid “Bild,” Trump described NATO as an “obsolete” organization.

“I said a long time ago that NATO had problems. Number one it was obsolete, because it was designed many, many years ago,” he said.

“We’re supposed to protect countries. But a lot of these countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to be paying, which I think is very unfair to the United States,” Trump added.

Germany’s Left Party has previously called for warmer ties with Russia and scrapping the security alliance, measures which appear to be policy concerns for the incoming US administration.

The Left Party is Germany’s largest opposition group in parliament, and holds seats in several state legislatures.

 

On February 15, 2003, when millions reportedly filled the streets of U.S. cities to oppose the invasion of Iraq, I was in Mosul. Yes, the Mosul Iraqi forces are poised to retake, the Iraqi city adjacent to Nineveh, the ancient site trashed by ISIL.

For 12 years, from 1990 to 2002, it was evident that the U.S. and its chief allies, England and Israel, were bent on wholly destroying Iraq. Millions died (lives lost before 2003 are not figured into ‘Iraq body count’); millions more were stricken by one disease or another, fell into poverty, or fled. That war was carried out under the auspices of our global peace agency, the United Nations, in a multi-pronged U.S.-designed and policed blockade. So successful was that embargo, so intimidated or distracted was the public, that only a handful of individuals, mainly Europeans, dared to enter Iraq to document that onslaught, the resulting ‘humanitarian’ disaster, and the collapse of a remarkable modern society and an ancient civilization.

http://johnpilger.com/videos/paying-the-price-killing-the-children-of-iraq

By 1998, after eight brutal years of punishment and deprivation, unexpectedly and wondrously, Iraq began to reverse its downward trajectory. And, when the enemy (U.S.A./U.K./Israel) saw its embargo was collapsing, they raised the WMD scare and activated their military option. Seeing their government preparing for a massive assault, the American public awoke in panic, afraid not for Iraqis but for their own sons and brothers.

Hoards unmoved by 12 years of Iraqi suffering and deaths suddenly erupted with anti-war fervor: “No blood for oil”, “Not in our name”, “We are the greater truth”. The largest rally in history would be remembered as “an incredible moment”—800 cities. Today liberals of all stripes boast of their anti-war devotions, their respect for Iraqi civilization, their opposition to violence. They all loved peace; they loved Iraqi people. (Later they would claim, “while we couldn’t prevent war, we proved it’s clear illegality”.)

It was sobering to be inside Iraq that February 15^th in 2003. Together with my friends in Mosul I watched news of the purported millions rallying across the world on Iraq’s behalf. But no one inside Iraq was impressed. The protests had nothing to do with Iraqis. Where had these peace devotees been for the last decade? Those rallies were, we felt, disingenuous–just a panic attack by a naïve people who wanted to assure themselves that they are kind, moral, knowing.

Within Iraq we felt a confused sadness, and surrender. No one knew from where the enemy would descend. Their decimated forces could not defend Iraq’s borders. There was nowhere to run, to hide. To whom could they plead for intervention? People called their families– to gather loved ones near. Everyone prayed silently. Millions sat in a daze, waiting. Hearing about that impulsive interest in peace around the globe did not stir us, not at all. It was late, and childish.

How does that history bear on today’s rallies across USA? Like the righteous anti-war upsurge of 2003, this weekend’s march is a demonstration of liberal America’s panic—a belated attempt to redress a wrong, a mistake, a realization of having been coddled and misled, or misinformed. Those retreating to the street to shout “Not my president” are secretly admitting they goofed. It’s not Trump’s or Clinton’s missteps motivating them. It’s their own errors: their misunderstanding of how democracy works.

Week after week these ‘good guys’ used their (first amendment) freedom of speech repeating daily gossip generated over Facebook and the media, a deluge of funny, encouraging, or bizarre utterances by Sanders, Clinton, Carson or Cruz, and especially by Trump, while ignoring the senate races, state legislative elections, their own district politicians and neighbors with different ideas. Like-minded friends huddled in social networks agreeing that they knew best, that their single news source offered the truth.

There were so many clever quotes to relay, so many alarming things said, so much money spent, such good satire. Overwhelmed, liberals panicked and sought shelter with the familiar. Even those who foreswore network news couldn’t resist indulging crazy quotes and caricatures. When Nov. 8^th arrived, perhaps many didn’t bother voting, as if only presidential candidates were on the ballot.

Some knew Clinton would win from their holy book, the New York Times. After all, Clinton was endorsed by a Nobel laureate, Michael Moore, and Noam Chomsky. And millions of feminists were determined that America must finally catch up to the rest of the world with its own woman leader.

We know what happened. And we see today, similar to Feb. 15, 2003 preceding the invasion of Iraq, these good guys find that they have been misled, misinformed, misguided, overconfident, and a minority—just plain out of touch. Some actually wept. When conceding defeat, Clinton addressed her distraught supporters as if they were children.

About the failed 2003 anti-war rally, one unapologetic organizer noted:

“While we did not prevent the Iraq war, the protests proved its clear illegality….” This weekend’s marches are expressing essentially the same message. As John Whitehead writes in his Rutherford Institute 01/19/2017 newsletter: “If those marches and protests are merely outpourings of discontent … with no solid plan of action or follow-through, then what’s the point?”

Some Republican TV presenters’ advice to despondent liberals is: “You lost; get over it; suck it up”.

The only value of the marches and protests is to energize, rebuild networks, and identify new leaders. Meanwhile a rush of guidebooks, some humorous, for living in the new America have been rushed though the press. Among them is Gene Stone’s Trump Survival Guide. In a radio interview, Stone (http://wamc.org/post/trump-survival-guide) offers some solid counsel, invoking successful organizing strategies of the opposition. I would also advise liberals to dump their New York Times subscription   (although I’m dismayed to learn NYT readership rose after Nov 8^th);

The major issue for liberals is: can you learn to cross the isle? America is smitten with a polarized two party system. And liberals thus far seem disinterested in either cleaning up the Democratic Party or building a new movement independent of it.

Just don’t take too long to figure out the way forward.  END

Notes

¹For instance, West Papua: Genocide, Demographic Change, the Issue of ‘Intent’ and the Australia-Indonesia Security Treaty, Australia Institute of International Affairs, Adelaide, 23/10/06; Not Just a Disaster, Papuan Claims of Genocide Deserve to be taken Seriously, Inside Indonesia Issue 97, July-Sept. 2009; West Papuan Demographic Transition and the 2010 Indonesian Census: “Slow Motion Genocide” or Not?, Papua Papers No. 1, CPACS, University of Sydney, September, 2010. More recently with Camellia Webb-Gannon, A Slow Motion Genocide: Indonesian Rule in West Papua, Griffith Journal of Law and Human Dignity, Vol. 1(2), 2013, pp. 142-165.

²See West Papuan Demographic Transition and the 2010 Indonesian Census: “Slow Motion genocide” or not? Op. cit.

³Ibid.

⁴Suku meaning ‘tribe’ and Bukan meaning ‘not’ in Bahasa Indonesia

⁵Statistics on Ethnic Diversity in the Land of Papua, Indonesia, Aris Ananta; Dwi Retno Wilujeng Wahyu Utami; Nur Budi Handayani, Asia & Pacific Policy Studies, Vol. 3, Issue 3, September 2016, p. 3.

⁶There is some variance in the figures from the Badan Pusat Staistik of total populations etc. although these are statistically insignificant.

⁷www.bps.go.id/linkTabelStatis/print/id/1268

⁸This quote is from a paper presented by Emil Ola Kleden, ‘Papua, Indonesia and Climate Change’ for the conference, At The Intersection: Climate Change in the Pacific and Resource Exploitation in West Papua, organized by the West Papua Project at the University of Western Sydney on November 3-4, 2016. Kleden refers to Ananta, A., Evi Nurvidya Arifin, M. Sairi Hasbullah, Nur Budi Handayani, Agus Pramono, Demography of Indonesia’s Ethnicity, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, 2015, p.10.

⁹

¹⁰Statistics on Ethnic Diversity, op. cit.

¹¹Cypri J. P. Dale and John Djonga, The Papuan Paradox: The Patterns of Social Injustice, the Violations of Right to Development, and the Failure of Affirmative Policies in Kabupaten Keerom, Papua, Yayasan Teratai Hati Papua, Arso, Keerom, Papua, and Sunspirit for Justice and Peace, Flores, NTT, Indonesia, 2011, slide 45.

¹²Ibid.

¹³See Jim Elmslie and Cammi Webb-Gannon, A Slow-Motion Genocide: Indonesian Rule in West Papua, Griffith Journal of Law & Human Dignity, Vol. 1[2] 2013, pp. 142-165.

¹⁴Confidential source with firsthand knowledge of conditions in Merauke.

¹⁵Personal comment from a Papuan source who related that many Papuan people are unused to the controlled and repetitive regime of industrial agriculture, and intensely bored from such occupations as security ‘guards’.

¹⁶Ibid.

Notes

¹For instance, West Papua: Genocide, Demographic Change, the Issue of ‘Intent’ and the Australia-Indonesia Security Treaty, Australia Institute of International Affairs, Adelaide, 23/10/06; Not Just a Disaster, Papuan Claims of Genocide Deserve to be taken Seriously, Inside Indonesia Issue 97, July-Sept. 2009; West Papuan Demographic Transition and the 2010 Indonesian Census: “Slow Motion Genocide” or Not?, Papua Papers No. 1, CPACS, University of Sydney, September, 2010. More recently with Camellia Webb-Gannon, A Slow Motion Genocide: Indonesian Rule in West Papua, Griffith Journal of Law and Human Dignity, Vol. 1(2), 2013, pp. 142-165.

²See West Papuan Demographic Transition and the 2010 Indonesian Census: “Slow Motion genocide” or not? Op. cit.

³Ibid.

⁴Suku meaning ‘tribe’ and Bukan meaning ‘not’ in Bahasa Indonesia

⁵Statistics on Ethnic Diversity in the Land of Papua, Indonesia, Aris Ananta; Dwi Retno Wilujeng Wahyu Utami; Nur Budi Handayani, Asia & Pacific Policy Studies, Vol. 3, Issue 3, September 2016, p. 3.

⁶There is some variance in the figures from the Badan Pusat Staistik of total populations etc. although these are statistically insignificant.

⁷www.bps.go.id/linkTabelStatis/print/id/1268

⁸This quote is from a paper presented by Emil Ola Kleden, ‘Papua, Indonesia and Climate Change’ for the conference, At The Intersection: Climate Change in the Pacific and Resource Exploitation in West Papua, organized by the West Papua Project at the University of Western Sydney on November 3-4, 2016. Kleden refers to Ananta, A., Evi Nurvidya Arifin, M. Sairi Hasbullah, Nur Budi Handayani, Agus Pramono, Demography of Indonesia’s Ethnicity, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, 2015, p.10.

⁹

¹⁰Statistics on Ethnic Diversity, op. cit.

¹¹Cypri J. P. Dale and John Djonga, The Papuan Paradox: The Patterns of Social Injustice, the Violations of Right to Development, and the Failure of Affirmative Policies in Kabupaten Keerom, Papua, Yayasan Teratai Hati Papua, Arso, Keerom, Papua, and Sunspirit for Justice and Peace, Flores, NTT, Indonesia, 2011, slide 45.

¹²Ibid.

¹³See Jim Elmslie and Cammi Webb-Gannon, A Slow-Motion Genocide: Indonesian Rule in West Papua, Griffith Journal of Law & Human Dignity, Vol. 1[2] 2013, pp. 142-165.

¹⁴Confidential source with firsthand knowledge of conditions in Merauke.

¹⁵Personal comment from a Papuan source who related that many Papuan people are unused to the controlled and repetitive regime of industrial agriculture, and intensely bored from such occupations as security ‘guards’.

¹⁶Ibid.

U.S. B-2 war planes bombed two camps in Libya overnight that Pentagon officials claim were housing Islamic State (ISIS) militants, concluding President Barack Obama’s time as commander in chief with another slew of deaths.

More than 80 people were killed at the camps about 25 miles southeast of Sirte, where ISIS fighters fled from last year after attacks by Libyan fighters backed with American air power. The bombing, which was reportedly requested by Libya’s Government of National Accord, comes a month after the U.S. claimed a “successful conclusion to a months-long air campaign against the militant group,” the Guardian notes.

Obama reportedly authorized the strikes earlier this week, without congressional approval. The president committed to giving Libya air support after the U.S.-backed toppling of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. He later said the military’s lack of an action plan for the day after Gaddafi’s ouster was his “worst mistake” as a president.

The strikes appear to underscore that ISIS remains a threat in Libya, regardless of U.S. military claims.

That prospect becomes more grim as the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump approaches. As Common Dreams reported last year, Obama’s years of expanding unchecked war powers means he will hand the keys to the White House over to a man with a brash and impulsive approach to foreign policy at best.

Guardian reporter Spencer Ackerman made reference to the incoming changeover on Twitter, writing, “Massive, yuge U.S. airstrikes in Libya closing out the Obama administration.”

The conference for peace between Israel and the Palestinians initiated by the French government that took place on January 15 in Paris was positive in many ways. The concluding declaration that collectively emerged pointed out the need to establish a Palestinian state as a prerequisite to peace and stability, urged the two sides to recommit themselves to a two-state solution, and emphasized the urgent need for both to take action to reverse the current trends of Palestinian incitement and Israel’s expansion of the settlements.

Furthermore, it called for ending the occupation and accentuated the importance of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative (API) to provide the framework for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. The resolution also stressed the importance of public debate, strengthening the role of civil society, and addressing the humanitarian and security situation in Gaza.

Perhaps one of the most important reasons, however, for holding the conference only a few days before the inauguration of President-elect Trump was to send a message to the new administration about the international consensus regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, hoping to prevent Trump from taking any measure that might threaten the prospect of a two-state solution.

Of main concern to the conferees was Trump’s campaign promise to relocate the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and give Netanyahu a free hand to expand the settlements, which could torpedo the prospect of peace and provoke the Arab states at a time when they are needed to support any new peace initiative.

Although the resolution was largely on target, it lacked specific suggestions that could be embraced by the Trump administration to help advance the peace process in a tangible way.

I was directly involved in an effort to shed new light on the core issues that have and continue to separate the two sides, and I suggested specific measures to mitigate them—issues which I considered critical to the resumption of the negotiations that would substantially improve the prospect of reaching a durable peace.

To that end, I wrote a major proposal which I discussed with top French Foreign Ministry officials. Subsequently, Pierre Vimont (France’s Middle East Special Envoy), EU Special Representative for the Middle East Process Fernando Gentilini, and I addressed the EU Foreign Relations Committee in November 2016, where I emphasized the need for a new approach.

There were many areas in the conflict over which Mr. Vimont and I fully agreed—and were reflected in the final declaration of the conference—and other issues which were not spelled out. In my view, had such issues been clearly stated, they would have revealed the real causes behind the stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and offered ways to mitigate them.

The first issue is the psychological dimension of the conflict and its impact on every conflicting issue. Unless major efforts are made to change the public narrative on both sides to reflect the truth from historical and religious perspectives, neither side can make the far-reaching concessions necessary to forge a peace agreement.

The need to mitigate that through a process of reconciliation—people-to-people and government-to-government—is central to constructive negotiations. Such a process would allow both sides to nurture mutual trust, which is totally lacking, and allay concerns over national security, while also disabusing strong Israeli and Palestinian constituencies that still want to have it all.

The second issue is Hamas and its political stance, which has and continues to impede any progress. The conference’s resolution stipulates the “importance of addressing the humanitarian and security situation in Gaza and called for swift steps to improve the situation.” Although this is necessary, as long as Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel and is not a signatory to the API, it plays into the hand of the hard-core Israelis who claim that the Palestinians simply want to eradicate rather than peacefully coexist with Israel.

The conference should have called on Hamas to accept in principle Israel’s right to exist and beseeched countries like Turkey and Qatar, who enjoy substantial influence on Hamas, to embrace the API. This is necessary particularly because Hamas must be part and parcel of any final resolution to the conflict.

Third, although the participants “expressed their readiness to exert necessary efforts toward the achievement of the two-state solution…,” who will exert such efforts—economic and other incentives? I took the position that the conferees should have established a commission composed of representatives from an Arab state, the EU, and the US to encourage the parties to take certain steps, review progress, and pin down the sources that impede it. Otherwise, the recommendation will be just words.

Fourth, the conferees call for “ ending the occupation…satisfy Israel’s security need, and resolve all permanent status issues on the basis of [UNSC] Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973)…” This appeal is certainly valid and no solution is possible unless these requirements are met. Here again, though, there is nothing new.

The participants should have also recommended the establishment of another commission to work closely with both Israel and the Palestinians to begin modifying their public position on several of the major conflicting issues.

For example, everyone who is familiar with the conflict knows that the right of return of the Palestinian refugees cannot and will not be exercised, as this will almost instantly change the Jewish character of Israel. The Palestinian Authority should begin to speak publicly about the only viable option to resolve the Palestinian refugees through compensation and/or resettlement.

Similarly, Israelis should also know that there will be no Israeli-Palestinian peace unless East Jerusalem becomes the capital of the state of Palestine. Here too, the Israeli public must begin to think in these terms and not buy into Netanyahu’s argument that a “united” Jerusalem will remain the eternal capital of Israel, which would foreclose any prospect for peace.

To be sure, even though the conferees do not have any power of enforcement, by opening public debates on these issues they would have made a positive impact on the peace process. In the final analysis, as long as the Israeli and the Palestinian publics are led by leaders who do not promote the peace process along these lines and have different political agendas not necessarily consistent with a two-state solution, the public will remain in the dark and to a great extent become complacent.

There is an urgent need for new leadership committed to reaching an agreement. Netanyahu will not allow the establishment of a Palestinian state under his watch and Abbas is incapable of delivering the necessary concessions that could make peace possible.

The conference could have made a great contribution to the peace process not by merely repeating what is known, but by fostering a new dialogue that allows the public to become an active participant, which is critical to changing the dynamic of the conflict.

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.

A reported discord between British and German intelligence services, which began in 2014, allegedly persists and now constitutes the “biggest rift between [the] secret services” of the two countries “since World War II”.

According to British newspaper The Daily Mail, the Germans accuse Britain of working with the United States to spy on Berlin, while the British government says German intelligence agencies cannot be trusted to safeguard classified information. In an article published on Thursday, The Daily Mail said British and American intelligence agencies have stopped sharing non-critical intelligence with their German counterparts.

The lack of cooperation “has now reached the point where there is virtual radio silence” between German and Anglo-American intelligence agencies, said the newspaper, citing “a source familiar” with the ongoing negotiations between the two sides.

In 2014, Germany expelled the most senior American intelligence officer stationed in the country after it confirmed that the United States National Security Agency had spied on German citizens, and had even targeted the personal communications of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Berlin also caught a German intelligence officer who was spying for the Central Intelligence Agency. It was later alleged that Washington threatened to end all intelligence cooperation with Berlin if the German government offered protection to American defector Edward Snowden. Some German lawmakers had suggested that Berlin should reach out to Snowden, in return for information about US intelligence operations against Germany. In March of last year, the German broadsheet Süddeutsche Zeitung said that officials in Berlin had accused Britain of participating in American spy operations against Germany. The resulting dispute betweem Britain and Germany, said the paper, had turned into a “burgeoning crisis” that threatened intelligence-sharing between London and Berlin.

According to The Daily Mail, British intelligence agencies are now accusing their German counterparts of not properly safeguarding classified information that is shared with them by British security services. Consequently, claim the British, some of that information has found its way to WikiLeaks, the international whistleblower website founded by Australian former computer hacker Julian Assange. The London-based newspaper claims that British and German intelligence officials have met twice since 2014 to discuss ways of resolving the differences between their respective intelligence agencies. But the meetings have failed to mend the division between the parties and the crisis persists, claims The Daily Mail.

On January 19, the Syrian Army and the National Defense Forces (NDF), led by Baqir Brigade and backed up by Russian airstrikes, launched an attack against the ISIS terrorist group east of the Khanasser-Aleppo highway, capturing a number of hills and villages.

Government forces took control over the villages of Sirdah, Shuraymah, Rasem Askar, Masudiyah, Atshanah, Umm Miyal, Judaydah, and the nearby hills.

Meanwhile, the army and the NDF, led by the Tiger Forces, liberated Barlahin in the eastern Aleppo countryside, south of the group’s stronghold of al-Bab.

On January 18, the Syrian army retook the villages of Afrin and Rasm al-Abed from ISIS in the same area.

The ongoing operations against ISIS are likely aimed to build an additional buffer zone along the key supply route to Aleppo and to put additional pressure on the terrorist group and to draw its attention from the areas of Deir Ezzor and Palmyra. In case of success, government forces could also develop the advance in the direction of the province of Raqqah and to secure a vital irrigation line to Aleppo.

After the famous Riverside Church address by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on April 4, 1967 in New York City where a position against the Vietnam War was spelled out, he visited Stanford University ten days later to make another profound statement indicating clearly his direction in the emerging phase of the African American political movement.

Just in the previous summer of 1966, Dr. King had joined the Chicago Freedom Movement in an effort to bring the mass Civil Rights campaigns of the South to the northern industrial and commercial centers. In the midst of putting forth demands related to quality housing, full employment and the indifference of the city government led by Mayor Richard Daley, a rebellion erupted for four straight days on the west side.

Two people died in the unrest and millions in property damage was done by outraged African Americans reflecting the growing militancy and impatience towards the white ruling class in the metropolitan areas and the federal government in Washington, D.C. Thousands of National Guard troops were deployed to the streets of Chicago while the Daley administration blamed Dr. King and the Freedom Movement for the unrest.

It was during the Chicago Freedom Movement actions in 1966 that the term “white backlash” came to the fore. Whites violently opposed marches for open housing through several Chicago neighborhoods occupied by European-Americans. On several occasions whites came out of their homes carrying swastikas and hurling stones at the multi-racial demonstrators.

The events of 1966 in Chicago illustrated clearly that racism and national oppression was just as intransigent in the North as in the South, if not more so due to the de facto segregationist character of the urban areas. The SCLC leader emphasized that unless a peaceful revolution was possible in the United States, a violent revolution was inevitable.

Beginning in 1967, Dr. King explained methodically how the character of the movement for emancipation had to shift to eradicating the underlying social and economic character of the American political system. It was not enough to take down the legal barriers to full participation in society if there is not a radical economic redistribution of concentrated wealth among the exclusively white ruling class.

At Stanford on April 14, 1967, he noted: “Many things were gained as a result of these years of struggle. In 1964 the Civil Rights Bill came into being after the Birmingham movement which did a great deal to subpoena the conscience of a large segment of the nation to appear before the judgment seat of morality on the whole question of Civil Rights. After the Selma movement in 1965 we were able to get a Voting Rights Bill. And all of these things represented strides.” (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32068.htm)

He later continued emphasizing:

“[W]e must see that the struggle today is much more difficult. It’s more difficult today because we are struggling now for genuine equality. It’s much easier to integrate a lunch counter than it is to guarantee a livable income and a good solid job. It’s much easier to guarantee the right to vote than it is to guarantee the right to live in sanitary, decent housing conditions. It is much easier to integrate a public park than it is to make genuine, quality, integrated education a reality. And so today we are struggling for something which says we demand genuine equality.”

Vietnam Opposition Taken to the United Nations and Beyond

The day following his Stanford speech, Dr. King traveled to New York City to lead a demonstration from Central Park to the UN demanding an end to the U.S. imperialist war in Vietnam. A feeder march began in Harlem which later merged with the broader manifestation.

As early as January 1966, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) had taken a clear line in opposition to the Vietnam War and the draft. Dr. King had been under pressure from a younger generation of activists to throw his weight behind the antiwar movement.

The UN demonstration was called for in November 1966 by the Spring Mobilization to End the War in Vietnam where estimates say that 125,000 people were in attendance. A similar march was held in San Francisco attracting 60,000 people.

At the UN, Dr. King, Stokely Carmichael, James Bevel and Floyd McKissick all spoke alongside Dr. Benjamin Spock and other peace advocates indicating the convergence of forces from the Civil Rights Movement and the antiwar struggle. In San Francisco, African Americans played an important role in the demonstration. The April 15 mobilizations came after a full week of antiwar activities on campuses across the U.S.

Later a “Vietnam Summer” was organized which gained the endorsements of Drs. King and Spock. The idea was credited to Gar Alperovitz, a fellow at the Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics. Volunteer youth were recruited to go throughout neighborhoods to build political consensus against the War. Another demonstration was called on the Pentagon right outside Washington D.C. on October 21. Tens of thousands rallied and marched as well as several hundred who burned draft cards making a direct challenge to the selective service system.

Moreover, SNCC had embarked upon efforts to organize the African American community into a viable force in opposition to the War. Gwen Patton of SNCC would cofound the National Black Antiwar and Anti-Draft Union (NBAWADU) in 1968. Her efforts would later include leadership of the National Association of Black Students (NABS) in 1969, which was influenced by former SNCC official James Forman, who at the time was in Detroit working with the newly-formed League of Revolutionary Black Workers (LRBW) and the Black Manifesto of the National Black Economic Development Conference (NBEDC), a document drafted by Forman demanding $500 million in reparations for African people from the white religious community.

A broad antiwar sentiment was reflective of the resistance to the draft by heavyweight boxing champion Muhammad Ali, a member of the Nation of Islam (NOI). Dr. King supported Ali in his fight to gain recognition for his religious objection to the war in Vietnam.

Urban Rebellions: The High Tide of Black Resistance

1967 was the apex of urban rebellions which had struck cities at an increasing rate for the past four springs and summers. Over 160 outbreaks occurred between January and September from Atlanta, Tampa, Cincinnati and Newark to Detroit and Milwaukee. The rebellions were intensifying in their political character with attacks on private property, police and fireman.

The-then President Lyndon B. Johnson addressed the country over nationwide television on July 24 in response to the appeal by Mayor Jerome Cavanaugh of Detroit and Governor George Romney in Lansing to send federal troops into the city since the situation was beyond their capacity to contain and control. Johnson announced the landing of 5,000 troops in the city from the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions. They were dispatched to augment the already existing 8,000 National Guard and thousands more local and state police officers.

Three days later Johnson announced the empaneling of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorder, popularly named after its chair, Illinois Governor Otto Kerner. He had denounced the rebellions as lawlessness which must be halted immediately.

The Kerner Commission issued a report on March 1, 1968 documenting in part the developments in Detroit and other cities saying:

“The ‘typical’ riot did not take place. The disorders of 1967 were unusual, irregular, complex and unpredictable social processes. Like most human events, they did not unfold in an orderly sequence. However, an analysis of our survey information leads to some conclusions about the riot process. In general the civil disorders of 1967 involved Negroes (African Americans) acting against local symbols of white American society, authority and property in Negro neighborhoods–rather than against white persons. Of 164 disorders reported during the first nine months of 1967, eight (5 percent) were major in terms of violence and damage; 33 (20 percent) were serious but not major; 123 (75 percent) were minor and undoubtedly would not have received national attention as “riots” had the nation not been sensitized by the more serious outbreaks.” (Taken from Chapter 2 on the Patterns of Disorder)

This section goes on stressing that:

“In the 75 disorders studied by a Senate subcommittee, 83 deaths were reported. Eighty-two percent of the deaths and more than half the injuries occurred in Newark and Detroit. About 10 per­cent of the dead and 38 percent of the injured were public employees, primarily law officers and firemen. The overwhelming majority of the persons killed or injured in all the disorders were Negro civilians. Initial damage estimates were greatly exaggerated. In Detroit, newspaper damage estimates at first ranged from $200 million to $500 million; the highest recent estimate is $45 million. In Newark, early estimates ranged from $15 to $25 million. A month later damage was estimated at $10.2 million, over 80 percent in inventory losses.”

Events from 1965 to 1967 had placed the SCLC’s commitment to nonviolent struggle on the defensive. Although Dr. King maintained his commitment to this form of protest, he did not condemn those engaged in the rebellions saying that “riots were the voice of the unheard.”

By the conclusion of the summer Dr. King would deepen his analysis of the present situation in light of the burgeoning unrest. James Forman, who at the time (1967) served as International Affairs Director for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), which had taken a position against the War in Vietnam an entire year prior to Dr. King, analyzed the situation in an essay entitled “High Tide of Black Resistance.”

Forman wrote of the period illustrating:

“The year 1967 marked a historic milestone in the struggle for the liberation of black people in the United States and the year that revolutionaries throughout the world began to understand more fully the impact of the black movement. Our liberation will only come when there is final destruction of this mad octopus-the capitalistic system of the United States with all its life-sucking tentacles of exploitation and racism that choke the people of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. To work, to fight, and to die for the liberation of our people in the United States means, therefore, to work for the liberation of all oppressed people around the world. Liberation movements in many parts of the world are now aware that, when they begin to fight colonialism, it becomes imperative that we in this country try to neutralize the possibilities of full-scale United States intervention as occurred in Santa Domingo, as is occurring in Vietnam, and as may occur in Haiti, Venezuela, South Africa or wherever. While such a task may well be beyond our capacity, an aroused, motivated, and rebelling black American population nevertheless helps in our indivisible struggles against racism, colonialism, and apartheid.”

Dr. King would take these sentiments into consideration as he articulated his new vision at the National Conference for a New Politics in Chicago during Labor Day weekend in 1967 along with a series of talks delivered over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), the Massey Lectures of November and December. These ideas will be examined in a later report and their implications for the interventions into Memphis sanitation workers strike and the Poor People’s Campaign of early 1968.

The confirmation hearings for the members of incoming President Donald Trump’s national-security team show that neoconservatism dominates the U.S. government today: neoconservatism didn’t end after George W. Bush’s alleged certainty that «Saddam’s WMD» existed in 2002, turned out to have been merely an excuse —not an authentic reason — to invade Iraq, and so to spread death and mass-misery (as every invasion does). Today’s confirmation hearings are, in fact, making clear that virtually all of Congress is neoconservative — at least as much as was the case back in 2002, when Congress authorized the President to invade Iraq before weapons inspectors finished their work (and so Bush was able to order them out, and to invade Iraq).

These hearings are displaying 100% neoconservative U.S. Senators — no Senator who isn’t a neoconservative. These Senators, of both Parties, in their questioning and comments, are all far to the right of the incoming President, Donald Trump. (Democrats might be to the ‘left’ of Republicans on some domestic matters, but both Parties are neoconservative, which is a far-right foreign-affairs ideology.)

This fact is shown clearly, as the Senators probe each appointee with questions that challenge him (since all of these nominees are males) as being insufficiently hostile toward Russia, and also (though to a lesser extent) insufficiently hostile toward Iran, and toward other countries (especially Syria and China) that have friendly relations with Russia. This obsessive hatred of Russia is the standard neoconservative position — neoconservatism’s defining reality, regardless of whether neoconservatives admit to being haters at all, of anything.

Each one of these nominees has, in turn, provided responses which indicate that he, too, is far to the right of Trump. The Senators are apparently satisfied with each one of the nominees, on that basis — a neoconservative basis.

Also, each one of the Senators is probing the nominee, in order to make certain that the interviewee favors steep increases in ‘defense’ spending (another essential mark of neoconservatism — unlimited military spending), even if other federal spending is required to stay the same or else be reduced. Even the Democratic Senators want ‘defense’ spending increased even if domestic spending gets reduced. Democratic Senators on the panel are showing themselves as being just as emphatically in favor of abolishing existing limits on ‘defense’ spending as the Republican ones are.

If what U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower in 1961 had referred to as «the military-industrial complex» owns all of Congress today, then the results of these interviews with nominees still couldn’t be any more neoconservative than they have, in fact, been.

Great pressure is thus being placed, by the interviewers, upon each nominee, to increase greatly U.S. ‘defense’ spending, and to exhibit hostility toward Russia and the other countries that are the standard ‘enemies’ in the view of neoconservatives. Regardless of whether Trump wants unlimited ‘defense’ spending (and is merely pretending to want to cut programs like the scandalous F-35), Congress certainly does.

Neoconservatism can, very practically, be defined by the nations that it places unquestioningly as being America’s ‘friends’ (Israel, Europe — especially the parts that were formerly communist — Japan, and all of the fundamentalist-Sunni Gulf Cooperation Council [Arab monarchy] nations); and as being America’s ‘enemies’ (Russia, Iran, China, and any nation that’s allied with one or more of those three). Nothing that either a ‘friend’ or an ‘enemy’ nation does is actually pertinent to a neoconservative’s national favors or hatreds: each of these nations is permanently what it is; and, for example, Russia being no longer communist and no longer the Soviet Union, doesn’t really affect a neoconservative’s hatred of Russia. Neoconservatism is — in that sense — ethnic, tribal: rigidly loyal to labeled ‘friends’, and also rigidly hostile to labeled ‘enemies’. It’s permanent war for perpetual ‘peace’, because to stop trying to conquer the ‘enemies’ is viewed as ‘immoral’, actually shameful and maybe even ‘cowardly’ — no matter how few the aristocracy actually are who benefit from all this mass bloodshed, crippling, refugees, and destruction. It’s an upside-down ‘morality’.

America’s Congress is at least 90 % neoconservative, not only in the Senate, but also in the House. To judge by these hearings, the Senators are virtually united, that Russia is America’s #1 enemy (a key mark of neoconservatism is the demonization of Russia); and, while most seem to consider Iran to be enemy #2, some Senators and House members place China in that category (#2). North Korea is also mentioned by many.

Eliminating, or even reducing, jihadism, is definitely well below the second national-security priority (if it’s an authentic concern at all), for members of the U.S. Congress, with Russia certainly being the #1 enemy in their eyes. Furthermore, no member of Congress considers the Saudi government — the government that is owned by the Saud family — to be an «enemy» at all, nor do they consider, to be an enemy, any other of the fundamentalist-Islamic Arab royal families (such as the ones who own Qatar, or who own UAE, or who own Kuwait), even though the Saud family are the main funders of jihadist groups around the world, and those other royal Arabs provide most of the rest of the financing that makes jihadist terrorism possible. So, practically speaking, the U.S. Congress considers the chief financial backers of jihadist groups to be U.S. ‘allies’, not to be «enemies» of the U.S., at all.

For example: as one strong friend of the royal Arabs, Hillary Clinton has said in private:

«Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide».

Saudi Arabia is owned by the Saud family; so, she knew that they are the main funders of Al Qaeda etcetera (or, like Osama bin Laden’s former bagman said of Al Qaeda’s financing, «Without the money of the — of the Saudi, you will have nothing»). That family control the government, and all the rest of their aristocracy do whatever the Saud family tell them to do. Hillary wasn’t naive.

And, elsewhere (also in private), she referred to «the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region».

And she also devoted a lengthy cable to U.S. Embassies, to the desirability of dealing with this problem (their aristocracies’ funding of jihadist groups around the world) also in Kuwait, and UAE — two more U.S. ‘allies’.

And so, former U.S. Senator Clinton was simply a normal member of the U.S. Senate which is under display even now, as being even more neoconservative than President-elect Trump’s national-security appointees are.

For example, during the hearing on Thursday, January 12th, in which Trump’s choice to head the U.S. ‘Defense’ Department, James Mattis, was grilled by each member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the retired Marine General Mattis was pressed on whether he supports eliminating the ‘defense’ spending-cap that Congress in late 2012 imposed to begin on 1 January 2013, as the 2013 Budget Control Act, or «sequestration». General Mattis replied by calling the 2013 Budget Control Act a «self-inflicted wound». (He had already told this very same Senate Committee, on 27 January 2015, «The Senate Armed Services Committee should lead the effort to repeal the sequestration that is costing military readiness and long term capability while sapping troop morale». So, they already knew that he’s a hard-liner about lifting the spending-cap on the military — just not on the rest of the budget, because he had also said on 27 January 2015, «If we refuse to reduce our debt or pay down our deficit — …No nation in history has maintained its military power while failing to keep its fiscal house in order». So, these Senators are clear about removing the limit only on ‘defense’ spending.)

Mattis said in this January 12th confirmation-hearing, that Russia «has chosen to be both a strategic competitor and an adversary» and «we still engage with the soviet union». (It’s common for high U.S. military, and even diplomatic, officials, to slip back into calling Russia «the Soviet Union», still 25+ years after the Soviet Union ended, and its Warsaw Pact of military allies ended, and their communism ended. This insanity is normal for America’s leaders.)

He was asked about Donald Trump’s having questioned whether NATO (the anti-Russia military alliance) needs to be continued, and Mattis said «If we did not have NATO today, we would have to create it. NATO is vital to our national interest».

He was questioned regarding whether he agrees with Trump’s having challenged President Obama’s campaign to overthrow Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, and Mattis said that the real issue is only about the speed with which Assad must be removed. He said that what is needed is »a more accelerated campaign than the President-elect has called for» — in other words, he said that not only was President Obama too slow in this matter, but that Mattis will be advising Trump to reverse position on this and to out-do Obama on it. (A Democratic Senator, Bill Nelson of Florida, had asked those questions, and he seemed to be pleased with Mattis’s super-hawkish responses.)

Responding to another Senator, Mattis said that there’s «an increasing number of areas in which we’ll have to confront Russia». We’re not doing it enough, he thinks.

He was asked whether he shares President-elect Trump’s distrust of the U.S. intelligence-services, and he replied, «I have a very very high degree of confidence in our intelligence community». The CIA and other people who were united in saying that Saddam Hussein had WMD in 2002 and that they needed to be immediately eliminated, are trusted by Mattis as much as they were trusted by Bush.

He was asked about Israel and said that it is eternally an ‘ally’ of America, and that Israel is «the only democratic nation in the Middle East». No Senator asked him whether apartheid South Africa was also a ‘democratic’ nation. On 13 January 2017, Brandon Turbeville headlined about the only secular nation in the Middle East, «Grand Mufti Of Syria Discusses Secularism In Syria – Human Beings Live In States, No Countries Based On Religion»; and, previously I have pointed out that even Western polling in Syria has consistently shown that the vast majority of Syrians want Assad to continue as the country’s leader, and that it was Barack Obama who was criticized by U.N. Secretary General Ban ki-Moon for refusing to let the Syrian people determine, in a free and internationally monitored democratic election, whom the nation’s leader should be. (Obama knows that they would elect Assad; so, he doesn’t want democracy, there.)

Perhaps a lot of false ‘facts’ are in Mattis’s head, but he maintains them with consistency — and any falsehoods that he believes are of the type that would make his nomination to become the U.S. Secretary of ‘Defense’ all the more attractive to the members of the U.S. Congress.

In my previous article, «Trump Team Targets Iran», I documented that:

All four of the persons selected by U.S. President-Elect Donald Trump for the top U.S. national-security posts are committed to replacing the outgoing U.S. President Barack Obama’s #1 military target, Russia, by a different #1 military target, Iran. Iran has long been the #1 military target in the view of Michael Flynn, the chosen Trump National Security Advisor; and of James Mattis, the chosen Trump Secretary of Defense; and of Dan Coats, the chosen Trump Director of National Intelligence; and of Mike Pompeo, the chosen CIA Director.

So, although Trump’s appointees might be less neoconservative than the Senators, and less neoconservative than was Trump’s predecessor, Obama — and Trump is far less neoconservative than is Hillary Clinton — Trump still could turn out to be a neoconservative President. This isn’t because the American public are neoconservative (they definitely aren’t), but because the American aristocracy is. The U.S. government represents them — not the American public.

 

The enemy in one form or another drives the US – the gun culture on the streets, the rich behind  weapon-guarded enclaves, the pervasive violence entertainments of good vs. evil killers, the never-ending destabilizations of societies not submitting to US military and corporate globalization, and the hundreds of billions of public dollars pouring into continuous armed threats and wars.

The US capital-E Enemy is whatever exists in the world that stands against the ‘full spectrum dominance’ of the US in the world – the bi-partisan objective made explicit in the iconic Project for a New American Century.

But incoming President Trump has gone to the other side, and so becomes the enemy to the establishment. He has rejected globalizing “free trade deals” led by NAFTA as “disastrous”, saying to Canada, “congratulations, you now have your independence” (an idea that terrifies the branch-plant  CEO’s and their politicos and media now in power).

He has consistently intimated an “obsolete” NATO, the global military front of the US empire marching East through Ukraine to Russia’s borders (which are now standing against the next US-led looting of the greatest natural resource treasures of the world). In the backdrop lies official Canada morphed into a new Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chrystia Freeland of Ukrainian  descent, who like the US supports the 2015 neo-Nazi-led coup against Ukraine’s elected government to force US-EU access to the breadbasket of Eurasia and new fossil-fuel riches formerly prohibited from fracking – all of this publicly unspeakable fact in Canada and US corporate media today.

Trump’s Russia connection has put him on the enemy side again, although the reasons why will never be made public in the official cultures of the corporate media and NATO states.

In the last days before his inauguration, Trump has not buckled fought back hard on the truly fake news backed by the CIA-led spy apparatus of ‘US intelligence’ and by his enemies in power. We read only of how ‘reckless’ and ‘irresponsible’ Trump is for ‘insulting the intelligence community’: in fact the lead agents of the US dark state long implicated in every state-terrorist interference with democratic process across the world, including the assassination of JFK.

In the last days before his entry into the White House, this CIA-CNN-McCain-led set-up of Trump has induced a feeding frenzy of the media to de-legitimate him – now all but declared guilty of treason as well as dupery by Putin and sexual perversion, any of which is usually fatal to a US politician.

In historical perspective, all that the ‘intelligence community’ did to boost the Bush Jr. presidency and its 9-11 foreign wars and war crimes is put into reverse on Trump. If we know a man by his enemies, Trump is deeply honored by attacks from every quarter of the US Money-Enemy-War Establishment.

But President-to-be Trump goes further against the US dark state by implicitly denouncing the US-made wars in the Middle East and Central Asia as bankrupting America as well as ruinously invading other societies on false pretexts – as many US libertarians have done for years. In the White House, this long-overdue rationality will be welcomed by everyone who is not part of America’s war machine at the head of destroying the planet. It is the biggest point source of all ecocides and pollutions as well as of society destructions. This is a home truth which neither Trump nor anyone else in US power seems to have comprehended.

Yet what most triggers the enemy structure of US identity into fuming rage is Trump’s refusal to assume that Putin and Russia are the Enemy of US. Trump’s skepticism on NATO, foreign wars and the CIA is now compounded into perceptions of treasonous Manchurian Candidate projections. It is an interesting spectacle of US group-mind in official stories and media of record– including junior counterparts in Canada and the EU. The US group-mind is militantly blocked against facts and reason wherever the Enemy is concerned.

Above all, the US-Enemy group-mind is governed by an inner logic of reverse projections.  It projects onto the designated Enemy what the US is doing itself as the justification for warring against it.

Russia and Putin are a perfect example. Every malevolence of lies, forced expansion into other societies, and pretexts for more aggression and territory under US control is projected onto Putin. There is no hard evidence from which these accusations follow, but there is also no reasoning with the US-Enemy syntax of the capitalist group-mind. Reverse projections become the perpetual justification of war against the designated US hate-object.

We have seen it over and over again. US demonization of foreign individuals is repeatedly the pretext for wars against whole societies: while in fact the mass-murderous aggression and acquisition of new powers and treasure are by the US dark state. Trump has called this system into question at a libertarian level.

Ending Attack of Russia as War-State Compulsion

Behind the ad hominem hate of Putin lies independent Russia. It has been a target of militarized expansion of the West since Napoleon and Hitler. Nonetheless few notice the staggering hypocrisy of accusing Russia of “interfering in elections” with no proof, and no question of  the truth of the document itself. We see here the paranoid nature of this group-mind morality. It sees no facts, but only an “attack on US democracy”: while in truth the US itself has never stopped interfering in others’ elections, including Russia and Ukraine’s.

Governing all the instituted criminal networks and armed special forces at work across borders in and out of elections is this degenerate framework of value attribution and meaning.

For the most civil examples of its operations, the US National Endowment for Democracy and, in private connection, multi-billionaire money speculator George Soros, generate well-paid ‘NGO’s” in other countries to destabilize any deviating society. Its is an a-priori enemy of  “democracy and freedom”.

Yet President-to-be Trump and Russia’s President Putin are oligarch nationalists, not war mongers like previous US presidents and candidates. This is shown by Trump and Putin bridging across the Enemy driver of the cold and proxy wars now in motion.

The reverse projections of ad hominem hate have been so far deleted. This the US money-war establishment cannot bear. It undermines the whole global system of US-led terror and treasure across all borders. Trump and Putin have implicitly agreed that these wars are disastrous for both America and Russia.

Behind the Freedom Fighters and Terrorists Lies the Money-War Party

Breaking the continuous US destabilizations and wars is treason to those who profit big from them. Ever more tens of billions of public money go to Wall Street, weapons manufacturers, war-service corporation like Cheney’s and Bush’s,. Who in US power is not implicated?.

Keeping this foundational  question out of the public agenda is the unseen censorship syntax of America’s official culture.

An example of the power of the Enemy-US war driver is that even the first US President to win a Nobel Peace Prize ends up cheerfully approving serial mass murders of the designated Enemy –  ‘Islamic terrorists’ including children, every Tuesday of the week.

This is also good business promotion. The eponymous drones now built by military-industrial corporations get mass advertised as very precise and profitable commodities about to fill auditory fields with their mass-marketing production already out of control. The ‘Free World’ has many ecocidal expressions.

Yet with the endless terrorist outfits designated as the US Enemy to justify the weekly bombing of families – from al-Qaeda to ISIS and from Afghanistan to Syria and Libya – the evidence consistently shows that the CIA (and related Saudi, Turkey and other secret agents) have been responsible for their financing, recruiting, arming, and training. But the morphing names of jihadi forces are effective masks for concealing their sponsors.

Recall here the vivid images of Reagan’s “freedom fighters” (including bin Laden) in Afghanistan against the USSR (‘al-Qaeda’s’ launching pad) at the same time as the US drug-funded Nicaraguan ‘Contras’ were specializing in destroying hospitals, schools and peasant communities in Nicaragua.

Recall too the very sudden appearance of the new ‘ISIS/Islamic State’ in a daylight desert parade to the horizons waving machine guns in new Toyota trucks – all with no intervention and impunity not far from Israel’s borders and in full sight of US aerial reconnaissance.

Yet throwing spanner into the works of the privately profitable Enemy-US war system haemorrhaging public money and privilege around the clock to its leaders is President-to-be Trump, the rogue elephant none in the establishment believed could win.

He is a dangerous man to the money-war state. He does not hate Putin as required for the US- Enemy driver. He does not get lobbied by the manifold big money corporations profiting from endless war and war preparations. And he very publicly and rightly opposes foreign wars on false pretexts plunging the US people and Treasury into a great dark hole. This is ultimately why there is an increasingly shrill establishment war on him as a “threat to US security” and implicit collaborator with the Enemy.

On the other hand, if  President Trump goes along with  the weekly Obama-style drone murders and war-crimes, and the ongoing Israel war crimes as by far the longest in history,  he may fit better with the US-Enemy war culture he is about to lead.

Trump however has signaled that he will end the legally questionable embargos on Russia. For this, the CIA, FBI and DIA are coming out along with Senate war-mongers like McCain against Putin, Russia and Trump together.  Everything they have pulled in the days before his succession is an effort to blow up Trump’s Russia connection. Even a honey-pot hoax has been hatched within the security community and forwarded to the media to nail Trump in the way they have done before with others.

Yet again, the enemies of Trump show that his position in making peace with Russia and getting the US war-state under control is for real. Trump would not be taken so seriously by the in-office war party if this were not true.

Trump’s repudiation of foreign-war “disasters” should mean a change of US direction into  Armageddon.  Combined with his move to stop the transnational corporate stripping of US jobs, the Trump turn may be the most effective resistance to the corporate globalization establishment since 1950. That the dominant media hate Putin and Trump at once is predictable.  This is the Russia connection that simmers back to McCarthyism.

The Inner Logic of Enemy Construction

Putin is a supreme object of non-stop abuse because his actions stand for an independent Russia which has stopped the march of NATO East in East Ukraine and Crimea. Although both have been long integrated with Russia, the US-Enemy mind frame screens out all facts not consistent with its presuppositions.

Combine Putin with Trump, and the conflagration of outrage explodes. Little recognised, it comes from all points of the non-productive transnational corporate system, and not from those who make things of life use. It is predictably full of hate.

In general, the Enemy designation to justify war on every level can be crystallized into the following lock-steps of operant conditioning across classes. Every step is a non-sequitur assumption or inference.  Together they build to all-fronts war against the designated Enemy.  .

The auto-pilot succession of (1) to (10) goes on as automatically like a Pavlovian reflex, but in more steps. Its meta program applies not only to the US. It explains how to identify the Enemy-War  derangement across space and time. .

(1) The Enemy is any group or leader designated to be so (e.g., Russia, Putin).

(2) The Enemy is evil a-priori.

(3) Evidence to support this conclusion is not logically or scientifically demonstrated.

(4) Invariantly one-sided denunciations of the Enemy govern  media and government statements.

(5) No counter-evidence or argument against (1) to (4) is normally allowed on the public stage

(6) Criminal and armed activities towards destabilizing the Enemy and its surrounding world are always blamed on it instead (the reverse projection operation).

(7) All is justified in one underlying form: here the ‘Free World’ against its Enemy.

(8) Attacking the Enemy includes non-stop hate propaganda, military-war preparations, encirclement, economic embargo, and bombing if the Enemy cannot bomb back.

(9) The designated Enemy of the US is always a leader, state or movement which is developing public infrastructures and standing against transnational corporate control, privatization and financialization (as with every society invaded by the US since 1945).

(10) Anyone or body effectively resisting (1) to (9) may be attacked or murdered in ‘plausibly deniable’ scenarios.

The War-Enemy Structure Built into American Culture  

We can see the Enemy-and-War structure built into America’s identity by the US national anthem itself.It hymns a war song of “the rocket’s red glare and bombs bursting in air” It climaxes with “the blood [of the enemy] has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution” which “prove” the meaning of “her flag’.

But where is this inner logic of the US war state decoded?

In lucid-dream read, America the Good bombs and rockets the Enemy which is inherently Evil, both true by definition. The blood of the designated Evil Enemy must flow to cleanse the world of it. Rockets and bombs prove the flag and its meaning to exterminate the Enemy of the US with no moral criterion but this designation. .

Illustration of the war hymn’s binding of the American people is not hard to find. Any elite athlete who does not put his hand on his heart to seal the meaning may be pilloried and ruined (as happened to Afro-American men with bowed heads and fists of solidarity with the oppressed in the 1968 Olympics). Before that, the most all-round achiever in American history – world renowned in sport, in law, in singing, in acting, in African linguistics – Paul Robson – was denied his freedom to leave and persecuted to death after he declined to declare the Soviet Union as evil.

The circumstances reveal the absolute command of the Enemy construction by which Robson and countless other distinguished Americans were ruined. This all happened after Russia’s winning the war in Europe against the Nazis at the cost of 26 million lives, while known very rich Americans helped to build and weaponize Hitler’s war state, and never punished for it.

In contrast, the allies Soviet Union was declared the Enemy right after Roosevelt’s death. His chosen ‘peace- president’ successor was falsely accused as a ‘communist’. The world had been at last in peace after Nazi surrender, but not the pro-Nazi American backers at the top of the money-war party led by David Rockefeller since. His prodigy Leo Strauss and Henry Kissinger have provided the rationales. US covert agents have ever since been seeking to destroy Russia in any form of sovereign economic independence and strategic power, and succeeded till Putin.

The surprising fact is the total contradiction between the a-priori US assumption that it has a right to have its propaganda and agents at work over any borders up to Russia and beyond, but an equally fixed a-priori assumption that no other country has any right to circulate even true information about US politics within it.

This is clear not only from the accusations against Russia’s interference in the election of Trump as US President, but from public debates from 1991 on within the US. They argue whether or not and how many US troops should stay in Iraq after eco-genocidal bombing of its public life infrastructures,. Or whether to bomb Syria again to give a message to Putin not to eliminate US assets there.

On the other hand, an extended and still raging denunciation of Russia’s alleged “aggression against the US” and “interference in US elections” for Russia accessing, without proof and imputed to Putin, a DNC e-mail whose truth no-one questions. How can there be such extremist imbalance of moral and rational understanding which so completely erases others’ human rights up to war on their society’s very life bases and children, while absolutizing the rights of US and ally bombers to do all of this, and debate only whether it will work if they go on doing it.

The US national anthem itself expresses the chosen-people’s right to kill others with no basis except that it is US doing it. The open logical spaces of this war hymn can include any nation or force as Enemy against it. The lines generically prescribe rocketing the Enemy to shed its blood. The compulsory song for all citizens to sing indicates no fault of the Enemy except being so designated.

No benefit for anyone is indicated but that “the US flag is still there”.

Yet everyone in the US must put his hand over his heart when the anthem is sung before any public event: most fiercely before the sabbath NFL Games in which the largest, fastest and most powerful violence of body against body collide with each other n accordance with detailed war-room plans. ‘The long bomb’, ‘sacking’ and ‘slashing up the center’ are favorite operations of the stadium-war spectacle. On Superbowl days of the Superpower’s favorite entertainment,  army jets scream overhead to give US military signature to the meaning.

The Chosen People

In the world political context of today, the war party of the US includes all the media of record, all politicians not being condemned, and most people in allied states. The cheerleading of the now declared ‘new Cold War’ being created by “Putin’s attack on America’s election” is heard on every mainstream media days before the Trump Inauguration – for, allegedly, finding and distributing true information of the DNC establishment’s own subversion of the election of its presidential candidate.

If we read back to the first ‘chosen people’, which US ‘exceptionalism’ carries on, with “God’s blessing America’ for all its wars, we find an unmistakeable through-line of meaning: the Enemy structure of identity justifies eco-genocidal wars as Good against Evil and as led by God.

We find too that nothing of the society attacked is left behind, and this too as God’s will.  We see too that the US in either form controls vast new territory and power with no limit on the annihilation of others’ communities, children and natural environments.

When we turn to the normative cornerstone of Western civilization, we find that total destruction  of men, women and chidren and systems of life support is specifically commanded by the Almighty of Judaic-Christian tradition. Thus to His voice is attributed the still believed intention to “take “the whole land of Canaan to own in perpetuity” (Genesis 17:21) and, in, explicit prohibition of any “pact with them” to “exterminate” all of the  inhabitants, “Amorites, Hittite, Perizzites, Cannanites Hivites and Jebusite” (Exodus 23:24) (Understanding War, Science for Peace, 1989)

But the guiding thread of meaning is assumed without being seen. The Enemy society is constructed as the hate object to mass-kill and erase from the world.

One way or another, the eco-genocidal right continues on in modified form. A lead individual is demonized by corporate states and media to justify attack on entire societies’ shared life support systems. No collective psychopathology is penetrated. No eco-genocide is allowed to be seen even as n a word.

US Freedom of War against the Other as Supreme Value

Freedom in America means to liberate the individual to follow his self-maximizing purpose as freedom and happiness. Ronald Reagan interpreted this as the “freedom to get rich”.  All US enemies and wars since 1945 have been launched against those opposing the implementation of this ultimate value. The ultimate Good of the US and the Enemy as Evil to be rid of are two sides of one ultimate moral program. It is universal, overriding and obligatory to follow.

The US and its Enemy thus define each other. The US is born in war on this basis. Britain’s 1763 Royal Proclamation prohibits any settler actions to “molest” and “disturb” the first peoples West from the Appalachians.

It also rejects any “pretexts whatever” or ‘fraudulent purchase”  in “all the lands” that the first nations inhabit and from which the colonists “must forthwith remove themselves” .

Very rarely is this ground of the US Revolution recognised. Yet US history follows in many such takings or invasions of other societies’ lands under false pretexts ever since.

For example, it is seen as a “clear and present danger” to the US war state for any organized community to change the private-money rules of the game. It could be in the US ‘backyard’ of Latin America, or reach all the way to the Philippines, Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Other nations across in general are threatened and warred upon by the US dark state in many ways, and all work to take or destroy their natural and built resources (as with Iraq and Libya’s oil and gold, and now Ukraine’s and even Russia’s).

Throughout, US identity lies in its own system of private capitalist market exchange and profit, and the Enemy is opposition to global expansion of it everywhere.

Ever greater extremes of rich-over-poor and loot-the-planet and public purse do not lead to any change that stops them, including the Trump agenda.

From US Independence against First Nations’ Rights, the US is ordered by money value, private property and profit in everything that can be so extracted, priced and sold. There is no collective right that limits, redirects or cancels this right by obligation to the life commons of all.

All ‘free trade’ treaty commands of ‘globalization’ since 1988 spell out this logic of value in volumes of detail in which only private transnational corporate rights exist. All ‘Cold War’ actions before them have been to enforce this privatization-for-profit system.

“There is no alternative”.

All US armed-force interventions and pervasive media propaganda against other regimes follow this inner logic one way or another.  That it has proven to be eco-genocidal in effects does not stop the wars and treaties for further globalization of it. The Trump presidency may steer it back to home lands.

Thinking through Putin

As soon as Vladmir Putin rose to lead Russia from hollowed-out basket case to geopolitical independence, he was a marked man. His repudiation and pursuit of the oligarch crooks who parked their privatized oil fortunes outside Russia were glorified as oppressed fighters for freedom and their double agent killed was a martyr.

More impressively, social programs like pensions have been instituted again for the looted people, and the fanatic jihadi aggressors financed and directed from abroad since the late 1980’s in Afghanistan to Syria have been bombed back.

Putin and Russia, once poodled, thus became the Enemy again. Putin even although an anti–communist was incarnate evil, a KGB agent still, a brutal dictator, a murderer with no evidence in front of the Kremlin, and so on. The US money and war party has gone on auto-repeat of US killing as Good and Putin/Russia as Evil .

“The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming” was into the ruling group-mind even as NATO forces rolled through the former USSR up to Russia’s borders calling it the world’s major aggressor as The US-led West positioned armies, tanks and missiles on its doorstep.

It is not unlike the Nazis going through Poland and the Ukraine to ‘save lives’ before killing 26 million Russian people and destroying its life infrastructures, – the litmus test again of who is right and wrong.  .

The US-orchestration of the sniper-murderous coup of Ukraine’s elected government in 2013 was enforced on the ground by neo-Nazis still glorifying Ukraine’s Nazi collaborators, and calling for “extermination of the Russians” with US-supported leaders at the front.

‘Ethnic cleansing’ attacks on Russia speakers went into high gear. The US and Canada silenced any attempt to recognise the neo-Nazi threat, far worse than anything in Western Europe where it is properly denounced.  Schizoid morality rules.

“Communists” in Ukraine were and remain still the enemy to be slaughtered and forbidden to stand for election or speak. The full pogrom was in process until the majority of Russian-speaking citizens in East Ukraine rose up against the mass-murderous coup state which Canada’s envoy and local MP’s refuse to discuss. As always, the narrative of the US “leader of Free World” justifies all.

Reverse Projections Rule the Great Game of Aggression

The established reverse operation of blame on the designated Enemy has ruled since. Putin has been since slandered in foaming at the mouth attacks led by the US-led media and NATO without evident exception of intelligence or human care.

Fake news media of the West – to reverse another reverse projection – have not reported that Putin stopped the Dombass region and its mainly Russian-speaking people from joining Russia as they polled strongly in favor. No evidence has ever appeared in public that the industrialized region’s revolt has been by Russian armaments rather than those captured from the US-led coup state. The US-directed military bombing of villages and urban centers in the Eastern region have gone on daily with no US-led diplomats or media of record reporting it.

In the post-truth era, facts make no difference. Only accusations of the Enemy frame the old story line. Putin was stripped of legitimacy in all the Western media (despite 87% population approval by independent polls). Russia has been ever more US-embargoed against UN law to cause recession (but no loss of support from Russian voters glad to have their leadership off its knees);. Putin has been ever more threatened by NATO command and armed forces advancing into Russia’s heartland.

But always in accord with the reverse projection operation, Russia and Putin are accused of what the US-led armed forces have been themselves doing many thousands of miles from the US and right on Russia’s Western borders on all sides.

As ever, the Evil of the Enemy of US justifies war on it on all levels available for private transnational corporate-profit globalization, here at the door of the world’s greatest natural resource basin.

This is why so much space is dedicated in the mainstream media to accusing Putin and Russia with little or no evidence, but only repetition. The designated Enemy is Evil prior to fact.

We see by attention to undisputed historical facts that the legitimacy of Russia’s former Ukraine long desired by the West as a ‘sovereign state’ with ‘sacred borders’ defended by  ‘patriots’ and ‘the Free World’ is not what it seems. It is all part of the US versus Evil Enemy construction to pry open more national resources to raid. Putin and Trump may as nationalist leaders agree.

In truth the democratically elected Ukraine government has been usurped into a violent-coup state won by storm-trooper leaders adoring Nazi regalia, all of this orchestrated by the US and supported by Canada even against UN resolution to outlaw the Nazi symbols, memorials and statues now springing up everywhere the coupsters can manage in the corrupt new state.

Yet even now US Democrat and Canada Liberal regimes enthuse in “liberating Ukraine” from the “Putin-Russia bully” in perfect reverse projection, with Canada just changing its Minister  of Foreign Affairs to carry out the big lie with “all the right connections”..

It is worth knowing that Ukraine is now indebted to the US-dominated IMF and the big private banks for which it is the collector and enforcer beyond any ability to pay. So Ukraine’s breadbasket of the continent and newly discovered oil-and-gas sources will now service big public debts enforced by the IMF, with all in diplomatic and press circles crying “Russia aggression”.

This arrangement was instituted as the first big move after the neo-Nazi coup repudiating Russia’s interest-free loans and financial assistance of tens of billions of dollars in Russia oil-and-gas energy support alone.

But the dots are never joined if the US-Enemy, Good-Bad lenses blinker out the meaning. Trump could turn the tide here with the home truth.

Putin, the US, and Syria: Assad’s Alleged Gas-Attack on his own People

Another US Enemy, President Bashar Al Assad of Syria, is incarnate Evil to the US money-war party on the charge account that ‘he used chemical weapons’ and ‘gassed his own people’, a crime under international law, and ‘the red line’of President Obama.

Yet when the iconic investigative journalist Seymour Hersh tracked down the chemical weapons that were in fact found to be crudely made by non-Syrian jihadis, and he identified exactly how they were mocked up and used to generate a pretext for US bombing of Syria. But his painstaking research and publication went down the mind hole again.

This was not so when Hersh revealed the Mai Lai massacre, even if no US decision maker was punished. At least the massacre was revealed. Here in Syria decades later, the media sound reason to ignore everything at once, and invalidate Hersh by insinuations. The media of record then continued with the NYT to tirelessly repeat the exposed falsehood as a given truth.

Since Putin has led the pacification of the war waged by the “mercenary” jihadis as well as sponsored he UN-led destruction of the unused chemical weapons of Assad by his permission, how can he remain the US Enemy?

The US Enemy remains Evil by definition. Putin is most of all attacked for his alleged “annexation of Crimea in violation of all international norms and laws”. This is the ultimate crime Putin is fixed to in auto-pilot media and politician blame across the ‘the free world’. “No-one can forget this’” they say.

Yet the facts that Crimea has been part of Russia since Catherine the Great, and was in the sights of the US-led neo-Nazi implemented Ukraine coup government for occupation again go down the memory hole. In fact, the next coup taking Crimea from Russia was stopped by Putin before it was launched. An on-the-spot over-90% referendum for re-joining Russia worked with no evidence of any force used.

This is Putin’s real offense, drawing the line on the moving US-led take into Russia. In fact Crimea had been traditional Russia territory since defeating the Ottoman Turks to keep its lone outlet onto the inland Black Sea.

So keeping the Enemy ball rolling, the US dark state supported Tatars, who opposed the re-Crimea re-integration into Russia, to sabotage in full view Crimea’s main source of electricity cheered on by the US-led military and media.

What about Putin’s ‘war criminal’ invasion of Ukraine? What about daily NATO-claimed ‘Russian troop movements’ and ‘aggressions against a sovereign state’?

That Ukraine and Kiev are originally the founding center of the Rus people in the seventh century, around the same time as Britons, is inconceivable to think through the ruling group-mind of the US-Enemy frame of mind.

That Ukraine was long a province of Russia before Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian, made it an independent state is erased from the record and the frontal lobes.

That this was a ‘Soviet Union dictate by its supreme dictator’ is an unspeakable exposure of the established mental disorder. Trump could turn the tide here with the home truth.

Can President- Trump Lead Solution to the Collapsing Empire?

President-to-be Trump has a model to go on. A remission in the US private corporate occupation of the world for private profit occurred with Roosevelt’s New Deal. It emerged with the victorious war against Nazism, union legalization, high taxes on high incomes, and post-war industry growth on all planes. An implied ‘social contract’ between the working class and the  often pro-Nazi rich was formed.

Yet the Enemy card of “communism” was played to reverse the much better America that FDR led. As soon as the war was won with Russia sacrificing by far the most in collective defense, US  war on the USSR as the designated enemy began to be waged. An unseen continuation of the Nazi project which had been supported by the US corporate giants and money men like the Bush family fortune connected back to the original US-led war against the 1917 Russian revolution.

FDR was now dead and Henry Wallace was publicly red-smeared by the Truman wing of the still money-controlled Democratic Party – an interesting parallel to the DNC’s undermining the candidacy of Bernie Sanders in 2016. But this too was forgotten by the DNC, the Clintons and  the political and media establishment.

They have kept insisting since the election loss that it was because of “Russia’s hacking aggression against US democracy”, not the e-mail that directly demonstrated this corrupt tactic of the DNB and the Clintons against the progressive Bernie Sanders. This meaning has been erased from reference, a revealing confirmation of their systemic corruption.

Trump has overcome the auto-hate on Russia and Putin in the face of near-deadly opposition from the US political and covert-state machine. Yet in many ways, he specially embodies the life-blind freedom of America and the corporate rich.

He exudes enjoyment in ostentatious spending on and show of himself, an egomaniac and ugly American many say. His program for public infrastructure is privatization for profit.  He loves more oil and gas extraction that are proven mass polluters.

He promises more de-regulation without life-based criteria. He seems to deny system-caused climate destabilization, and seeks by implication to undo the Environmental Protection Agency as well as a universal healthcare insurance.

He hates Castro on cue despite – or perhaps because of Cuba’s having far better universal healthcare and education systems than the US.

Trump may be the paradigm of the US social and mental disorder. But hopeful signs are there. Trump learned against his loud opinion that water-boarding torture was lawless and did not work. He has acknowledgd that climate-change science can change his mind on his doubts of it.

Most importantly, President-to-be Trump is adamant in opposition to “disastrous” foreign wars and regime changes, multi-national trade treaties disemploying workers in the US, ruinous money-hole US empire in general, and Big Pharma fleecing of the US public.

John McMurtry is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada whose work is translated from Latin America to Japan. He is the author of the three-volume Philosophy and World Problems published by UNESCO’s Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), and his most recent book is The Cancer Stage of Capitalism: from Crisis to Cure.

“Aren’t you people in the States embarrassed by all this?” It’s my sister in Canada again. She seems unable to ignore news from the US—the continuing recriminations and anxieties emitting from our presidential election process.

In the grip of Canada’s prevailing Presbyterian morality (Toronto-the-good of our childhood), she is concerned for our embarrassment.

Americans embarrassed? Never. If Americans were, first we’d never admit it; secondly it would be concealed within piles of satire generated in cartoons and nighttime television comedy.

Are Americans fearful? Yes. Despondent? Certainly. Are people sinking into a malaise? Possibly. Are they confused? That too. Are they revolted by the spectacle? At least many women are. Have they decided to forgo voting altogether? So we hear.

If we were not embarrassed by what American soldiers did in Vietnam, by our treatment of Iraqis illustrated in the Abu Ghraib revelations, by our amnesia over 13 years’ murderous embargo on Iraq, by suicide rates of our veterans, by our bullying the United Nations, by Snowden’s exposure of mass surveillance, by the imprisonment of 2.3 million US citizens, by class and racial prejudice revealed in the treatment of Hurricane Katrina victims, by the racism underlying police brutalization and murder of our Black citizens, why should we be embarrassed by personal stories and statements associated with candidates for the land’s highest office?

Political discomfiture is however an issue worthy of attention. Embarrassment would indicate a moral sensibility; in politics here, that doesn’t exist. Or if it does, it’s dismissed and quickly buried in a deluge of trivia introduced by media as more newsworthy.

I don’t recall media critics or concerned friends expressing embarrassment about what’s going on here. Outside the USA, attitudes diverge from ours. Many Canadians, I suspect, view the issue similar to how my sister sees it–: Americans ought to be embarrassed.

Further afield, some associates in the Middle East and Asia are laughing at this democracy-media spectacle while others unequivocally say Americans should feel ashamed. One displeased colleague in Nepal suggests the deteriorating situation results from too much campaigning; he says all of the substantial issues were raised and addressed during the primaries, so that a depleted, exhausted press is resorting to personal issues to keep the conflict active. (A worthy point.) A veteran journalist in Iraq asks me: “Why all this debate? We know that for us and our neighbors there’s certain to be more war, whichever candidate wins. Why are they prancing and posturing like this?”

We can expect that people around the world, not only viewers in Russia, Venezuela, or Iran—especially where Americans have interfered with their elections–must be watching with a certain glee? Others will doubtless be dismayed however. A few may be uncomfortable for their American friends.

I’ll tell you one group of Americans who surely feel chagrined:– our diplomatic corps who has to face counterparts at their posts across the globe. I really pity US diplomats. Normally, on election night US embassies host parties at their (walled-in) residences and consulates to share their congratulatory democratic process with professors, journalists and officials.

Private US citizens living abroad often invite foreigners to witness the selection of their ‘leader-of-the-free-world’ (a term no one but Americans uses). Before satellite TV, an embassy invitation was the only way one could see election coverage live. Even with every house now hooked to multiple satellite news channels, election night at US embassies across the globe would be a festive occasion. This week, will US embassies dim their lights, pretending they’re not home?

And what about those global citizens traditionally invited to the US to witness the process firsthand? I think it was at the 1980 election between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan that I met Nepalese leaders who’d been flown to D.C. and New York solely to observe and join in the pre-election atmosphere. They noted that invitations were regularly extended to dignitaries from across the globe for this four-yearly event. One assumes the practice continues today, embarrassing or not.

Just a few days ago, a Palestinian friend in Jordan sent this ode by poet Kahlil Gibran: here are some notable lines from it:

Pity the nation that is full of beliefs and empty of religion.
Pity the nation that wears a cloth it does not weave
and eats a bread it does not harvest.

Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero, 

and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful. …
Pity the nation whose statesman is a fox,
whose philosopher is a juggler,
and whose art is the art of patching and mimicking… 

 

A Financial genocide, if there was ever one. Death by demonetization, probably killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, through famine, disease, even desperation and suicide – because most of India’s money was declared invalid. The official weak reason for this purposefully manufactured human disaster is fighting counterfeiting. What a flagrant lie! The real cause is of course – you guessed it – an order from Washington. 

On 8 November, Narendra Modi, the Indian Prime Minister, brutally declared all 500 (US$ 7) and 1,000 rupee-notes invalid, unless exchanged or deposited in a bank or post office account until 31 December 2016. After this date, all unexchanged ‘old’ money is invalid – lost. Barely half of Indians have bank accounts.

The final goal is speedy global demonetization. India is a test case – a huge one, covering 1.3 billion people. If it works in India, it works throughout the developing world. That’s the evil thought behind it. “Tests” are already running in Europe.

The Nordic countries, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, are moving rapidly towards cashless societies. Electronic money, instead of cash, allows the hegemon to control the entire western world, all those who are enslaved to the dollar monetary system. Meaning literally everybody outside the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) that includes, China, Russia, most of Central Asia, Iran, Pakistan and – yes, India is an apparent candidate to join the SCO alliance.

There was no limit set in rupee amounts that were allowed to be deposited in bank or postal accounts. But exchanges or withdrawals were limited the first two days to 2,000 rupees, later to 4,000 rupees, with promises to further increases ‘later on’. The restrictions have to do with limited new bank notes available. The new money is issued in denominations of 500 and 2,000 rupee-notes.

On 9 November, none of the country’s ATM machines were functioning. Withdrawing money was possible only from banks. Queues behind bank counters were endless – lasting hours and in some cases days. Often times, once at the teller, the bank was out of cash. Imagine the millions, perhaps billions of labor hours – production time and wages – lost – lost mostly by the poor.

The banned bank notes constitute about 85% in value of all cash in circulation. India is a cash society. About 97% of all transactions are carried out in cash. Only slightly more than half the Indian population has bank accounts; and only about half of them have been used in the last three months. Credit or debit cards are extremely scarce – basically limited to the ‘creditworthy’ elite.

In rural areas, where most of the poor live, banks are scarce or none existent. The poor and poorest of the poor, again – as usual – are those who suffer most. Hundreds of thousands of them have lost almost all they have and will be unable to fend for their families, buying food and medication.

According to most media reports, Modi’s demonetization was an arbitrary decision. Be sure, there is nothing arbitrary behind this decision. As reported on 1 January 2017 by German investigative business journalist, Norbert Haering, in his blog, “Money and More”, this move was well prepared and financed by Washington through USAID ().

Mr. Modi didn’t even bother presenting the idea to the Parliament for debate.

In November 2010 President Obama declared with then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a Strategic Partnership with India. It was to become one of his foreign policy priorities which was renewed during Obama’s visit to India in January 2015 with the current PM Modi (image right). The purpose of this partnership was not just to pull one of the most populous BRICS countries out of the Russia-China orbit, but also to use it as a test case for global demonetization. Mind you, the orders came from way above Obama, from the omni-potent, but hardly visible Rothschild-Rockefeller – Morgan – et al, all-domineering bankster cartel.

This horrendous crime that may cost millions of lives, was the dictate of Washington. A cooperation agreement, also called an “anti-cash partnership”, between the US development agency (sic), USAID, with the Indian Ministry of Finance, was worked out. One of their declared ‘common objectives’ was gradually eliminating the use of cash by replacing it with digital or virtual money.

It takes two to tango. The PM of the second largest nation in the world, one would expect, would have a say in the extent to which a foreign country may interfere in India’s sovereign internal affairs, i.e. her monetary policies – especially a foreign country that is known to seek only Full Spectrum Dominance of the globe, its resources and its people. The head of India, a prominent BRICS country (BRICS = Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), one would expect, could have sent the naked emperor to climb a tree – and say NO to this horrendous criminal request. But Modi did not.

Is India with PM Modi still a viable BRICS country? Or more importantly, India is currently poised to become a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Is India under Modi worthy of being admitted into this powerful Asian economic and military block, the only authoritative counterbalance to the west? – At this point, putting hundreds of millions of his countrymen at peril by obeying Washington’s nefarious dictate, Modi looks more like a miserable traitor than a partner of the New East.

USAID calls this operation “Catalyst”

Inclusive Cashless Payment Partnership“. Its purpose is “effecting a quantum leap in cashless payment in India” – and of course, eventually around the globe. According to the Indian Economic Times, this program had been stealthily financed by USAID over the past three years. Funding amounts are kept secret. Who knows, where else in the world Catalyst is quietly funding and preparing other human financial disasters.

All fits into the Big Scheme of things: Reducing the world population, so less resources are needed to maintain 7.4 billion people – and growing – many of them finite resources that can be used by a small elite, supported by a few million slaves. This is the world according to still ticking war criminal numero UNO, Henry Kissinger. Forcefully reducing the world population is his one big objective since just after WWII, when he became a key member of the Rockefeller sponsored Bilderberg Society.

Some of the same people are currently spreading neo-fascist mantras around the world, at the infamous WEF (World Economic Forum) in Davos, Switzerland (17-20 January 2017). WEF attendees (by invitation only) are a mixed bag of elitist ‘private’ billionaires, corporate CEOs (only corporations registering at least US$ 5 billion in sales), high-flying politicians, Hollywood’s cream of the crop, and more of the kind. Pretty much the same definition applies to the Bilderbergers.

Like with the Bilderbergers, the key topics discussed at the WEF, those themes that are supposed to guide the world further and faster towards the New (One) World Order, are discussed behind closed doors and will hardly surface into the mainstream. It is, however, highly likely that the “Cashless India” decision – a trial for the rest of the world – had previously been discussed and ‘ratified’ by the WEF, as well as the Bilderbergers. None of this is known to the common people, and least to the Indians.

All-out efforts are under way to maintain highly lucrative disaster capitalism, or at least to slow down its decline – because its end is in sight. It’s just a question of time. Hence, the term Catalyst (accelerator) for the USAID program is well chosen. Time is running out. One of the best ways of controlling populations and unbending politicians is through financial strangleholds. That’s what a cashless society is all about.

According to Badal Malick, former Vice President of India’s most important online marketplace Snapdeal, later appointed as CEO of Catalyst:

 “Catalyst’s mission is to solve multiple coordination problems that have blocked the penetration of digital payments among merchants and low-income consumers. We look forward to creating a sustainable and replicable model. (…) While there has been (…) a concerted push for digital payments by the government, there is still a last mile gap when it comes to merchant acceptance and coordination issues. We want to bring a holistic ecosystem approach to these problems.“

This is further supported by Jonathan Addleton, USAID Mission Director to India:

“India is at the forefront of global efforts to digitize economies and create new economic opportunities that extend to hard-to-reach populations. Catalyst will support these efforts by focusing on the challenge of making everyday purchases cashless.”

What an outright heap of bovine manure!

Those who are supporting the Catalyst idea in India – and presumably elsewhere in the world, are, as per an USAID Beyond-Cash report, more than 35 Indian, American and international organizations (http://cashlesscatalyst.org/), mostly IT and payment service providers, including the Better Than Cash Alliance, the Gates Foundation (Microsoft), Omidyar Network (eBay), the Dell Foundation Mastercard, Visa, Metlife Foundation. All of them want to make money from digital payments – another transfer from the poor to the rich – another catalyst for widening the rich-poor gab – worldwide.

Screenshots from http://cashlesscatalyst.org

Interestingly, the USAID – Indian partnership to temporarily banning most cash coincides with Raghuram Rajan as President of the Reserve Bank of India (September 2013 – September 2016). Mr. Rajan has also been chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, and there is talk that he may be poised as Mme. Lagarde’s successor at the helm of the IMF. It is clear that the IMF, and by association the World Bank, is fully aboard with this project to transform western society into slavehood of digital money – with emphasis on wester society, because the East, the Russia-China-Iran-SCO axis, where the future lays, has already largely detached itself from the dollar based western – and fraudulent – monetary scheme.

Mr. Raghuram Rajan is an influential but also highly controversial figure. He is also a member of the so-called Group of Thirty, “a rather shady organization, where high ranking representatives of the world’s major commercial financial institutions share their thoughts and plans with the presidents of the most important central banks, behind closed doors and with no minutes taken.

It becomes increasingly clear that the Group of Thirty is one of the major coordination centers of the worldwide war on cash. Its membership includes other key warriors like Rogoff, Larry Summers and others” (N.Häring, 1.1.2017). On the other hand, Rajan is extremely disliked by the Indian business society, mostly because of his tight monetary policy as head of the Indian Central Bank (go figure!). Under pressure, he did not renew his term as India’s central bank governor in 2016.

The Group of Thirty sounds akin to the highly secretive Board of Directors of the infamous Basle-based BIS (Bank for International Settlement), also considered the central bank of all central banks, which meets once a month in secret (during a weekend for lesser visibility) and no minutes taken. The BIS is a Rothschild controlled private bank, close associate of the FED, also privately owned. It is clear, with the FED, BIS and IMF in connivance, the dice are cast for a cashless (western) society.

Washington’s interest in a cashless society goes far beyond the business interests of IT, credit card and other financial institutions. More importantly is the surveillance power that goes with digital payments. As with electronic communications today – every one of them read, listened to and spied on throughout the world – some 7 to 10 billion electronic messages per day – every digital payment and transfer will be controlled and checked worldwide by the Masters of the dollar-based hegemony. Every transfer will be registered and monitored by an American-Zionist control mechanism. This is the only way (totally illegal) sanctions can be dished out to governments that refuse the dictate of Washington and its western European lackeys. Cases in point are Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria — the list is endless.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) recently reported that Employees of a German manufacturing firm doing completely legal business with Iran were put on a US terror list, which meant that they were shut off most of the financial system and even some logistics companies would not transport their furniture any more.

Norbert Häring concludes,

“Every internationally active bank can be blackmailed by the US government into following their orders, since revoking their license to do business in the US or in dollars, basically amounts to shutting them down. Deutsche Bank had to negotiate [in September 2016] with the US treasury for months whether they would have to pay a fine of 14 billion dollars and most likely go broke, or get away with seven billion and survive. If you have the power to bankrupt the largest banks even of large countries, you have power over their governments, too. This power through dominance over the financial system and the associated data is already there. The less cash there is in use, the more extensive and secure it is, as the use of cash is a major avenue for evading this power.”

Concluding Remarks

Back to India. It is not difficult to imagine what the implications of such a massive demonetization operation might have in a country like India, where hundreds of millions live in or near poverty, with a large rural population, where almost all transactions are carried out in cash – and where cash is everything for survival. This is death by financial strangulation.

No blood, No traces – no media coverage. It is a clandestine willful mass-murder, carried out by the Indian government on its own people, while instigated by the chief assassins, operating from within the Washington Beltway killer farms, no scruples, no morals, no ethics – what Washington knows best to achieve its purpose.

This no-holds-barred strategy is accelerating, as time runs out. The ship is slowly but surely turning towards another dimension, another world view – one of in which humanity may gain back its status of a solidary being. These atrocities around the globe may go some ways – but I doubt they will go all the way. There is a spiritual limit on how far evil can go.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, The 4th Media, TeleSUR, TruePublica, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. 

A Financial genocide, if there was ever one. Death by demonetization, probably killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, through famine, disease, even desperation and suicide – because most of India’s money was declared invalid. The official weak reason for this purposefully manufactured human disaster is fighting counterfeiting. What a flagrant lie! The real cause is of course – you guessed it – an order from Washington. 

On 8 November, Narendra Modi, the Indian Prime Minister, brutally declared all 500 (US$ 7) and 1,000 rupee-notes invalid, unless exchanged or deposited in a bank or post office account until 31 December 2016. After this date, all unexchanged ‘old’ money is invalid – lost. Barely half of Indians have bank accounts.

The final goal is speedy global demonetization. India is a test case – a huge one, covering 1.3 billion people. If it works in India, it works throughout the developing world. That’s the evil thought behind it. “Tests” are already running in Europe.

The Nordic countries, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, are moving rapidly towards cashless societies. Electronic money, instead of cash, allows the hegemon to control the entire western world, all those who are enslaved to the dollar monetary system. Meaning literally everybody outside the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) that includes, China, Russia, most of Central Asia, Iran, Pakistan and – yes, India is an apparent candidate to join the SCO alliance.

There was no limit set in rupee amounts that were allowed to be deposited in bank or postal accounts. But exchanges or withdrawals were limited the first two days to 2,000 rupees, later to 4,000 rupees, with promises to further increases ‘later on’. The restrictions have to do with limited new bank notes available. The new money is issued in denominations of 500 and 2,000 rupee-notes.

On 9 November, none of the country’s ATM machines were functioning. Withdrawing money was possible only from banks. Queues behind bank counters were endless – lasting hours and in some cases days. Often times, once at the teller, the bank was out of cash. Imagine the millions, perhaps billions of labor hours – production time and wages – lost – lost mostly by the poor.

The banned bank notes constitute about 85% in value of all cash in circulation. India is a cash society. About 97% of all transactions are carried out in cash. Only slightly more than half the Indian population has bank accounts; and only about half of them have been used in the last three months. Credit or debit cards are extremely scarce – basically limited to the ‘creditworthy’ elite.

In rural areas, where most of the poor live, banks are scarce or none existent. The poor and poorest of the poor, again – as usual – are those who suffer most. Hundreds of thousands of them have lost almost all they have and will be unable to fend for their families, buying food and medication.

According to most media reports, Modi’s demonetization was an arbitrary decision. Be sure, there is nothing arbitrary behind this decision. As reported on 1 January 2017 by German investigative business journalist, Norbert Haering, in his blog, “Money and More”, this move was well prepared and financed by Washington through USAID ().

Mr. Modi didn’t even bother presenting the idea to the Parliament for debate.

In November 2010 President Obama declared with then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a Strategic Partnership with India. It was to become one of his foreign policy priorities which was renewed during Obama’s visit to India in January 2015 with the current PM Modi (image right). The purpose of this partnership was not just to pull one of the most populous BRICS countries out of the Russia-China orbit, but also to use it as a test case for global demonetization. Mind you, the orders came from way above Obama, from the omni-potent, but hardly visible Rothschild-Rockefeller – Morgan – et al, all-domineering bankster cartel.

This horrendous crime that may cost millions of lives, was the dictate of Washington. A cooperation agreement, also called an “anti-cash partnership”, between the US development agency (sic), USAID, with the Indian Ministry of Finance, was worked out. One of their declared ‘common objectives’ was gradually eliminating the use of cash by replacing it with digital or virtual money.

It takes two to tango. The PM of the second largest nation in the world, one would expect, would have a say in the extent to which a foreign country may interfere in India’s sovereign internal affairs, i.e. her monetary policies – especially a foreign country that is known to seek only Full Spectrum Dominance of the globe, its resources and its people. The head of India, a prominent BRICS country (BRICS = Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), one would expect, could have sent the naked emperor to climb a tree – and say NO to this horrendous criminal request. But Modi did not.

Is India with PM Modi still a viable BRICS country? Or more importantly, India is currently poised to become a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Is India under Modi worthy of being admitted into this powerful Asian economic and military block, the only authoritative counterbalance to the west? – At this point, putting hundreds of millions of his countrymen at peril by obeying Washington’s nefarious dictate, Modi looks more like a miserable traitor than a partner of the New East.

USAID calls this operation “Catalyst”

Inclusive Cashless Payment Partnership“. Its purpose is “effecting a quantum leap in cashless payment in India” – and of course, eventually around the globe. According to the Indian Economic Times, this program had been stealthily financed by USAID over the past three years. Funding amounts are kept secret. Who knows, where else in the world Catalyst is quietly funding and preparing other human financial disasters.

All fits into the Big Scheme of things: Reducing the world population, so less resources are needed to maintain 7.4 billion people – and growing – many of them finite resources that can be used by a small elite, supported by a few million slaves. This is the world according to still ticking war criminal numero UNO, Henry Kissinger. Forcefully reducing the world population is his one big objective since just after WWII, when he became a key member of the Rockefeller sponsored Bilderberg Society.

Some of the same people are currently spreading neo-fascist mantras around the world, at the infamous WEF (World Economic Forum) in Davos, Switzerland (17-20 January 2017). WEF attendees (by invitation only) are a mixed bag of elitist ‘private’ billionaires, corporate CEOs (only corporations registering at least US$ 5 billion in sales), high-flying politicians, Hollywood’s cream of the crop, and more of the kind. Pretty much the same definition applies to the Bilderbergers.

Like with the Bilderbergers, the key topics discussed at the WEF, those themes that are supposed to guide the world further and faster towards the New (One) World Order, are discussed behind closed doors and will hardly surface into the mainstream. It is, however, highly likely that the “Cashless India” decision – a trial for the rest of the world – had previously been discussed and ‘ratified’ by the WEF, as well as the Bilderbergers. None of this is known to the common people, and least to the Indians.

All-out efforts are under way to maintain highly lucrative disaster capitalism, or at least to slow down its decline – because its end is in sight. It’s just a question of time. Hence, the term Catalyst (accelerator) for the USAID program is well chosen. Time is running out. One of the best ways of controlling populations and unbending politicians is through financial strangleholds. That’s what a cashless society is all about.

According to Badal Malick, former Vice President of India’s most important online marketplace Snapdeal, later appointed as CEO of Catalyst:

 “Catalyst’s mission is to solve multiple coordination problems that have blocked the penetration of digital payments among merchants and low-income consumers. We look forward to creating a sustainable and replicable model. (…) While there has been (…) a concerted push for digital payments by the government, there is still a last mile gap when it comes to merchant acceptance and coordination issues. We want to bring a holistic ecosystem approach to these problems.“

This is further supported by Jonathan Addleton, USAID Mission Director to India:

“India is at the forefront of global efforts to digitize economies and create new economic opportunities that extend to hard-to-reach populations. Catalyst will support these efforts by focusing on the challenge of making everyday purchases cashless.”

What an outright heap of bovine manure!

Those who are supporting the Catalyst idea in India – and presumably elsewhere in the world, are, as per an USAID Beyond-Cash report, more than 35 Indian, American and international organizations (http://cashlesscatalyst.org/), mostly IT and payment service providers, including the Better Than Cash Alliance, the Gates Foundation (Microsoft), Omidyar Network (eBay), the Dell Foundation Mastercard, Visa, Metlife Foundation. All of them want to make money from digital payments – another transfer from the poor to the rich – another catalyst for widening the rich-poor gab – worldwide.

Screenshots from http://cashlesscatalyst.org

Interestingly, the USAID – Indian partnership to temporarily banning most cash coincides with Raghuram Rajan as President of the Reserve Bank of India (September 2013 – September 2016). Mr. Rajan has also been chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, and there is talk that he may be poised as Mme. Lagarde’s successor at the helm of the IMF. It is clear that the IMF, and by association the World Bank, is fully aboard with this project to transform western society into slavehood of digital money – with emphasis on wester society, because the East, the Russia-China-Iran-SCO axis, where the future lays, has already largely detached itself from the dollar based western – and fraudulent – monetary scheme.

Mr. Raghuram Rajan is an influential but also highly controversial figure. He is also a member of the so-called Group of Thirty, “a rather shady organization, where high ranking representatives of the world’s major commercial financial institutions share their thoughts and plans with the presidents of the most important central banks, behind closed doors and with no minutes taken.

It becomes increasingly clear that the Group of Thirty is one of the major coordination centers of the worldwide war on cash. Its membership includes other key warriors like Rogoff, Larry Summers and others” (N.Häring, 1.1.2017). On the other hand, Rajan is extremely disliked by the Indian business society, mostly because of his tight monetary policy as head of the Indian Central Bank (go figure!). Under pressure, he did not renew his term as India’s central bank governor in 2016.

The Group of Thirty sounds akin to the highly secretive Board of Directors of the infamous Basle-based BIS (Bank for International Settlement), also considered the central bank of all central banks, which meets once a month in secret (during a weekend for lesser visibility) and no minutes taken. The BIS is a Rothschild controlled private bank, close associate of the FED, also privately owned. It is clear, with the FED, BIS and IMF in connivance, the dice are cast for a cashless (western) society.

Washington’s interest in a cashless society goes far beyond the business interests of IT, credit card and other financial institutions. More importantly is the surveillance power that goes with digital payments. As with electronic communications today – every one of them read, listened to and spied on throughout the world – some 7 to 10 billion electronic messages per day – every digital payment and transfer will be controlled and checked worldwide by the Masters of the dollar-based hegemony. Every transfer will be registered and monitored by an American-Zionist control mechanism. This is the only way (totally illegal) sanctions can be dished out to governments that refuse the dictate of Washington and its western European lackeys. Cases in point are Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria — the list is endless.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) recently reported that Employees of a German manufacturing firm doing completely legal business with Iran were put on a US terror list, which meant that they were shut off most of the financial system and even some logistics companies would not transport their furniture any more.

Norbert Häring concludes,

“Every internationally active bank can be blackmailed by the US government into following their orders, since revoking their license to do business in the US or in dollars, basically amounts to shutting them down. Deutsche Bank had to negotiate [in September 2016] with the US treasury for months whether they would have to pay a fine of 14 billion dollars and most likely go broke, or get away with seven billion and survive. If you have the power to bankrupt the largest banks even of large countries, you have power over their governments, too. This power through dominance over the financial system and the associated data is already there. The less cash there is in use, the more extensive and secure it is, as the use of cash is a major avenue for evading this power.”

Concluding Remarks

Back to India. It is not difficult to imagine what the implications of such a massive demonetization operation might have in a country like India, where hundreds of millions live in or near poverty, with a large rural population, where almost all transactions are carried out in cash – and where cash is everything for survival. This is death by financial strangulation.

No blood, No traces – no media coverage. It is a clandestine willful mass-murder, carried out by the Indian government on its own people, while instigated by the chief assassins, operating from within the Washington Beltway killer farms, no scruples, no morals, no ethics – what Washington knows best to achieve its purpose.

This no-holds-barred strategy is accelerating, as time runs out. The ship is slowly but surely turning towards another dimension, another world view – one of in which humanity may gain back its status of a solidary being. These atrocities around the globe may go some ways – but I doubt they will go all the way. There is a spiritual limit on how far evil can go.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, The 4th Media, TeleSUR, TruePublica, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. 

Will there be a Disruption of the Inauguration? Latest reports (9.00am) point to small pockets of protest. There are several protest collectives, the most important of which, committed to Disrupting rather Protesting the Inauguration is #Disruptj20. 

No recent real time news is available from their website or from social media. Latest Reuters report at 9.00am EST concerning Disruptj20

Protesters organized by a group called Disrupt J20 linked arms at one of the dozen security checkpoints leading to the largest public viewing area for the ceremony, and several were led away by police in riot helmets and body armor.

Organizer Alli McCracken, 28, of Washington, said Disrupt J20 hoped to shut down the checkpoint as a sign of its displeasure over Trump’s controversial comments about women, illegal immigrants and Muslims.

“We have a lot of people of diverse backgrounds who are against U.S. imperialism and we feel Trump will continue that legacy,” McCracken said on a gray morning when rain was forecast.

This report will be updated throughout the day.

Below is a review of the Disrupt campaign based on excerpts of previous Global Research reports.

The Disruptj20.org campaign is calling for the disruption of the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2017:

#DisruptJ20 is supported by the work of the DC Welcoming Committee, a collective of experienced local activists and out-of-work gravediggers acting with national support. We’re building the framework needed for mass protests to shut down the inauguration of Donald Trump and planning widespread direct actions to make that happen. We’re also providing services like housing, food, and even legal assistance to anyone who wants to join us.

The actions contemplated include “setting up blockades at checkpoints to prevent people from gaining access to the inauguration proceedings”. A spokesperson confirmed that  #DisruptJ20 campaign would be “creating a framework to support mass protests and direct action to shut down the inauguration of Donald Trump” .

This could potentially lead to violent clashes with tens of thousands of Trump supporters, which is the ultimate objective of an engineered “Color Revolution” style protest movement supported covertly by US intelligence. It’s part of the logic of a “color revolution” scenario (e.g. Kiev-Maidan, Cairo-Tahir Square) which is predicated on triggering confrontation and urban violence.

Is the Disrupt Campaign committed to deliberately staging violence on January 20?

“The idea is to shut down access to the parade as much as possible and slowing it down to a crawl,” said DisruptJ20 organizer Legba Carrefour. “Then there’s the broader goal of shutting down the entire city around it and creating a sense of paralysis that creates a headline that says, ‘Trump’s inauguration creates chaos.’” (NBC, January 17, 2017)

The organizers of the engineered protest movement are funded by powerful corporate interests, they are supported by US intelligence. The objective is not to undermine the racist right wing agenda of Donald Trump as conveyed in the video below. Quite the opposite.

Inauguration day 2017 may resemble a Hollywood thriller or horror film, depending on how things turn out.

Nationwide protests are planned, especially in Washington, aiming for more than raining on Trump’s inaugural parade.

Crimethinc.com calls itself an

“anonymous collective action…everything that evades control…renegade(s) breaking ranks…the spirit of rebellion…a secret society pledged to…producing inflammatory ideas and actions…”

Ahead of Trump’s inauguration, it urged mass disruption, a checklist of provocative actions – expressing outrage “at the prospect of being governed by (what it called) a megalomaniacal buffoon.”

It should be directing its fury at a money controlled, bipartisan supported, debauched system – the real problem largely unaddressed.

Crimethinc called for

“a wide variety of tactics and points of intervention,” including blockading the Washington parade route and transportation infrastructure.

“Imagine the worst case scenario,” it said, “in which millions of fans cheer for Trump while fascist gangs beat up protesters” in Washington. “(It) would make 2017 the equivalent of 1932 in Germany.”

The best outcome is massively disrupting Trump’s inauguration, it said. “(P)ick a target and carry out an offensive strike,” it urged – in Washington and other cities nationwide.

“The inauguration is an opportunity for a wide range of people to work together, building new networks that could act together for years to come.”

Resist now or face tougher police state laws than already, it suggested. Maybe so but who can know.

Resisting tyranny is a universal right. People have power when they use it. Governments are instituted to serve them. When they fail, replacing them is their rightful choice.

America’s Declaration of Independence said “whenever any form of government becomes destructive to (fundamental inalienable rights), it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government,” serving them responsibly.

Martin Luther King called for disobeying unjust laws, accepting punishment to arouse public awareness, and advocate for legislative change. He championed “creative protest(s),” believing passivity is no option in the face of injustice.

Henry David Thoreau’s landmark “Civil Disobedience” essay asked “(m)ust the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree resign his conscience to the legislator?”

“The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.”

Where was public outrage throughout Obama’s deplorable tenure – serving Wall Street, war-profiteers and other corporate favorites exclusively, waging war on humanity at home and abroad, Hillary complicit in his high crimes!

America’s debauched political system is the problem, not a private citizen until his midday Friday swearing in.

Public anger against the wrong target accomplishes nothing. Resist tyranny, not 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.

The human world has never experienced a time when global sea ice was so weak and reduced

Global sea ice levels are at their lowest in recorded history, according to new statistics from the U.S. National Snow & Ice Data Center.

In the Arctic, the loss is due to climate change and extreme weather events that are likely influenced by global warming, while the changes in the Antarctic may be attributed to natural variability, the center said.

(Image: U.S. National Snow & Ice Data Center)

But as a result of the declines in both regions, the total loss of ice is likely at the lowest it’s been for thousands of years, said meteorologist Eric Holthaus.

It’s “probably the lowest in millenia,” he tweeted.

Environmental and social justice writer Robert Scribbler noted that global sea ice “fell off a cliff” in December 2016—or, as 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben put it, 2016 was the year “global sea ice fell off the table.”

“The human world has never experienced a time when global sea ice was so weak and reduced,” Scribbler wrote.

That’s important because, as Common Dreams has reported, sea ice loss is linked to extreme weather and rising waters, while fewer glaciers mean a darker surface of the Earth—which in turn increases absorption of the sun’s energy, further fueling climate change.

Climate scientists warned last year that Arctic ice is at risk of disappearing for the first time in more than 100,000 years.

Donald Trump’s inauguration as president of the United States heralds an unprecedented deterioration in post-war relations between the US and Europe, above all between the US and Germany.

The January 20 ceremony was preceded by an interview with Trump in Britain’s Sunday Times and Germany’s Bild newspaper. His remarks were a broadside against the institutions that have constituted the basis of the post-World War II European order.

Trump praised Britain’s exit from the European Union, describing the EU as a vehicle for German domination and predicting that “others will leave.” He added, “Look, the EU was formed, partially, to beat the United States on trade, OK? So, I don’t really care whether it’s separate or together, to me it doesn’t matter.”

Trump threatened Germany’s auto industry with sanctions and attacked Chancellor Angela Merkel, blaming her refugee policy for destabilising Europe. He also opposed sanctions against Russia, while declaring that he believed the NATO alliance was “obsolete.”

Never before has a US president set as his explicit goal the breakup of the EU. Trump made clear in his interview that he was seeking to pit the UK against Germany and he solidarised himself with the UK Independence Party and other right-wing anti-EU parties.

The response from Europe’s political elite was uniformly hostile. In Germany, Merkel replied, “I think we Europeans hold our fate in our own hands.” Sigmar Gabriel of Merkel’s coalition partner, the Social Democratic Party, insisted, “We must not adopt a servile attitude now… In dealing with Trump, we need German self-confidence and a clear stance.”

French President Francois Hollande said that “transatlantic cooperation” will from now on be based on Europe’s own “interests and values.”

Europe’s think tanks and media predicted escalating militarism and an eruption of nationalist tensions. “EU member states will have to consider increasing strategic autonomy by reinforcing collective defence inside the EU,” said Felix Arteaga of the Elcano Royal Institute in Madrid.

Judy Dempsey of Carnegie Europe wrote that Trump “might rekindle old fears of German encirclement” by encouraging a “gang-up on Germany.” She added, “Since that is the new political outlook, Europe and Germany have to respond.”

In the Guardian, Natalie Nougayrède suggested, “Europe may witness a return to spheres of influence… with governments rushing to try to secure their own interests whatever the cost to neighbours and the continent’s future.”

Trump’s “America First” positions represent a seismic shift in US political relations with Europe. The Christian Science Monitor cited John Hulsman, a transatlantic affairs specialist, berating the “European elites” for having “grown accustomed to ‘Wilsonian’ American leaders who left unquestioned America’s leadership of the postwar internationalist system,” and not adjusting quickly enough to “a ‘Jacksonian’ and more nationalist US worldview promoted by Trump.”

Until now, however, such unilateralist tendencies were generally in abeyance. The American ruling class recognised that their unrestrained application would undermine its ability to exercise effective global hegemony. One of the issues animating hostility toward Trump within the US intelligence agencies in connection with his relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin is their belief that a Russian “bogeyman” is essential to preserve the framework through which the US has long exercised its dominance within Europe, via NATO and the EU.

The last time tensions emerged sharply between the US and Europe was in 2003, during the run-up to the Iraq War, when US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld denounced France and Germany for failing to support the US in Iraq. Rumsfeld called the two countries “old Europe” and counterposed to them the states of Eastern Europe.

On January 26 that year, the World Socialist Web Site published a perspective comment by David North titled “How to deal with America? The European dilemma,” which addressed the historic significance of that conflict.

North explained that America’s postwar relationship with Europe between 1945 and 1991 “was determined fundamentally by its appraisal of its own essential economic and geopolitical interests within the specific context of the Cold War.” He continued: “America’s attitude toward Europe was determined by the overriding need to (1) enforce the isolation of the Soviet Union and minimize its influence in Western Europe (“containment”) and (2) prevent social revolution at a time when the European working class was extremely militant and highly politicized.

“The United States’ emphasis during that period on its alliance with Western Europe was, in fact, a departure from the historical norm. The more basic tendency of American capitalism, rooted in its somewhat belated emergence as a major imperialist power, had been to augment its world position at the expense of Europe.”

North then wrote: “The collapse of the Soviet Union fundamentally altered the international framework upon which postwar diplomatic relations were based. There was no longer any need for the United States to prop up the Western European bourgeoisie as a line of defense against the Soviet Union. Moreover, the demise of the USSR created a vacuum of power that the United States was determined to exploit to its own advantage.”

In this context, he cited the prophetic warning made by Leon Trotsky in 1928:

“In the period of crisis the hegemony of the United States will operate more completely, more openly, and more ruthlessly than in the period of boom. The United States will seek to overcome and extricate herself from her difficulties and maladies primarily at the expense of Europe, regardless of whether this occurs in Asia, Canada, South America, Australia, or Europe itself, or whether this takes place peacefully or through war.”

The dilemma anticipated in 2003 now assumes its full significance. Sections of the US bourgeoisie continue to be deeply opposed to Trump’s attacks on the EU and Germany, with outgoing Secretary of State John Kerry describing Merkel as “courageous” and Trump’s remarks as “inappropriate.” But regardless of such disagreements, the US is being objectively driven on a steep trajectory toward trade war and protectionism to counter the threat to its global hegemony due to economic decline, the challenge posed by the rise of China and other rival powers, and a series of military debacles suffered since 2003. This must inevitably provoke conflict with Europe.

No one can predict in detail the consequences of this geostrategic shift by the US—including what alliances Germany, France, the UK and Russia might eventually forge. To this must be added the precise role that may be played by China as a potential counterweight to America.

However, underlying all such developments will be an explosion of national antagonisms in which the corollary of Trump’s “America First” agenda will be demands to put “Germany First,” “Britain First” and “France First,” which can lead only to the fracturing of Europe into competing power blocs.

The project of European integration under capitalism is coming to an end, unleashing all of the political demons it was meant to have contained.

Nothing is left of the promise that closer political union and the Single Market would bring prosperity and peace. Instead, right-wing reaction and the growth of fascistic parties are taking place in every country. The European powers speak constantly of the need to militarise, even as NATO troops mass on Russia’s border, while austerity is the only issue on which they all agree.

The assault on the working class will worsen, as Berlin, Paris and London demand yet greater “national sacrifice” to compete against their rivals and pay the vast sums needed to rearm the continent.

The bourgeoisie has proved incapable of overcoming the fundamental contradiction between the integrated character of the global economy and the division of the world into antagonistic nation states based on private ownership of the means of production, which is once again driving them to a war for the redivision of the world.

The working class of Europe must proceed from an understanding that the post-war period, in which, since 1945, several generations have lived their lives, is over, and a new pre-war period has begun. It must assume responsibility for opposing the drive to austerity, militarism and war by all the imperialist powers.

Above all, it must seek the conscious unification of its struggles with those of workers in the United States and internationally. The explosion of working class opposition that Trump’s government of oligarchs and warmongers must inevitably provoke will provide the most powerful accelerant for the struggles of the European working class.

California border, December 2016

The US-Mexico border witnessed at its doors in 2016 thousands of Haitians who sought to enter the US. At the San Ysidro port of entry alone, south of San Diego, over 5,000 Haitians have arrived since October 2015, compared to 339 people between October 2014 and September 2015.

It takes several weeks for border authorities to process these migrants, and since they cannot go back on their steps, many are at an impasse. Among those who have been accepted into US territory through San Diego or Calexico, many find themselves in precarious situations where language barriers, few shelters and the absence of programs for migrants, carry their weight of consequences.

Although the local community has mobilized itself to assist the migrants, their abilities are wearing thin. Over the last months, the San Diego United Methodist Church’s Christ Ministry Center opened its doors to migrants. What started with 20 people rapidly turned into 200 sleeping on the floor, between benches and in the church corridors. The community is overloaded and the lack of space is about to become unbearable. More than a year after the sudden surge of arriving migrants, no emergency measure has been declared.

On the Mexican side of the border, in Tijuana, the lack of space is such that hundreds of migrants have decided to move east to Mexicali. A single visit in El Centro, a neighborhood of Mexicali where most of the shelters are located, betrays the magnitude of the migratory crisis. In the shelters, mattresses are thrown against the floor, repainting the cement or parquet flooring. Any space, whether it is a kitchen, a hall, a corridor or even a roof, is used to accommodate people and maximize unoccupied space. When possible, bed sheets are spread out between two pillars to delineate a private space that no longer exits.

The managers of Mexicali shelters also report a lack of space and resources for the migrant populations. While in some shelters medical visits occur each week, such services are not offered everywhere. The lack of space, the absence of intimacy and the anxiety of not knowing the outcome of this journey or the date on which it will end, weigh heavily on these migrants’ mental health, whose stay on Mexican soils extends proportionately with the rise of arriving migrants.

Without a work permit but requiring money to survive, the migrants become prey to human traffickers, according to Sergio Tamai, owner of the Hotel Migrantes shelter and an advocate with Angeles Sin Fronteras. According to him, to minimize the abuses and facilitate the insertion of migrants into Mexico rather than risk of deportation, it is necessary to implement a comprehensive migratory policy. Such a policy would allow the migrants to get involved in the city’s economic life and receive socio-sanitary services like access to healthcare and housing.

Underlying socioeconomics and sociopolitics

Haïti, January 12, 2010

Haiti’s most populous capital city of Port-au-Prince and its surroundings, with about 40 percent of the country’s population, were hit by a 7 to 7.3 magnitude earthquake in 2010 that left over 300,000 dead, 300,000 injured and 1.2 million people homeless. Trapped between ruins and an unprecedented social, political and economic crisis, thousands of people emigrated.

Brazil, a welcoming land

Brazil, then the biggest economy of South America, offered better perspectives. In response to administrative barriers about obtaining visas for Haitian citizens, a network of human traffickers emerged that conducted Haitian migrants to Brazil via the Amazonia. A few hundred Haitians thus embarked on a trip that could take up to three months and during which they crossed into the Dominican Republic, Panama, Ecuador and Peru. At the Brazilian border, these migrants presented themselves as refugees. Instead of deporting them, Brazil began to grant visas in 2011, starting with nearly 1,600 visas being issued by the end of that year. In January 2012, the administrative slowness and the afflux of migrants into Brazil caused a peak of nearly 2,000 Haitians being blocked at the border posts in the Amazonian region, waiting for a visa. To reduce the number of people risking their lives on the “jungle road,” Brazil started to issue humanitarian visas from Port-au-Prince the same month. By June 2014, over 10,000 humanitarian visas were being issued to Haitians in one month.

Meanwhile, as early as 2013 the first signs of an economic crisis loomed over Brazilian horizons. A few years later, the collapse of the Brazilian economy pushed populations of Haitians to migrate toward the American border as opportunities disappeared and worries reappeared.

Unpredictable US immigration policy

Due to the humanitarian crisis from the January 2010 earthquake, the United States imposed a moratorium on deportations to Haiti. Haitians already in the US and living in illegal situations would therefore not be deported, and those arriving at the border would benefit from a Temporary Protection Status (TPS) valid for three years. On August 26, 2015, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced an extension of the TPS until July 22, 2017.

Therefore the US moratorium on deportations to Haiti remained in place as the economic situation worsened in Brazil. So the quasi-simultaneous exacerbation of the Brazilian economic crisis and the increase in the number of Haitians coming from Brazil to the US were related. By October 2015, thousands of Haitians had left Brazil for the US hoping for better opportunities.

The continuous rise in Haitian arrivals at US borders led the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to call the situation an emergency. On September 22, 2016, the DHS announced a complete resumption of the deportations to Haiti. The DHS Secretary, Jeh Johnson, justified the withdrawal of the moratorium by citing an “improvement of living conditions in Haiti.”

From then on, any Haitian who had been allowed to enter the US since September 22, 2016 risked being deported. For those who are no longer allowed to enter the US, the only alternative is to seek asylum. Asylum seekers must convince the border agents of the existence of plausible persecution threats in their country. Those who succeed in doing so are offered asylum; those who fail are deported.

Hurricane Matthew, which hit several regions of Haiti in October 2016, worsened the situation as many migrants now report no longer having family in Haiti. With news of the hurricane, the US temporarily suspended the deportations but announced they would resume as soon as possible. Meanwhile, since the gradual resumption of the deportations of Haitian nationals considered as threats to US national security back in 2011, the Haitian government is said to have reluctantly collaborated. Indeed, the Haitian government allegedly only accepts about 50 deported people a month and is reported to have refused to receive deported people citing a lack of proof of their citizenship.

Caught in a vicious cycle where each country they cross seems to delegate to its neighbors the task of welcoming them, these migrants’ future resembled an enigma that very few wanted to solve.

Although the moratorium was lifted and deportations resumed, some migrants manage to get accepted into the US after an examination by the border agents. The acceptance criteria, however, remain unknown.

For those left in Mexicali waiting to know their fate, the delay is now of about three months.

From Brazil to Mexico: a perilous trip

Between $3,000 and $4,000 per person, on average, and an epic journey through nine countries, which implies nine borders and nine times a real risk of not being able to complete the trip: such was the price to reach the US.

Under conditions highly similar to those in which the first waves of Haitians reached Brazil after 2010, Haitians attempting to reach the northern border of Mexico traveled for three months on average. They all took the same route: Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala and finally the southern border of Mexico. At the Tapachula entry port, they received a document giving them 21 days to leave Mexico. They used that time to reach the northern border where their trek will end in either an entry into the US or a deportation to Haiti.

During their trip, all reported having seen death up close, whether it was when they walked by dead bodies, by people who became amputees after a bad fall or when they themselves ended in a distress they had not anticipated. All insisted particularly on the border between Colombia and Panama, where many affirmed having seen people fall from the tops of cliffs, alone or with their children. The dangers of this trip were such that many migrants have said nothing about it to their families who, to this day, still think they are in Brazil.

Excerpts from testimonials

The trip

The trip wasn’t easy. It’s often said that no one knows themselves until they’ve suffered…. It’s a deadly journey. Deadly. So deadly that even wild animals refuse to take it. Even wild animals.

Their message

We’d like you to forward this message for us…. There are young people here. We’re not idiots. There are professionals here. There are people who studied in universities…. Many people take the trip, many people [die] in rivers, on mountains. Nobody knows, except us… because we saw dead people. Women, men, children….

Available assistance

– When you travel like this, on the road, if someone injures themselves, what do you do?

H: Oh my God, there aren’t hospitals. Nothing.

I try to confirm that no resources were deployed in spite of the rising number of people taking the same route.

– So there isn’t any assistance?

They all laugh, fatalistically.

H: What possible assistance? We have nothing. We lack everything. If someone gets sick… they may pray. Nothing else….

Looking back

– Would you do the same thing over again? With the ordeals crossing mountains, desert, rivers? With [sights of] dead people?

J: I can be honest: I’d rather die than live [in Haiti]. I’d rather die a thousand times. Because you live in a country, you were born in that country, and sometimes you can’t eat. Your kids can’t go to school. You don’t have a job….

– Do you think that the Haitian government knows that there are people like you who’d rather die than live in Haiti?

He vigorously nods.

– They know and nothing changes?

J: Nothing changes…. Me, I wish that one day, we, Haitians, we can survive in our country. I wish that one day our country will get better…. But people from the government, the authorities, they haven’t done anything to change the situation. I’d like people to know that if we leave our country it’s not [just] to leave. It’s to seek something better, to improve our lives, our situation…. Talking about Haiti…. it hurts me to speak badly about my country but that’s the truth. Just the truth.

Sources: Christiane Ndedi Essombe holds a BSc in Biochemistry and a Masters in Public Health. She is originally from Cameroon and lives in Montreal. She visited Mexico City, Mexicali and Calexico from November 30 to December 11, 2016. During this trip she observed the situation of the Haitian migrants and conducted a series of interviews with them. For her more extensive report on the topic, go here. | All photos are from October 2016: one through five by Cuartoscuro/Expansion show Haitian migrants in Tijuana; six by Luis Arellano Sarmiento/Animal Politico shows Haitian migrants in Calexico; seven to nine by Sergio Haro/Animal Politico show Haitian migrants in Mexicali, Baja California.

United States Africa Command has been planning an intervention in West Africa for years

A major military invasion of the small West African state of Gambia is taking place as troops from neighboring Senegal are entering the agricultural country.

Gambian President Yahya Jammeh had been granted a three month extension by the parliament to remain in office in the midst of a controversy surrounding the outcome of a recent national election.

Jammeh has rejected calls from the regional Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to resign from office immediately describing their threats of an occupation as unwarranted interference in the country’s internal affairs. The president has declared a state of emergency signaling his willingness to maintain the existing position.

At the Gambian embassy in Dakar, Senegal, the proclaimed winner of the November elections, businessman Adama Barrow, was sworn in as president. Although Barrow is saying that he is the legitimate head-of-state for Gambia, nevertheless, he is not even residing inside the small nation.

Mauritanian President Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz visited the capital of Banjul on January 18 in another effort to persuade Jammeh to relinquish office. The talks at the presidential palace fueled speculation that Jammeh is being pressured to leave the country to settle in Morocco or Nigeria.

Nonetheless, there were no guarantees mentioned which would indicate whether he would be subjected to extradition back to Gambia or to Europe as was done to former Liberian President Charles Taylor in 2003. After an ECOWAS intervention, Taylor was sent to Nigeria for a brief period and then in contravention to the agreement, he later wound up in The Hague for a Special Tribunal on the War in Sierra Leone.

Thousands of tourists and other guests in Gambia have been seen evacuating the country. These developments followed a travel advisory issued by the British government, the former colonial power in Gambia.

According to the Independent newspaper,

“The British High Commission in the capital, Banjul, believes that the volatile situation ‘could result in Banjul International Airport being closed at short notice’. Rather than risking UK holidaymakers being stranded in a country where the only other way out involved a long and difficult overland journey via Senegal, the decision was taken to put The Gambia on the ‘no-go’ list.”

This important notice by London reveals the western imperialist involvement in the Gambian crisis. In addition to the British, the outgoing administration of President Barack Obama signed in 2016 a renewed military cooperation agreement with Senegalese President Macky Sall.

Global Risks Insights website notes that: “With the defense cooperation deal signed by the U.S. and Senegal last week (May 19), the U.S. is increasing its military foothold in Africa. It can be argued that this is a new direction in the Africa policy of the Obama administration and a response to China’s new naval base in Djibouti. Last week the U.S. and Senegal signed a defense cooperation deal. The deal is an upgrade of an existing agreement dating from 2001, and only entails increased access for U.S. military deployment in case of humanitarian crises, such as the Ebola crisis, and to contribute to the battle against terrorist groups in the region. However, it can also be interpreted as a new direction and strategy of the U.S. Africa Command, AFRICOM.” (globalriskinsights.com)

Gambia Intervention a Culmination of AFRICOM Policy

There have been numerous joint military exercises between several West African states and AFRICOM over the last several years. These operations are said to be in preparation for humanitarian crises along with counter measures against “Islamic Terrorism.” However, the discovery of vast reservoirs of natural resources including oil, natural gas and uranium underlies the enhanced interests in African affairs by Washington and London.

It is also necessary to view the escalating imperialist militarism in Africa within the context of growing cooperation between African Union (AU) member-states and the People’s Republic of China, among other countries. The European Union (EU) states and North American governments are seeking to maintain their dominance on the continent and consider events in West Africa as being significant in these strategic imperatives.

Gambia is small almost completely landlocked country on the Atlantic coast. The economy is based upon agricultural production, fishing and tourism. A travel advisory issued by London only serves to undermine the national economy even further amid the character of reports coming out the country from western media sources.

86 percent of the foreign trade by Gambia is conducted with Britain and EU states. Tourism constitutes at least 40 percent of its hard currency earnings. Consequently, the imperialist governments are in a position to place serious strains on the Jammeh administration.

Barrow, who represented eight different opposition parties in the November elections, is framed by western corporate and government-controlled press agencies as a “businessman.” The military background of Jammeh and his seizure of power in 1994 are often cited in these media accounts assessing the character of the incumbent administration.

Many of the same states which are today demanding the resignation of Jammeh, have themselves, experienced numerous coups carried out by the military. Others have been involved in counter-insurgency operations within their own borders that remained absent of uninvited outside interference by neighboring states. Therefore, it seems that there are imperialist forces involved in this operation.

Joint Naval and Ground Operations Are Standard Practice in West Africa

The rapidly increasing role of Pentagon, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and U.S. State Department personnel embedded within African military structures are well-known and publicized developments on the continent. Websites and press releases issued by the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), the U.S. Army Africa (USARAF), NATO, etc. frequently report on these joint maneuvers.

Operation Flintlock, which is coordinated by the U.S. Army Africa (USARAF), has been conducted in Senegal over the last few years. Washington attempts to project these operations as merely training exercises requested by the African states. Nevertheless, when interventions such as the developments in Gambia manifest, it is quite obvious that they are part and parcel of a neo-colonialist project to guarantee the dominance of the Pentagon in regional military affairs.

A post on the USARAF website from 2016 notes:

“U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Donald C. Bolduc, Special Operations Command-Africa commander, joined leadership from last year’s Flintlock exercise, hosted by Chad, and Senegalese leadership in exchanging the Flintlock ceremonial flag, signifying the new host nation accepting the lead role for Flintlock 16. This year’s Senegalese-led exercise spans across several locations within the country as well as outposts in Mauritania.”

This same press release continues saying explicitly:

“’Flintlock is more than a military exercise, we are training together to increase our interoperability and collaboration to counter today’s threats,’ said Brig. Gen. Bolduc. ‘Flintlock contributes to strengthening security ties, promoting shared values and setting conditions for economic growth.’ Flintlock 2016 marks the third time the exercise has been hosted by Senegal.”

Nonetheless, even proponents of this strategy which has characterized U.S. foreign policy towards the continent during the course of the last two administrations through deepening military and intelligence penetration of African nation-states, are questioning its effectiveness related to the stated objectives of enhancing the security capacity of these same neo-colonial dominated regional governments. In states such as Mali, where the Pentagon has trained and financed defense forces, military coups have been led by those who have directly participated in army schools in the U.S.

World Politics Review published an article on November 12, 2015 by Peter Dorrie emphasizing that Washington’s policy:

“has led to some strange bedfellows. Cameroon’s president, Paul Biya, has been in power 33 years, while Djibouti’s Ismail Omar Guelleh and Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni also show no signs of stepping down after decades in power. Of the 10 countries hosting U.S. surveillance assets, one is classified as ‘worst of the worst, five as ‘not free’ and four as ‘partly free’ by Freedom House’s 2015 Freedom in the World index.  U.S. military assistance in the form of training and materiel is also going to regimes that routinely use their security forces against their population, contributing to the drivers of terrorism. To make things worse, many of these countries could actually finance these programs themselves, if only their corrupt political elites did not squander their national wealth.” (www.worldpoliticsreview.com)

A coalition of these same states is now entering the Gambia, a nation which posed no threat to the regional stability of West Africa. Until the AU member-states develop a foreign policy that is genuinely independent of imperialism these ongoing military interventions will continue to destabilize the continent and foster its underdevelopment.

 

Big Brother watches everyone virtually everywhere. Americans are more spied on than ever before in US history.

Obama’s so-called new privacy guidelines, designed to limit the CIA’s use of information on Americans, changed nothing. Dirty business as usual continues.

Reporting to the Director of National Intelligence, the agency has multiple missions, including collecting, coordinating, analyzing and disseminating information related to national security, along with conducting other operations as directed by the National Security Council.

They include overthrowing democratically elected governments, assassinating heads of state and key officials, propping up friendly despots, snatching individuals for extraordinary rendition, treating them harshly in torture prisons, using drones as instruments of state terror, along with aiding and directing ISIS and other terrorist groups, used as imperial foot soldiers in Syria, Iraq, Libya and other US war theaters.

The CIA operates as a global hit squad. Aside from legitimate intelligence gathering, its operations are incompatible with democracy.

It’s unchecked power threatens freedom and world peace. As long as it exists, no one is safe anywhere – not heads of state at home or abroad or anyone else.

Operating mainly overseas, the agency increasingly is involved domestically, traditionally the FBI’s area of responsibility under the Justice Department’s jurisdiction.

New guidelines require the CIA to purge certain types of information collected abroad within five years. Who’ll check to assure compliance?

Who’ll curb practices of a rogue agency operating ad libitum, doing whatever it pleases, anywhere in the world extrajudicially?

Updated guidelines were crafted without public input, especially from civil liberties groups concerned about privacy protections.

Why were they announced two days ahead of Trump’s inauguration? His new CIA director Mike Pompeo can rescind them, establishing the new administration’s own rules and standards.

Trump and his national security team said they favor expanded US intelligence operations. Obama’s new guidelines spell out how the agency interprets spying, dating from the Reagan administration.

New guidelines exclude various CIA rogue operations, especially in US war theaters.

How Trump intends handling the agency going all out to delegitimize him remains to be seen. It he tries restructuring and curbing its power, he could end up one of its victims.

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.

Obama refers to “The DNC emails that were leaked”. Note “leaked” and not “hacked”.

In his final press conference, beginning around 8 minutes 30 seconds in, Obama admits that they have no evidence of how WikiLeaks got the DNC material. This undermines the stream of completely evidence-free nonsense that has been emerging from the US intelligence services this last two months, in which a series of suppositions have been strung together to make unfounded assertions that have been repeated again and again in the mainstream media.

Most crucially of all Obama refers to “The DNC emails that were leaked”. Note “leaked” and not “hacked”. 

See Press Conference Video

I have been repeating that this was a leak, not a hack, until I am blue in the face. William Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, has asserted that were it a hack the NSA would be able to give the precise details down to the second it occurred, and it is plain from the reports released they have no such information. Yet the media has persisted with this nonsense “Russian hacking” story.Obama’s reference to the “the DNC emails that were leaked” appears very natural, fluent and unforced. It is good to have the truth finally told.

 

Uno de los conceptos que generó la mayor controversia en el artículo precedente, “¿El final de la ideología en Cuba?”, fue el de que “siempre he aseverado que la más peligrosa oposición a la Revolución cubana proviene de la llamada izquierda, y no de la derecha abiertamente plattista o anexionista”. La mayoría de los lectores elogiaron el artículo, muchos otros participaron en serios debates, mientras tan sólo un par de personas lo objetaron fuertemente, señalando particularmente esta frase.

Quisiera entonces analizar esta percepción. En ella se menciona la “abiertamente derecha plattista o anexionista.” Esto significa que en Cuba existen tanto una oposición abiertamente pro Estados Unidos, así como los anexionistas solapados. Estos últimos son los llamados izquierdistas. Su discurso incluye una crítica (moderada) al sistema social, económico y político estadounidense. Éstos no aceptan abiertamente el capitalismo como alternativa, como los anexionistas, quienes apoyan más francamente el modelo estadounidense como su modelo. Un estadounidense que ha vivido en Cuba como su país adoptivo durante cierto número de años, escribió algunos comentarios positivos cuidadosos acerca del artículo y del tema del socialismo versus el capitalismo:

“En el Norte, en su más simple forma, esto podría reducirse a la aceptación del “mal menor”. Ambos sistemas son deficientes pero, convenientemente, el socialismo lo es más, así que, simplemente, ignoremos esta opción. Pero, cualquier cambio del capitalismo es puramente cosmético con el sólo objetivo de evitar el socialismo. Aquí [en Cuba], dado que ya hemos llegado al socialismo, el argumento presentado es que el capitalismo presenta algunos aspectos buenos, así que sumémoslos simplemente al socialismo. Dado que el enfoque es adicionar en lugar de sustraer al capitalismo —esto hace que el objetivo aquí sea opuesto al del Norte. En lugar de mejorar el socialismo con el objetivo de evitar el capitalismo, su idea es adoptar las mejores características del capitalismo, como si ambos sistemas fuesen compatibles, con partes intercambiables, las que, por supuesto, no lo son.”

Se trata de un punto muy acertado. Un cubano comparó esto a “la utilización de piezas de repuestos de un reloj Timex para arreglar un Rolex.” En esta analogía, por supuesto que el Rolex es el socialismo mientras que el Timex es el capitalismo. Sin embargo, el punto central es que las piezas que constituyen las dos marcas no son compatibles. Algunos de la llamada “izquierda” pueden argumentar que Cuba está introduciendo algunas medidas de economía de mercado propias del capitalismo. Sin embargo, la economía de mercado ha existido desde mucho tiempo antes que el capitalismo, inclusive en los sistemas más “primitivos”. No se trata de una característica exclusiva de ningún sistema. No se trata de un invento del capitalismo. Por el contrario, los cambios realizados en Cuba contribuyen a mejorar el Rolex, pero con partes rejuvenecidas y no con partes usadas de un marca totalmente diferente e incompatible.

La oposición de la “izquierda” contribuye objetivamente al “American Dream” de instaurar el capitalismo en Cuba, aún cuando, por supuesto, ellos lo niegan de forma vehemente. Para describir su imagen anticapitalista, algunos inclusive se definen a sí mismos como “socialistas-demócratas”, en tanto que opositores al supuestamente autoritario socialismo cubano. El punto de vista del pensamiento único estadounidense del sistema está especializado en etiquetar con guiones conceptos tales como los socialistas-demócratas. La “democracia” es quizás el concepto más manipulado en política, análisis que va más allá de este corto artículo. Es suficiente mencionar por el momento que, con base en el punto de vista del pensamiento único estadounidense, el término democracia sirve de palabra clave para contradecir al socialismo. En Cuba, cuando se agrega la etiqueta “democracia” como por arte de magia, aquellos en el Norte interesados en subvertir la revolución cubana saben que los individuos partidarios del socialismo etiquetado con guiones están en su campo ideológico.

Esta y otras tendencias similares al interior de la oposición “izquierdista”, aún cuando en aparente contradicción entre ellas, tienen al menos una característica en común. Desde diferentes ángulos, todas convergen en un modo de pensar: el sistema cubano y el gobierno son “autoritarios”; el Partido Comunista de Cuba y el Ejército están omnipresentes; el sistema es centralizado, por lo cual el Estado juega dos funciones principales (aun cuando Cuba fue descentralizada a partir del año 2008, pero en sus propios términos, al interior del socialismo). Esta posición se presenta ostensiblemente a favor del socialismo, pero de un “socialismo” muy, muy, democrático. Con el fin de fomentar esta imagen, cada incidente en el sistema cubano es señalado con la finalidad de presentar a Cuba como autoritaria. Contando principalmente con algunos intelectuales, el objetivo es atomizar y dividir la sociedad cubana, buscando destruir su unidad, construida desde 1959.

Por el contrario, aquellos comentaristas en Cuba de una tendencia de derecha abiertamente anexionista, critican al gobierno cubano por no ir lo suficientemente lejos ni rápidamente en la adopción de lo que ellos llaman “medidas capitalistas”. Los anexionistas defienden abiertamente el capitalismo para Cuba bajo la tutela de Estados Unidos. Esta tendencia también acusa al gobierno “autoritario” de restringir lo que ellos esperan como el inevitable deslizamiento de Cuba hacia el capitalismo. De esta manera, el término “democracia” es manipulado por los llamados izquierdistas y abiertamente pro estadounidenses y pro capitalistas de derecha.

Existe otro común denominador asociado a los dos extremos aparentemente opuestos. No hay duda que actualmente en Cuba tiene lugar una viva discusión y un debate acerca del mejoramiento del socialismo y del sistema político cubanos. La actitud hacia Estados Unidos en el nuevo y complicado contexto del post 17D, está por supuesto atada a estas controversias. Estas deliberaciones están tomando lugar a muchos niveles e instancias de la sociedad cubana y del sistema político. Estos debates constituyen una característica de la cultura política cubana que conlleva esta tradición de larga data. Si en este momento se toman los medios cubanos como ejemplo, diferentes artículos de opinión vienen siendo publicados en la prensa oficial, tales como el Granma y Juventud Rebelde. Algunos de ellos han sido escritos por los llamados periodistas y escritores alternativos tales como Iroel Sánchez, Elier Ramírez, Enrique Ubieta, Luis Toledo Sande y Esteban Morales, para nombrar tan sólo a unos pocos. Estos intelectuales y muchos otros tienen sus propios blogs activos e igualmente participan a diario en los medios sociales (como Facebook y Twitter) en la resistencia contra la guerra cultural liderada por Estados Unidos.

Sin embargo, cuando la oposición de “izquierda” o de derecha describe a Cuba para el beneficio del consumo extranjero y parte del doméstico (sin equivocación acerca de ello, sus puntos de vista se centran en la hostil prensa extranjera contra Cuba), invariablemente aplauden y destacan lo que llaman el periodismo de “oposición” o “alternativo.” La oposición de “izquierda” coacciona, supuestamente, el epítome del pluralismo, tan sólo se citan entre ellos mismos y a oponentes de ideas semejantes, dentro de un enfoque bastante monolítico. Es así como también los medios del establecimiento estadounidense manejan cualquier debate. Éstos citan tan sólo su propio pensamiento: una consanguinidad perversa.

Por el contrario, los intelectuales cubanos verdaderamente alternativos (algunos de ellos mencionados anteriormente), que trabajan por el mejoramiento del sistema, se encuentran en la lista negra e inclusive son vilipendiados por los “izquierdistas.” Los medios del “establishment” reconocen entonces estas credenciales tan sólo a aquellos que consideran “alternativas de buena fe”, generando invariablemente una avalancha de invitaciones tanto a los de “izquierda” como a los de derecha para viajar a Estados Unidos o para ser publicados en medios extranjeros en Cuba, a manera de intercambio contra la entrega de los bienes esperados: afirmar que el sistema cubano es autoritario o dictador. Amén. Este intercambio es flagrante hasta el punto que, el hecho de que un cubano reciba de su parte estas credenciales, podría considerarse el peso del dólar o el beso de la muerte.

Así, tanto la oposición de la “izquierda” como de la derecha abiertamente anexionista, son dos alas de la misma águila estadounidense. No se debe subestimar su influencia en algunos sectores intelectuales de la sociedad cubana. Sería ingenuo hacerlo. También sería equivocado sobreestimar su influencia en la sociedad cubana, puesto que el socialismo cubano se caracteriza por un alto nivel de conciencia política ampliamente acumulado a lo largo de muchas décadas. Esto permite a los revolucionarios y a los patriotas cubanos comprender sus manipulaciones y así, en el proceso, enriquecer aún más la herencia ideológica de la Revolución cubana.

Arnold August

Arnold August: Periodista y conferencista canadiense.

Introducción

El triunfo inesperado de Trump produjo también algunas reacciones sorpresivas del “mercado[i]”. Esto se manifiesta en parte, en que los inversionistas asumen mayores riesgos en sus compras de activos (acciones) en vez de bonos y que compran dólares vendiendo otras monedas e incluso oro. Este comportamiento sucede porque el presidente recientemente electo ha afirmado que implementará políticas de inversión en infraestructura y aplicará recortes tributarios para fortalecer la producción. Si prosigue en este plan, conducirá también a mayores déficits fiscales, y tasas de interés en alza en los EUA (Estados Unidos de América).

El aspecto global de la re-calibración de los “mercados” se centra en las tentaciones de invertir en dólares a costa del euro y el yen, ya que ambos están aún atascados en tipos de interés más bajos y hasta negativos. Los flujos de capital, obviamente, favorecen al dólar que repunta en el mercado a costa del Euro y el Yen. Lo cual podría significar una nueva gran crisis bancaria en la Unión Europea y su ingreso en un eventual proceso que debilita su unidad estratégica, hecho que no dejaría de tener un sabor a triunfo para el capital financiero globalista si el camino es el de la desintegración de la UE según como se resuelva la crisis de la UE, recordemos que este viene de ser recientemente derrotado en las elecciones de EUA (ya que su candidata era Clinton) y en el Brexit[ii] de Gran Bretaña.  Está claro que el globalismo financiero ha quedado debilitado aún más en EUA al perder ahora el poder ejecutivo, ya había perdido el poder legislativo y el poder judicial, y nunca fue dominante en el mercado interno ni en el pentágono. Aunque si lo sigue siendo en el mercado mundial. Pero la UE, como UE, sigue teniendo opciones más fuertes de articulación en el multipolarismo de los Brics, junto a China-Rusia-India-etc. Aunque también pueda ser tensionada desde un EUA que intenta fortalecerse desde su continentalismo[iii].

Pero el capital financiero global no se quedara inmóvil en EUA, la Reserva Federal (FED) ya subió las tasas de interés días después del triunfo de Trump. La Fed considera que ahora es el momento para aumentar las tasas de interés, anunciando además tres aumentos para 2017 y proyectando otros tres, tanto en 2018 como en 2019. Recordemos como operaron los anuncios del presidente de la Fed Ben Bernanke, en junio de 2013, sobre la decisión de aumentar las tasas del 0,25% al 2,5%, produciendo la primera gran corrida financiera global con una salida brutal de inversiones de las economías emergentes hacia posiciones expectantes. Hecho que produjo una ralentización de la economías emergentes del 5% al 1%, con China del 7,8% al 4%[iv].

Muchos norteamericanos esperan el milagro económico de Trump, pero la verdad es que la Reserva Federal no estará bajo su control hasta la segunda mitad del año 2018, son los globalistas pro-Clinton quienes seguirán teniendo el control y un fuerte poder en la Fed[v], de poder fijar las tasas de interés. Por ello no sería extraño que el nuevo presidente, más temprano que tarde, haga el esfuerzo político de poner fuera de juego a la Reserva Federal, dejando en manos del Departamento del Tesoro[vi] sus funciones esenciales. De otra manera deberá esperar hasta la segunda mitad de 2018, que podría ya ser demasiado tarde[vii].

La Junta de gobernadores de la Reserva Federal consta de siete asientos. Dos de ellos quedaron vacantes desde 2014, cuando Obama nombró dos gobernadores nuevos que fueron rechazados en el Senado dominado por los republicanos. Los cinco gobernadores en ejercicio todos son banqueros, de formación en economía o abogacía. El período de la presidenta, Janet Yellen termina el 3 de febrero de 2018 y el Vicepresidente Stanley Fisher podrá quedarse hasta el 2020. La costumbre es que ambos se retiren en 2018 y que Trump tenga la posibilidad de nombrar en tal caso, según afirma, a personas que expresen los intereses del sector empresarial industrial, comercial y agrícola.  Lo anterior implica que desde ahora hasta principios de 2018, la lucha entre el neoliberalismo financiero globalizado enfrentado con, el continentalismo financiero neoconservador y el nacionalismo industrialista norteamericano será intensa; y si los globalistas quieren causar un colapso financiero para debilitar a D.Trump, lo tendrán que realizar lo antes posible, durante el año 2017 o principios de 2018[viii].

Está claro que conforme la Fed aumente la tasa de interés subirá la cantidad de dólares destinados al servicio de la deuda estadounidense que ya es de 14 billones de dólares. Los intereses serán la partida del presupuesto del Gobierno Federal que más rápidamente crecerá con la suba de la tasa de interés. Es obvio que los globalistas tienen un plan para debilitar a D.Trump y para que colapse la economía norteamericana, y lo vienen ejecutando desde que resultó ganador Trump en las elecciones del de noviembre de 2016 a partir de: los anuncios de que la Fed aumentaría la tasa de interés, de las movidas para que no llegue a los 270 electores en los veinte colegios electorales el 19 de diciembre de 2016, de las mediáticas movilizaciones de jóvenes en los grandes centros urbanos, a partir de la denuncia de la intromisión de hackers rusos, etc.

En el plano de la economía con el anuncio de un plan de fuertes incrementos en las tasas de interés tienden a provocar un colapso y harán lo imposible a través de las principales corporaciones-mediáticas  bajo su dominio de responsabilizar a Trump y sus apoyos económicos y políticos, pues, el colapso es un proceso y no un suceso.  El colapso/crack bancario implicaría sin duda procesos de ´bail-in´, un corralito bancario reduciendo o prácticamente eliminando el dinero-en-efectivo para así poder tener el control sobre la población entera a través de sus cuentas bancarias, hecho que afectaría de manera directa a todas personas bancarizadas[ix].

El plan de los globalistas se orienta a acabar con el dólar como moneda internacional de referencia y este colapso limitaría fuertemente el peso del dólar en el mercado internacional.  De este modo el valor del nuevo dólar ya no sería controlado por la Reserva Federal, esta probablemente tendría que ceder este rol al Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI) y el dólar perdería mucho de su actual poder adquisitivo, mediante procesos de devaluación e inflación.

Mientras tanto D.Trump y sus apoyos, en el Contientalismo financiero neoconservador y en el nacionalismo industrialista, también necesitan aumentar la tasa de interés para atraer el crédito mundial, orientando el flujo de capital especulativo de la gran burbuja hacia EUA, y de la especulación a la producción, que incluye el regreso de las inversiones de ETN´s[x], para financiar su plan de reindustrializar EUA y reposicionarlo como potencia industrial mundial, con el objetivo de confrontar estratégicamente con los globalistas y con el multipolarismo industrialista Brics.

La pregunta es si los globalistas lograran construir la imputación de la responsabilidad de Trump y sus políticas, o si por el contrario el gran público podrá ver claramente que es la élite financiera globalista quien controla la mano que mece la cuna de la crisis. En tal caso el panorama incluso se abriría para una alternativa sistémica[xi].

Qué pasará en el primer año del gobierno D.Trump

Para ello es importante analizar la próxima fase del ciclo de crédito, y las implicancias para las tasas de interés y de inflación. Un recorte fiscal para estimular la producción en EUA significará un alza en las tasas de interés y con ello sobre los precios, que van ir en ascenso. En este sentido podríamos encontramos con una política “muy prudente” de Trump de no comenzar con su política fiscal o de hacerlo de manera muy gradual[xii]. El alza de precios de las materias primas se producirá de todos modos debido al almacenamiento continuo de materias primas realizado por China y su plan ya en marcha de Nueva Ruta de la Seda[xiii], cuya demanda de estos ´commodities´ compite con la demanda esperada que generan las obras de infraestructura y reindustrialización anunciadas por D.Trump.

Hasta que asuma D.Trump, los bancos están en la fase inicial que marcará pérdidas en bonos, ya que se verán obligados a vender sus tenencias en bonos para crear espacio de financiar los mega-proyectos de infraestructura. La venta masiva de bonos que se espera implicará una pérdida de precio de los mismos con las pérdidas bancarias correspondientes.

Los mecanismos detrás de los flujos de crédito bancario del sector financiero al productivo hoy son diferentes a las situaciones en tiempos anteriores (1970-79). A partir del año 2008 el ciclo de crédito financiero se ha prolongado y distorsionado artificialmente[xiv], debido a que la mayoría de las malas inversiones acumuladas (1999-2006), que normalmente hubieran sido eliminadas en la fase de desaceleración del ciclo de crédito (2009-2014), desde la Fed y su red de bancos centrales subordinados se les ha permitido persistir, para lo cual se ha agregado toda una emisión sin respaldo. Lo anterior gracias a la supresión agresiva de los tipos de interés por la Reserva Federal que creó una burbuja de emisión de dinero sin respaldo a tasas de interés cero y hasta negativas. Se construyó así una burbuja financiera varias veces más grande que la que estallo en 2008 en EUA, con la caída del banco de inversión Lehman Brothers, pero ahora de tamaño global.

En consecuencia, el acumulado crédito bancario de estos tiempos nunca se reasignó[xv] del uso improductivo al productivo, sino que se ha ampliado sin cesar en nombre de la ingeniería financiera (burbuja). Entrando al 2017, los bancos todavía tienen que vender sus tenencias en bonos comprados a precios altos, cuando las tasas de interés estaban excepcionalmente bajas. Ahora están presionados para venderlos a fin de lograr el suficiente espacio en su cartera, para poder ofrecer préstamos destinados a la expansión de la infraestructura y para financiar un déficit fiscal en alza. Se espera en 2017 una venta masiva y en consecuencia una verdadera caída en el precio de los bonos del Tesoro. Esto ocurrirá en el 2017, suponiendo que D.Trump siga con sus planes económicos.

Sin embargo, los actores que apuestan por la actividad industrial, comercial y agraria ya han anticipado a la baja los precios de los bonos en poder de los bancos. Han anticipado grandes pérdidas para los grandes bancos que recibieron bonos emitidos a tasa 0% y sin respaldo, y que ahora deben sí o sí venderlos. Pues, el precio del bono es inverso a su rentabilidad.

Dado que, antes de los planes expansivos de D.Trump, los rendimientos en bonos se encontraban a niveles inusualmente altos (debido a las tasas de interés excepcionalmente bajas 0% o negativas), ahora se esperan grandes pérdidas bancarias en el mercado de bonos con la subida de las tasas de interés.

Se esperan pérdidas muy grandes para los bancos debido a que deberían venderlos cuando, tanto fuera de EUA (Chinos sobre todo) como los mismos bancos dentro de EUA, hay una fuerte presión para invertir en: a) los grandes proyectos de infraestructura dentro y fuera de EUA, b) por la política de la FED de elevar las tasas de interés por motivos geopolíticos en la disputa entre los capitales financieros dentro de EUA, c) también como resultado de las expectativas de inflación y d) como consecuencia de la propia caída de los bonos.

La liquidación de bonos del tesoro en el exterior

El efecto a la baja de los bonos del Tesoro no solo se define por causas internas. Ya hemos mencionado en nuestro artículo anterior[xvi] que no solo China sino los países asiáticos en general, con la excepción de Japón, se están deshaciendo masivamente de los bonos del Tesoro. Esta liquidación masiva de bonos es algo que Washington ya temía desde hace años, porque pondría a la Reserva federal en la posición de tener que aumentar las tasas de interés. Un alza en las tasas de interés se reforzará sobre todo si esta liquidación de bonos continúa o incluso si se acentuara en los próximos meses.

Ya Trump advertía que cuando la Fed aumente demasiado a menudo las tasas de interés, el dólar se fortalecerá al haber una fuerte demanda del billete verde, al menos temporalmente, hasta que luego serán ´trocados´ por oro o materias primas, aumentando el precio de ambos. El día que la presidencia de la FED acelere el aumento en las tasas de interés (el próximo aumento ya podrá ejecutarse en febrero de 2017) Trump no podrá contar con Yellen y su ´board´, porque no le responden, para aplicar la expansión monetaria que se ocupa para financiar su déficit fiscal. Él hará la presión necesaria sobre la Fed para poder “guiar” los aumentos las tasas de interés y de ser necesario no esperara hasta febrero de 2018 para reemplazarla de una forma u otra. A él la gustaría poder reemplazar a Yellen pero su mandato termina en febrero de 2018[xvii].

Las consecuencias de un estímulo fiscal

Los bonos:

El presidente electo tiene como proyecto promover un estímulo fiscal sustancial para la empresa privada industrial, comercial y agrícola. La diferencia entre un estímulo monetario y otro fiscal se encuentra en la inflación de precios. El estímulo monetario tiende a inflar los precios de los activos, mientras que un estímulo fiscal tiende a inflar los precios al consumidor. Por lo tanto, el estímulo fiscal conduce con mayor certeza al aumento de las tasas de interés debido al efecto de inflación de precios. El alza en los rendimientos de los bonos se produce al venderlos a precios en baja. La baja del precio de los bonos causará pérdidas dolorosas para aquellos bancos con fuertes inversiones en bonos (sobre todo los de corto plazo) que compraron en su momento más caro.

Esto se suma a una debilidad estructural que todos los bancos acarrean desde la crisis de 2008 y que se ha sumado a un mundo de bancos y bancos centrales expuestos a la gran burbuja financiera que se generó para posponer el escenario de ganadores y perdedores entre las grandes bancas financieras transnacionales. Los grandes perdedores inmediatos del 2008, lograron posponer la resolución de la crisis, producto de una lucha de intereses financieros trasnacionales, hasta poder construir-imponer un escenario favorable en la puja.

Este es el fundamento de esa gran burbuja financiera que deja expuestos a todos los bancos centrales, a todas las monedas internacionales, a todos los grandes bancos a la crisis de la burbuja financiera y que al mismo tiempo les ha permitido posponer su resolución desde 2008, hasta ahora. Pero ahora el terreno es uno mucho más complejo que en 2008, es de mucha mayor envergadura y ya no solo existen opciones en esquemas financieros sino que emergieron ya las opciones alternativas anti-financieras y multipolares universales[xviii].

Las acciones

Se puede esperar que el cambio de un estímulo monetario, durante el período post crisis de 2008 a 2016, a otro fiscal en 2017 afecte también negativamente los precios de los activos, por las razones que quedarán claras a continuación. En la fase expansiva (de la producción), el dinero debe abandonar las actividades puramente financieras. Sin embargo, no se puede tener a la vez un estímulo fiscal y una reasignación de recursos económicos al sector privado no financiero sin crear un poderoso efecto de precios sobre los relativamente escasos activos financieros. En consecuencia, no sólo se espera una caída en los precios de los bonos debido a un aumento en los rendimientos vía intereses de los mismos, sino  también en los mercados bursátiles habrá un clara tendencia al alza y a tal punto que los fundamentos de las acciones parecerán estar en su mejor momento. Por lo tanto, la euforia postelectoral con la victoria de D.Trump en las bolsas de valores es un reflejo de un sentimiento positivo, que va por delante de la realidad[xix].

La expansión monetaria y las tasas de interés

Los keynesianos argumentarían que las tensiones a las que se enfrenta el sector financiero pueden compensarse con la expansión del crédito. En general podría ser, siempre y cuando los bancos tengan espacio en sus hojas de balance para un incremento adicional del crédito, lo cual no es la realidad actual. La realidad consiste en un sistema bancario financiero sobresaturado de bonos de deuda (burbuja financiera) principalmente en dólares, por un monto que es 22 veces la economía real, que no tienen respaldo en la economía real. Y que necesitan que los tenedores de bonos asuman las pérdidas, para poder ser re-direccionados a potenciar la economía real (infraestructura y producción industrial, comercial y agraria)[xx].

Sin embargo, los efectos inflacionarios de la expansión fiscal sobre los precios al consumidor se convierten en una fuerza considerable y relativamente inmediata, que domina rápidamente las decisiones de la política monetaria. Esto se debe a que, a través del aumento en el gasto público en infraestructura y producción, el déficit fiscal se traduce directamente en un aumento de la demanda de bienes y servicios, elevando los precios a medida que se gasta dinero extra creado a partir de la nada (burbuja). Por otro lado, el resultado será que el banco central inevitablemente aumentará las tasas de interés a fin de proteger el poder adquisitivo de la moneda[xxi].

El ejemplo más claro en la memoria viviente para explicar las consecuencias de la política económica de Trump, es la economía de Gran Bretaña en la primera mitad de los años setenta. A partir de 1970, el gobierno estimuló agresivamente la economía al aumentar el déficit fiscal a partir de una baja en las tasas de interés. El resultado fue un alza en el mercado bursátil que terminó en mayo de 1972. Los intereses pagados por los bonos del gobierno británico habían tocado fondo más temprano en ese mismo año. A medida que se percibía que la economía mejoraba, el Banco de Inglaterra aumentó los tipos de interés con la inflación de precios como consecuencia. Los bonos se solían vender a menor precio al tiempo que sus rendimientos crecieron. La especulación llevó la inversión de los mercados de valores a la propiedad comercial, cuando los alquileres y los valores de los inmuebles subieron debido a la expansión de la demanda de oficinas, impulsada por un boom económico artificial.

La inflación de precios se aceleró hasta el punto en que las tasas de interés tuvieron que ser aumentadas aún más todavía, provocando un colapso en el mercado inmobiliario, lo que obligó al rescate de los bancos involucrados. A lo largo del ciclo, la tasa básica del Banco de Inglaterra había aumentado del 5% en septiembre de 1971 al 13% en noviembre de 1973, precipitando el colapso del mercado inmobiliario.  Los rendimientos de los bonos a largo plazo se habían duplicado a más del 15% y a fines de 1975 la bolsa de valores había perdido 75% de su valor. La situación financiera del Gobierno británico era tan mala que tuvo que pedir prestado dinero al FMI.

Todo esto sucedía en Gran Bretaña entre 1970-1979, cuando el mundo se encontraba aun sin una decisión de emisión de dinero por los bancos centrales sin respaldo en la economía real. Si se encontraba en medio de la crisis del respaldo oro del dólar como moneda fiduciaria[xxii], provocada por la decisión de Alemania y Francia en 1967 de exigir sus acreencias con EUA en oro, hecho que fue resuelto con la decisión de EUA de plantear el no reconocimiento de la deuda, el no respaldo en oro del dólar y el pasaje al respaldo del dólar en el comercio de petróleo con Arabia Saudita (llamado desde entonces petrodólares). Todo esto sucedía cuando la economía de EUA era aún el motor central de la economía mundial. Algo que ha dejado de suceder a partir de la crisis de 2008 y que es el gran fundamento de esta crisis mundial.

Con lo cual se nos plantea el dilema acerca de cuál será el camino que recorrerá la política de D.Trump en la economía de EUA en una situación mundial totalmente distinta a la de 1970/79.

El oro, el colapso sistémico y la perspectiva posterior

El oro se encuentra atrapado en una baja temporal de su precio, siendo su venta una forma rápida para que los fondos de cobertura[xxiii] ubicados en Estados Unidos compren dólares con un precio y rendimientos en alza. Si bien esta presión puede persistir, sobre todo si el euro se debilita más, consideramos que es esencialmente un efecto temporal de coyuntura. En 2017, el oro tendrá una tendencia al alza.

Entre 1970 y fines de 1974, el oro subió de $35 a $197.50, un aumento de más del 500%. Durante ese período, como ya se mencionó, la tasa básica del Banco de Inglaterra pasó de 5% a 13%. La tasa de descuento de la Fed subió de 4,5% en 1972, al 8% en agosto de 1974. Así observamos que un aumento en el precio del oro fue acompañado por un aumento en la tasa de interés, lo que contradice los saberes de la economía convencional de hoy.

El 21 de enero de 1980 el oro alcanzó un precio máximo de 850 dólares, cuando la tasa de descuento de la Fed se situó en un 12%. La actual convicción de que un aumento de las tasas de interés sería malo para el oro fue refutada por esos acontecimientos. La razón por la que el oro subió no tuvo que ver con las tasas de interés, y si tuvo todo que ver con la aceleración de la inflación de precios. La única manera de detener el aumento del precio del oro era elevar los tipos de interés lo suficientemente altos y fuertes como para dar un golpe que pudiera colapsar la actividad económica, tal como lo hizo Paul Volcker en 1980-81, y lo que podría llegar a hacer la Fed si siguiera manos de los globalistas en el año 2017.

Otra manera de mirar el precio del oro en perspectiva es pensar en él en términos de precios de las materias primas, que en el largo plazo tienden a ser más estables cuando se mide en oro, que cuando se mide en monedas fiduciarias[xxiv]. Dada la perspectiva al alza de los precios de las materias primas, ya que tanto China como Estados Unidos compiten por las mismas y aumentan la cantidad de dinero para pagarlas, es más lógico que el precio del oro mantenga su nivel de poder adquisitivo frente al aumento de los precios de los ´commodities´ y no en relación con la pérdida de poder adquisitivo de las monedas fiduciarias.

Ahora bien, China, y los Brics, se han preparado para este momento histórico, habiendo emprendido una política de larga data de almacenamiento de oro desde 1983. La cantidad de oro que el país ha acumulado, además de las reservas oficiales declaradas, es un secreto de estado, pero la estimación es de al menos 20.000 toneladas. En 2002, el Estado chino probablemente ya tenía asegurado suficiente oro físico para permitir que sus propios ciudadanos se unieran a la iniciativa, porque en ese año el Banco del Pueblo estableció la Bolsa de Oro de Shanghai y levantó la prohibición de la propiedad privada de oro en China.

En los últimos catorce años, los particulares y las empresas en China han acumulado al menos otras 10.000 toneladas, y China por lejos se ha convertido en el mayor productor y refinador de oro. Podemos decir que China se ha preparado a sí misma y a sus ciudadanos con suficiente antelación para el colapso del poder adquisitivo de las monedas fiduciarias que su demanda de ´commodities´ probablemente provocará. Lo único que debe hacer es deshacerse de sus bonos del Tesoro de los Estados Unidos acumulados en el pasado antes de que se estos se queden sin valor, cosa que ya está haciendo de manera acelerada.

Además, China ha ido desarrollando un esquema de poder productivo, multipolar y de escala universal. Esquema que comparte con Rusia y la Unión Económica Euroasiática, con la India y su área de influencia, con Brasil-Argentina y la Unasur-Celac, con Sudáfrica y la Unión Africana, a los cuales se suma Pakistán, Irán, Siria, Egipto y otros. Un esquema con moneda internacional centrada en el yuan y la canasta de monedas Brics, con un Banco de Infraestructura y Desarrollo (BAII), un Fondo de fomento, un sistema propio de compensación de intercambio, un plan de infraestructura y desarrollo que muy pronto llega a Inglaterra con un tren de cargas de alta velocidad[xxv].

Un plan de infraestructura que tiene en su hoja de la ruta de la seda llegar hasta EUA por el Puente Terrestre que une Siberia y Alaska, y que tiene a sectores del poder en EUA, los Roosveltianos en el Partido Republicano que promueven esta salida productiva para el pueblo norteamericano. Y que promueven también la re-institucionalización de la Ley Glass Steagall como único modo de debilitar estructuralmente al capital financiero global, al impedir que la banca de financiera de inversión pueda existir y dar sustento a las redes financieras globales. Por lo tanto, Trump también tiene una vía hacia el industrialismo nacional por medio de esta articulación con los Brics.

En cambio, EUA está muy mal preparado para enfrentar un alza de precios de las materias primas. Sus reservas de oro, asumiendo incluso que son como se indica, lo cual es por lo menos dudoso[xxvi], son insuficientes para asegurar un dólar en declive, y en cualquier caso la conversión en oro de posiciones en dólares ya no será fácil. En los años venideros y en términos de demanda de los ´commodities´, Estados Unidos le tocará jugar de todos modos de segundo violín a la par de China (y no como en 1970, cuando Gran Bretaña ocupaba ese lugar), empeorando potencialmente la situación de los precios en dólares.

Debido a la continua demanda no cíclica de materias primas de China, existe un riesgo significativo que ni siquiera una depresión debido a la liquidación de la deuda provocada por alzas significativas en las tasas de interés logrará controlar la inflación de precios expresada en monedas occidentales. A diferencia de los años setenta, cuando el dólar ponía la música con que todos los demás bailaban, en este momento China, Rusia y todas las naciones vinculadas a ellos por el comercio ya no bailan al son de la música del dólar. En consecuencia, la política monetaria estadounidense ya no ejerce un control absoluto sobre la inflación de los precios mundiales, medida en dólares u otras monedas fiduciarias.

Por lo tanto, las presiones inflacionarias (de los precios de las materias primas) podrían persistir, por más que caigan los precios de los bonos del Tesoro (títulos de deuda estadounidense). La posibilidad de que el entorno de precios en dólares siga siendo inflacionario en medio de una fuerte recesión económica de Estados Unidos no puede descartarse, incluso si en 2018 la política monetaria de la Reserva Federal ya estuviera manejada por la administración Trump.

Golpes, Crisis y Colapsos

Un probable colapso financiero en EUA en 2017

Ahora bien, al intentar Donald Trump implementar las políticas fiscales expansionistas de Gran Bretaña de 1970, todas las señales de un ciclo similar se están gestando hoy en EUA pero en una escala muy superior. Pero hay diferencias obvias, en particular la alta carga de la deuda en el sector privado. En la década de 1970, los niveles de deuda del sector privado eran bajos y tan así que los precios inmobiliarios residenciales en el Reino Unido inicialmente no se vieron afectados por el aumento de las tasas de interés. Hoy en día, las propiedades residenciales en EUA cuentan con hipotecas que alcanzan un 80% del valor de la propiedad. De hecho, el nivel de deuda del sector privado en general en Estados Unidos es ahora tan grande que un aumento en la tasa de interés de los fondos federales en un dos a tres por ciento ya puede ser suficiente para que colapsen tanto los precios de la vivienda residencial y el sector financiero de EUA como un todo.

Un probable colapso financiero en la UE en el 2017

Otra diferencia importante es la interconexión de los mercados. El aumento de los rendimientos de los bonos del Tesoro de los Estados Unidos sin duda se traducirá en la migración de euros a dólares buscando rendimientos crecientes de inversiones en dólares. Esto afecta en particular a la zona del euro. Los bancos de la eurozona enfrentarán pérdidas en el mercado de bonos (ya que sus inversores buscarán venderlos para invertir en dólares) potencialmente tan grandes que todo el sistema bancario europeo podría colapsar y hasta su propia supervivencia podría verse amenazada por estos desarrollos. Es probable que el BCE[xxvii] continúe inyectando dinero en el sector financiero en un intento desesperado por salvar a los bancos, pero sólo podrá hacerlo mientras que el efecto de la inflación de precios de un euro en caída, no lo obligue a elevar las tasas de interés también.

Ante la amenaza de una fuerte crisis bancaria la Comisión Europea está aumentando los controles sobre la moneda en efectivo y los metales preciosos como el oro y la plata. En el marco de los “ataques terroristas”, como él que tuvo lugar esta navidad en Berlín se pretende limitar la posibilidad de operar con dinero en efectivo y, primero que nada desde y hacia el exterior. Lo anterior tiene que ver con la implementación de un corralito que cierra las oportunidades de fuga de dinero hacia afuera. La posesión de oro se hará ilegal, lo que implica una clara confiscación de la riqueza ciudadana. Al sacar de circulación los billetes de mayor valor,  se limitará la posibilidad de guardar dinero fuera del banco, bajo el colchón. Todo lo anterior para preparar un ´bail in´ (corralito cambiario) para el momento de la bancarrota[xxviii].

Con la perspectiva que Donald Trump asuma como presidente de EUA, justo cuando el sistema bancario europeo encabezado por Alemania consiguió una sorpresiva victoria en el Comité de Basilea sobre la banca financiera globalista de Wall Street en torno a las reglas de crédito.  Alemania junto con Francia ha logrado que el mercado de capitales no se subordine a las reglas de juego de los megabancos norteamericanos. Lo que está en juego es el liderazgo económico a nivel global en un momento que los bancos chinos también consideran jugar un papel protagónico y tener mayor control sobre el mercado de capitales. Tratase de un gran reto político, ya que Deutsche Bank ha logrado sobrevivir como el último banco que podrá competir con los grandes bancos de inversión de Wall Street.

Lo anterior beneficiaría a los países de la UE en caso de una crisis financiera o en torno a disputas sobre el alza o no de las tasas de interés ya que no dependerán de un ´club´ de bancos americanos, los cuales monopolizarían la compra de bonos del Tesoro[xxix].

Es interesante mencionar en este contexto también que Trump acusó al billonario George Soros de ser parte clave de esta estructura global de poder  responsable de ´robar las riquezas´ a la clase trabajadora, a costa de la soberanía nacional y al servicio exclusivo del capitalismo globalizado.  Ahora que Trump ocupa la Casa Blanca, el gobierno de Hungría, como miembro de la Unión Europea, se siente con el respaldo suficiente para poner todos los instrumentos políticos a su disposición para desmantelar las grandes ONG´s relacionadas con Soros[xxx].

La crisis de la UE es un proceso que viene desde 2009 y tiene que ver con resolver en que esquema de poder mundial formara parte, ya que no puede serlo por sí misma pero es un componente central para definir el poder mundial. Las tensiones están siempre presentes por este motivo y la UE no solo tiene opciones en el esquema unipolar financiero continental, sino que también los tiene en los esquemas universales multipolares. Decimos que la UE no tiene opción en el globalismo unipolar porque implica se desaparición como UE.

D.Trump y su ´matrimonio´ con Rusia en 2017

El Nuevo presidente de EUA anunció que su próximo Secretario de Estado será Rex Tillerson, ejecutivo de la empresa petrolera ExxonMobil, el hombre que dio inicio al ´fracking´, al desarrollo del petróleo y gas no convencional.  El Departamento del Estado que dirigirá está encargado de toda clase de guerras económicas en el mundo. Todo esto en un momento donde los días del dólar parecen estar contados y que las monedas fuertes están cada vez más situadas en el Este. Rex Tillerson tiene un lazo fuerte con la Dinastía Rockefeller, cuya fortuna en Standard Oil derivo en la fundación de ExxonMobil.

Tillerson y su control sobre el gas natural -que tiene el poder de llevar el precio de petróleo a una caída libre-, podría resultar su arma económica por excelencia en la guerra económica y la negociación comercial.  La capacidad y habilidad de controlar la oferta y demanda de la energía será el principal juego de poder. Putin podrá ser o no un aliado en este proceso, ya que Exxon-Mobil también tiene fuertes inversiones en la Federación Rusa e intereses comunes para explorar el Ártico. Pero para el año 2017, esto alejará una potencial guerra militar con Rusia y habrá paz en este año en ese sentido[xxxi].

Trump y su relación con China y América latina

Gran Bretaña, en los años setenta, así como los EE.UU. en los próximos años, ambos tienen un problema específico común: el aumento de precio de los ´commodities´ (materias primas) en general y de la energía en particular. La demanda artificial generada por la expansión fiscal en los Estados Unidos en los años 1970-74 contribuyó a un aumento significativo en el nivel general de los precios de las ´commodities´. El más notable fue el aumento en el precio del petróleo, ya que la OPEP subió el precio por barril de US$3 a US$12 tan sólo en 1973. El alza de los precios de los ´commodities´ se pagó mediante la expansión monetaria, al igual que hoy.

Pero hoy, China está llevando a cabo vastos planes de infraestructura para toda Asia[xxxii], lo que le obliga a almacenar y consumir cantidades sin precedentes de materias primas industriales y energía. Estos planes de China y los BRICS, también involucran y contienen a los capitales financieros globales con los cuales suman y explican que el 63%[xxxiii] del PMB[xxxiv] mundial se produzca en las economías emergentes (no en EUA). Los planes expansivos de Trump entrarán en conflicto con los planes más grandes que China ya tiene en marcha, elevando aún más los precios de los ´commodities´ expresados en dólares. Esto, además de las alzas ya observadas antes que asumiera Trump, empeora la perspectiva de los precios aún más todavía.  Aquí queda claro el porqué del conflicto de intereses entre China y EEUU en la política económica de Trump. Esto podrá tener un efecto rebote hacia América Latina. En el conflicto latente por las materias primas es de esperar que la doctrina Monroe se reintroduzca con casi seguridad y con mucha fuerza.

El presidente electo Donald Trump está impulsando una agenda negativa para América Latina: promete construir un muro en la frontera sur de Estados Unidos, renegociar o terminar el Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte –TLCAN/Nafta- con México y Canadá, y aniquilar el Acuerdo de Asociación Transpacífico con países asiáticos y latinoamericanos. Si toda la oferta política de Trump para América Latina se limita en 2017 a una agenda negativa –anticomercio, antiinmigración y antiacuerdos contra el cambio climático– China llenará el vacío y ganará aún más influencia en la región.

El anuncio de Trump sobre eliminar el Acuerdo de Asociación Transpacífico –TPP- fue un regalo para China”, que aprovecho muy bien en la reunión de la APEC en Perú en noviembre de 2016[xxxv]. Es importantes tener presente que, al calor de del año electoral en Estados Unidos, ha pasado inadvertida la ofensiva de China para aumentar su presencia en América Latina. Durante su última gira por la región, Xi entre otras cosas inauguró la mayor presa hidroeléctrica de Ecuador, construida por una firma china con préstamos chinos, y exploró nuevas inversiones en infraestructura en Perú y Chile. China ya tiene acuerdos de libre comercio con Chile, Perú y Costa Rica, y puede firmar nuevos acuerdos con países latinoamericanos o expandir sus negociaciones de la zona de libre comercio asiático a países latinoamericanos en un futuro cercano. Pero principalmente también ya los tiene con Brasil, Argentina, Venezuela y Bolivia.

A mediados de noviembre, poco después de las elecciones en Estados Unidos, el presidente chino Xi Jinping visitó Ecuador, Perú y Chile. Fue la tercera visita del líder chino a América Latina desde que asumió el cargo en 2013. Xi ha visitado en tres años diez países latinoamericanos, casi tantos como los 11 a los que ha ido el presidente Obama durante sus ocho años en el cargo.

A modo de conclusión: Escenarios de golpe por crisis inducidas

El plan estratégico que Obama ha seguido debilitando la influencia norteamericana en la política exterior como nación hegemónica, ya que el proyecto del capital financiero globalista no tiene el objetivo de construir ´Otro siglo norteamericano´, sino un gobierno global por encima de todas las naciones incluso por encima de EUA.

Un gobierno global que se estructura a partir de una red de cities financieras que controlan los bancos centrales de las naciones y que a partir de monopolizar la política monetaria del país se imponen subordinando a los gobiernos electos y se articulan en una red global de cities financieras. Por ello podríamos describirlo como un globalismo, porque se impone al nacionalismo y continentalismo; unipolar porque expresa una forma de capital financiero global como unidad central; y multilateral porque su territorialidad se compone como red de cities financieras y gobiernos de bancos centrales.

Por otro lado, con la visión de la seguridad nacional y ´Make America Great Again´, la administración Trump empieza a mostrar la heterogeneidad de su composición de poder. Por un lado, ya se perfilan en su gabinete los actores del continentalismo unipolar financiero con la posible presencia muy fuerte de Goldman Sachs y sus CEO´s, del complejo industrial militar y sus generales, más la Exxon-movil, Rockefeller y Kissinger.

Este continentalismo unipolar proyecto poder desde 1950 lo cual entro en crisis con el ascenso del globalismo financiero a partir de 1999-2008, y se plantea el desafío de imponerse en la interna unipolar financiera y poder seguir haciéndolo a partir de disputar el gobierno de Trump, a partir de EUA y su TLCAN/Nafta (México y Canadá) que se amplia como ALCA. Proyectando un mundialismo financiero que se apoya en Alemania para subordinar a la Unión europea y África, y en Japón para subordinar al Asia-pacifico como apoyos subordinados.

Puede percibirse ya la mano de Kissinger detrás del trono de Trump en materia de política exterior, que se orienta a enfrentar a China e Irán y utilizar a Putin y Rusia para evitar la posibilidad que se realice una Eurasia unificada como multipolarismo Brics, proyecto  que significa un contrapeso muy grande para las ilusiones tanto de un mundo unipolar con un enfoque nacionalista y neoconservador norteamericano como de un mundo unipolar bajo la hegemonía del capital financiero globalizado.

Son China y Rusia los países que más defienden la soberanía nacional y la idea de un mundo multipolar. Los globalistas atacaron sobre todo a Rusia para evitar esa integración de Eurasia ya que tenían su red financiera globalizada fuertemente desarrollado en China y no en Rusia. La administración Trump de la mano de Kissinger atacará sobre todo a China, ya que es el punto de mayor fortaleza desde donde se proyecta tanto el multipolarismo Brics como el Unipolarismo global, y necesita evitar que el gobierno global y unipolar se levante a expensas de EUA.

Por ello, es importante observar la orientación y reorientación de los flujos de capital a partir de las subas de tasas de interés. El capital financiero global produjo masas de dinero ficticio en los bancos centrales de EUA, la UE, Gran Bretaña, Japón, China y oriento esos flujos de capital ficticio a financiar el despliegue de las plataformas globales y la infraestructura en las economías emergentes. Proceso de despliegue que consolido la deslocalización de las ETN´s desde los países centrales (EUA, GB, Alemania, Francia, etc.) hacia los países periféricos desde 1994, re-denominándolos como economías emergentes y consolidándolo desde 2009 en adelante. Pero este proceso de flujos de capital creciente hacia la periferia y economías emergentes, también facilito, potencio y consolido el proyecto del multipolarismo universal productivo estatal Brics y el de diálogo ecuménico interreligioso.

Por lo tanto, el unipolarismo continental financiero cuando se plantea el aumento de tasas de interés, desde la Fed o desde el tesoro de EUA, lo hace para reorientar el flujo de capitales ficticios de la gran burbuja financiera desde las economías emergentes hacia los EUA. Para desfinanciar al unipolarismo global y a los Multipolarismos, pero también para repotenciar la infraestructura de los EUA y recuperar la centralidad de motor de la economía mundial. que no tiene desde 2001-2010, cuando de explicar el 60% del PBM pasó a explicar solo el 37%. Pasando a ser el motor de la economía mundial, china y el área Asia-pacifico.

El nacionalismo industrialista Norteamericano expresado directamente en los discursos de D.Trump se plantea reorientar los flujos de capital y crédito hacia los EUA para reindustrializar la economía norteamericana, para devolver los empleos de calidad a los trabajadores norteamericanos, etc. En este sentido coincide, con el continentalismo, en el enfrentamiento con China y el globalismo financiero de los Obama-Clinton. Pero se enfrenta con el Contientalismo unipolar cuando plantea la necesidad del TLCAN/Nafta. Y coincide con el multipolarismo Brics cuando ve la oportunidad de ser parte de la nueva ruta de la seda.

Wim Dierckxsens

Wim Dierckxsens: Doctor en Ciencias Sociales de la Universidad de Nimega, Holanda. Tiene postgrado en demografía por la Sorbonne. Fue funcionario de las Naciones Unidas; Investigador del Instituto de Estudios para el Desarrollo, Universidad Tilburg, Holanda. Fue director del Postgrado en Economía de la UNAH en Honduras y fundador de la Maestría en Política Económica, UNA, Costa Rica.

Notas:

Al empezar un análisis que en algo sea útil a la investigación para la paz es menester aclarar cómo es la guerra hoy y en qué se distingue de las del pasado inmediato. La lucha internacional por la Paz que prevaleció en la Post-guerra puso especial énfasis en los peligros de la guerra nuclear y de la guerra convencional entre las grandes potencias. En los hechos, durante un largo período se dieron la “guerra fría” entre “la democracia” y “el comunismo”, y también los más variados movimientos armados de liberación nacional, unos directa o indirectamente vinculados a las potencias “comunistas” y otros a un “Tercer Mundo” cuya máxima expresión se dio en Bandung.

A la competencia entre la URSS y Estados Unidos por aumentar el poder nuclear de uno contra otro, en medio de altibajos dramáticos en los descubrimientos de una y otra parte, se añadió una guerra ideológica que puso en el centro de las persuasiones y las persecuciones al comunismo y el anticomunismo, con purgas de un lado, y cacerías de brujas, de otro, que pasaban de exaltar las bondades del socialismo o la democracia a castigar pública y penalmente a los disidentes. Tal vez lo que más distinguió a la guerra fría de la actual fue la lucha entre dos sistemas, el capitalista y el socialista, y tanto su impacto en las luchas de liberación nacional como en la posterior restauración del capitalismo y triunfo del capitalismo y del llamado “mundo libre”.

Durante ese período, en las guerras por mantener su dominio, los antiguos países coloniales e imperialistas siguieron varios tipos de políticas, unas de contrainsurgencia, golpes de estado, intervención militar abierta y encubierta, y otras de descolonización formal y relativa que dio creciente importancia a la categoría de la “dependencia”. En todos los casos se emplearon políticas combinadas de cooptación y represión, y la vieja teoría de “La zanahoria y el garrote” amplió considerablemente sus experiencias.

Al mismo tiempo, varias metrópolis del mundo capitalista impulsaron el Estado Social o “Welfare State”, que en buena parte fue una formidable arma de guerra, al ofrecer a buena parte de los trabajadores obtener por la paz lo que otros querían por la guerra. El keynesianismo se volvió un gran paradigma, apoyado por notables economistas y por socialdemócratas y numerosos líderes progresistas del Tercer Mundo.

La estructuración del “estado social” o “estado providencialista” se basó en políticas de impuestos crecientes al capital con las que éste por otra parte logró que aumentara la capacidad de compra de la población al tiempo, que ganaba el apoyo de buen número de trabajadores, pues éstos veían en la vida diaria cómo aumentaban sus salarios en servicios y derechos con la Salud Pública, la Educación Pública, y la Seguridad Social que los gobiernos les proporcionaban, y con la creciente fuerza de sus organizaciones sindicales y electorales.

En el “estado de bienestar” o “providencialista”, la política constituyó un gran apoyo a la socialdemocracia como forma de lucha pacífica que, entre presiones y negociaciones, parecía asegurar en lo inmediato y en el curso del tiempo importantes triunfos a los ciudadanos y a los trabajadores del “Mundo Libre”. Era, no sólo en palabras, sino “en hechos” un poderoso argumento en la Guerra Fría contra las dictaduras “comunistas”.

Al mismo tiempo, en la periferia mundial, las grandes potencias combinaron sus políticas de “desarrollo económico social” con otras muchas “intervencionistas” y golpistas, que aplicaron alternativa o simultáneamente, mientras, al mismo tiempo acumulaban experiencias y conocimientos técnicos sobre estrategias, tácticas y modelos de guerra contrainsurgente que dominarían cada vez más en América Latina, África, el Medio Oriente y Asía.

Las políticas más sofisticadas de contrainsurgencia no sólo acumularon conocimientos directamente vinculados con la combinación de las políticas sociales y las políticas de guerra. También permitieron a las grandes metrópolis de Occidente cobrar conciencia de la importancia que iba teniendo un hecho largamente conocido. En la mayoría de los movimientos rebeldes, buena parte de sus dirigentes, cuadros y clientelas, tras la toma del poder pasaban a integrar una “nueva burguesía” con variadas tendencias a la “colusión” y la “corrupción”. Así, las potencias imperialistas fueron actualizando una nueva política de la recolonización y la restauración en que se redujeran sus concesiones sociales y al desarrollo.

En los antiguos países coloniales, semi-coloniales o formalmente independientes surgió a su vez una nueva estructuración de burguesías y oligarquías locales cuyo peso fue aumentando conforme se integraban a la misma nuevos contingentes, miembros que venían de las propias filas rebeldes. Semejante tendencia se dio también en los países del socialismo de Estado, aunque en formas más veladas, y entre denuncias de los propios revolucionarios y de autores muy serios, cuyas críticas era difíciles de convalidar, dada la furiosa “Guerra Fría” que libraban los propios medios intelectuales de Occidente, y la identificación que de sus críticos hacían los partidarios del socialismo y el comunismo, acusándolos de agentes y plumíferos del imperialismo, ofensiva por demás exitosa. Más tarde a muchos tomaría de sorpresa la franca restauración del capitalismo en Rusia, China y el inmenso campo socialista, un fenómeno que ocurrió desde la segunda mitad del siglo XX y se hizo patente y público con Gorbachov en Rusia y con la llamada Revolución Cultural en China. En ambos casos –con las necesarias variantes– las grandes potencias aplicaron renovadas políticas de cooptación, colusión y corrupción, así como las de divisionismo y desestabilización, de individualismo, clientelismo o populismo. Pero la indudable responsabilidad recayó en quienes de la dictadura del proletariado en muchos casos hicieron una nueva tiranía.

El proceso revolucionario de los movimientos nacionalistas, comunistas, socialistas llegó en un momento dado, a volverse presa fácil de las políticas golpistas –violentas y pacificas- que llevaron al neocolonialismo de la “dependencia”, y a impulsar y lograr la restauración del capitalismo en el “campo socialista”—con excepción de Cuba y su heroica capacidad de resistir un bloqueo y asedio que lleva más de medio siglo—. Tras un período de lógica progresista que impulsó durante varias décadas las políticas de “desarrollo” contra las del nacionalismo revolucionario y el socialismo, la nueva política de las fuerzas triunfantes, en metrópolis y periferias, fue la implantación de la globalización neoliberal, encabezada por Estados Unidos, y por los países de la OTAN, bajo la preeminencia de Alemania y Francia, con Inglaterra como mancuerna entre Norteamérica y Europa Occidental.

El fin del “estado social” correspondió también al fin de la política “desarrollista”, y ésta fue sucedida por la política neoliberal, agudizada en los países dependientes para la des-estructuración y destrucción del precario estado social, que habían logrado, de las empresas extractivas, de las industriales, comerciales y de servicios, de las instituciones educativas, que habían alcanzado grandes progresos no sólo en la alfabetización de los pueblos sino en la educación a todos sus niveles de conocimiento, que en el terreno de la investigación científica y humanística les habían permitido ocupar posiciones de punta en numerosas áreas… Si un desarrollo semejante y en muchos casos superior se había dado en los países dominados por el socialismo de Estado, tras que éstos restauraron el capitalismo de estado, los principales continuaron impulsando muchos de sus antiguos logros, en particular los que son útiles a las corporaciones del desarrollo nacional de Rusia, China y los antiguos países del Este de Europa que dejaron de ser parte de la Unión Soviética. De otro lado en las áreas del mundo periférico y dependiente, codiciadas o ya controladas por las grandes corporaciones metropolitanas serían éstas las beneficiarias y nuevas propietarias de los recursos y empresas de su interés, mientras impulsarían con frecuentes golpes de estado y con la corrupción y represión macropolítica ampliada, de la cooptación, el crecimientos de las empresas multinacionales y transnacionales, unas y otras impulsoras de la sub-rogación con pequeñas empresas en que los trabajadores son explotados sin límite y que darían al traste con los variados avances sociales, económicos, culturales y políticos logrados en varios países durante el período anterior.

Fue así como se inició el período de la guerra y la paz en que vivimos, con algunas características y tendencias de carácter general. La primera de ellas es resultado del comportamiento de las nuevas burguesías surgidas de los propios movimientos emancipadores. Siendo más o menos contradictoria en relación a la globalización neoliberal, en la mayor parte de los casos atrajo a la mayoría de las viejas y nuevas oligarquías, y a los antiguos líderes “revolucionarios” y sus descendientes.

Así se dio un inmenso viraje entre el ideal buscado, y el fenómeno resultante de acumulación original o por despojo, de oportunismo y sumisión –en que incurrieron numerosos dirigentes antes dizque revolucionarios, y sus estirpes o sucesores. —Si en muchos de ellos ya se había dado un comportamiento cada vez más contradictorio –represivo, acumulativo—éste se acrecentó de un modo impresionante. Si muchos de sus gobiernos en los últimos tiempos mostraban un comportamiento cada vez más contradictorio en las políticas del estado social y nacional con más o menos éxito en el logro de niveles de desarrollo sustentable, industrial, cultural, económico y político (no por ello menos desigual) al mismo tiempo su creciente dependencia de préstamos impagables y otras irregularidades se tornaban cada vez más evidentes, con crecientes reacciones y protestas populares y de las clases y sectores medios que en muchos países serían acalladas por las fuerzas militares-.

Las variaciones que se dieron en el largo período de la post-guerra anterior al neoliberalismo llevan también a destacar el hecho de que en muchos de esos países se formaron amplios sectores medios, “clases medias” con niveles educativos y culturales de que sus antepasados carecían. Esos cambios siendo estructurales se volvían cada vez más incosteables, e inaceptables para el empresariado nacional y extranjero, pues al mismo tiempo se hallaban en creciente crisis moral y política muchos de los líderes populistas de sindicatos, uniones campesinas y partidos, –en México llamados “charros” que eran parte de un estilo de gobernar decadente, y cada vez más contradictorio.

Un proceso semejante al de los países en desarrollo del “Sur del Mundo” o del “Tercer Mundo”, se dio en los a países del “Socialismo de Estado” dirigidos por los partidos comunistas. Los procesos revolucionarios y contrarrevolucionarios, heroicos unos y autodestructivos otros, se dieron en Rusia, China, y el campo socialista, en sus países o regiones metropolitanos y periféricos. Los obstáculos y tropiezos. unas veces surgieron por haber alcanzado altos niveles de desarrollo y sentir el freno que a sus capacitaciones daba el socialismo de estado encabezado por rusos y chinos, y otras por haberse iniciado desde arriba y por los propios patronos del estado llamado socialista, un proceso contrarrevolucionario que los llevó a la restauración abierta del capitalismo y que a fin de cuentas acabó con la URSS y con la República Popular China-

En los hechos, la restauración del capitalismo correspondió a la mayor “acumulación original” o por desposesión y despojo en a historia de la Humanidad, y abrió una nueva etapa en la lucha por la paz y en las características de una guerra que a nivel mundial hoy ya no se da entre estados capitalistas y estados socialistas, o estados que con la liberación tengan como proyecto implantar un verdadero socialismo.

La tragedia no sólo abarcó a las grandes potencias del Este que emprendieron el camino al socialismo sino también a los países y pueblos del Sur y de la inmensa y creciente periferia. El triunfo del capitalismo corporativo en el mundo entero, desde Rusia hasta China y desde Vietnam hasta Yugoeslavia, con la rara y significativa excepción de Cuba, cambia radicalmente tanto el sentido de la guerra como el de la lucha por la paz.

De hecho, ya desde antes de la caída abierta, los servicios de inteligencia de Estados Unidos habían logrado entre otros acuerdos, uno con China que está relacionado con las nuevas características de la “Larga Guerra” a que se refiere hoy la política del Pentágono. Los encuentros de Kissinger con Mao Tse Tung hacia finales de los sesenta son sin duda origen de las luchas que se dieron entre los comunistas prosoviéticos y los maoístas. En esas luchas se insertaron los provocadores con acciones a menudo sangrientas, y que entre otros triunfos de sus ofensivas desestabilizadoras que lograron la caída de Salvador Allende, y el ascenso de Pinochet, lo que significó, por un lado, la última derrota que el mundo ha vivido del camino pacífico al socialismo y por otro, el inicio a nivel mundial de la nueva guerra contra el Estado Social (el welfare state), contra el nacionalismo revolucionario y sus legados, e incluso contra el desarrollismo, antes auspiciado por las grandes potencias occidentales.

El gobierno del golpista Pinochet fue de hecho el primer ensayo sangriento del neoliberalismo globalizador, de la desnacionalización y la privatización de bienes y servicios públicos, de propiedades y recursos nacionales, sociales y comunales, financieros, económicos, culturales y educativos de los países periféricos. Pocos años después, Margaret Tatcher, más tarde baronesa de Kestevok, en su dignidad de Primer Ministro del gobierno inglés –y haciendo prueba de su elogiada “mano de hierro”—dio inicio al neoliberalismo en los países metropolitanos. El neoliberalismo globalizador era otra guerra o un conjunto de medidas político económicas que partían de la guerra y desataban la guerra.

Todos los hechos confirman que en esos tiempos empezó la nueva guerra-paz en que vivimos, distinta a la que se dio durante la “Guerra Fría”, y en la que obviamente triunfaron los países capitalistas. Si en esta nueva guerra destacan los ataques financieros junto y por encima de los militares, se trata de una guerra integral que ha pasado a la ofensiva y que no sólo dispone del notable desarrollo de los sistemas complejos autorregulados, orientados a fines, adaptables y creadores, inteligentes, de primera y segunda generación, con ésta que corresponde a la conciencia de los errores cometidos por el sistema y que el sistema debe corregir para lograr sus objetivos. No sólo dispone de ellos sino de una economía política de guerra –empíricamente comprobable–– que en la toma de decisiones aplica, con todo el rigor y la fuerza de que disponen los “complejos empresariales-militares—políticos y mediáticos” a los que el propio Eisenhower, en su último discurso como Presidente, consideró como una amenaza para la democracia, y eso, con las limitaciones con qué él entendía la democracia.

El recurso a los sistemas complejos autorregulados e inteligentes permite montar variados teatros de guerra que hacen particularmente difícil a sus víctimas o a sus opositores o enemigos, desentrañar el sentido de lo que ocurre. No saben contra quien luchan ni con quien, como que los enemigos y amigos han sido suplantados por su verdadero enemigo, que juega a la guerra con ellos y que con los suplentes los distrae de la guerra de veras, y los enreda y derrota.

En las luchas de distracción y “guerras a modo” los insumisos no arriesgan su vida por lo que creen o por quien creen, sino contra el falso enemigo que les pone en el frente de batalla su verdadero enemigo. Sus triunfos son en realidad victorias de su verdadero enemigo y –lo que sí son suyos– son sus fracasos.

Cuando el verdadero teatro de la guerra se logra aclarar en los hechos, o con los avisos de compañeros de lucha, allegados o familiares, los instintos coléricos que despiertan, y el frío sentir asesino a que mueven, hacen a los desengañados volver sus armas y explosivos contra quienes los armaron y entrenaron, y contra los sitios y plazas de veraneo y quietud donde, hombres, mujeres, ancianos, niños y jóvenes descansan, deambulan y viven su vida tranquila como, ocurrió en el bello Nilo o recientemente en Niza y en las grandes capitales de ciudades de París o Berlín

La cultura del odio sustituye hoy a la vieja ideología de la liberación. Si las víctimas metropolitanas expresan el dolor de sus heridas con himnos patrios e infaustas ceremonias, éstas adquieren un cierto aire de falsedad al ver cómo se olvidan las víctimas de los “golpes aéreos” que sus lejanas naciones, ciudades y pueblos han sufrido y sufren. Enterados como terroristas de que los hombres solemnes han jugado con ellos y con su religión y raza, tejen grandes redes y contactos criminales en el propio mundo feliz de los países metropolitanos, donde no pocos nacieron, estudiaron y crecieron, y con sus papeles en forma o sin papeles se inscriben en las redes de terroristas rebeldes radicales y con ellas cometen actos de terrorismo que antes u otros de su religión y raza usaban contra su propia familia o patria.

El teatro del terror se cae y se rehace. Los medios denuncian con razón el mismo espanto que en el Oriente abarca ciudades y pueblos enteros, y que atribuyen a los mismos frankensteins que sus gobiernos y corporaciones han formado, armado y aprovisionado, hechos éstos que callan o atribuyen a potencias y fuerzas enemigas. Se organiza así el infierno de las mentiras mundiales y de las guerras.

En la crítica de estas guerras no es posible defender ni al terrorismo de estado ni al terrorismo rebelde, pero sí puede advertirse que en ellas de dan las más sofisticadas formas de organización, ocultamiento de la realidad y horror de las mentes y las manos de numerosos seres humanos alterados, enajenados, bestializados en el hablar, el mirar, actuar, torturar, matar y el sentir que como “desesperados” de su antigua condición humana; un sentir que los lleva a cometer actos suicidas, en que destruyen su propia vida como al salvaje con que buscaron acabar y no acabaron. Mientras tanto desde las alturas, sentados en veloces aviones, los pilotos bombardean casas y calles y destruyen pueblos, ciudades y países enteros, que van de Irak y Afganistán hasta Libia y Siria, entre otros. Y abajo, en la tierra, ente las comunidades y los campesinos pobres se da una guerrita de sicarios, soldados y policías cómplices y compañías que les quita sus tierras, viveros, chozas y animalitos a los habitantes originales. La guerra de abajo y en el campo, se libra en numerosos casos por otros terroristas a menudo calificados dizque fanáticos radicales y por variados contingentes armados y aprovisionados por las grandes potencias de la OTAN y de Estados Unidos, o por sus aliados de los emiratos árabes. En esas guerras y las de barrios marginados y ciudades miseria participan especialistas o personal local adiestrado en el manejo de “drones” asesinos, o en el empleo de niños y niñas bomba que, con los minutos calculados, siembran el terror en las filas enemigas al tiempo que ellos mismos estallan.

Pero baste con esos ejemplos para tener un desagradable e incómodo conocimiento de cómo es hoy la guerra en sus manifestaciones militares y paramilitares, y consideremos el hecho de que la guerra del siglo XXI está articulada al proyecto de globalización neoliberal y unipolar, en el que habiendo ya perdido sus promotores el añorado ideal de dominar los poderes, recursos y mercados del mundo, en asociaciones subalternas con las potencias que dominan en los cinco continentes, han perdido ya –quiera que no el “sueño americano”–, el dominio unipolar del mundo, y están perdiendo el sueño globalizador neoliberal, auspiciado por el complejo empresarial—militar—político y mediático que no pudo ni ganar las últimas elecciones a la presidencia de “América”, mientras han surgido y se han hecho sentir esos dos grandes bloques de países que se le enfrentan cada vez más al “Sueño”, encabezados por otras dos grandes potencias no menos ávidas de poder, riquezas y utilidades.

Así hoy puede afirmarse con suficientes elementos que el bloque original encabezado por Estados Unidos, al que con encontrados intereses se sumó una Unión Europea, en creciente y cada vez más patente desestructuración sobre todo desde el BREXIT y la separación de Inglaterra, ya no tiene más alternativa que encontrar un precario acuerdo de paz con los otros bloques o que desatar una guerra que sería sin duda la última de la especie humana.

Los nuevos bloques que se han formado en torno a Rusia y China y que son 100% capitalistas, resultan tremendos e inevitables competidores en la lucha por los recursos de la tierra, por los mercados de trabajo, por los mercados de consumo, y por los puntos estratégicos necesarios para seguir con el juego de amenazas militares que se combina con el de las amenazas mercantiles.

Así, en la imposibilidad de describir otros desastres humanos que está provocando esta guerra global, y que nos convocan a otra política de paz también distinta, y muy distinta, no podemos sino decir que hay muchos otros daños y sufrimientos que ésta guerra integral provoca, como el mayor éxodo humano en la historia universal, o como las millonarias hambrunas y pandemias genocidas naturales y artificiales, derivadas de las acciones de un sistemático despojo de pueblos, comunidades y naciones así como de la difusión de virus naturales y artificiales que asolan sobre el mundo, y como el comercio a la vez legal y criminal del los transgénicos y la destrucción de los recursos terrestres uno por uno. Detenernos en ellos nos impediría analizar otra guerra más oscura que se da junto con esta doble la guerra y que se está dando en el mundo entero, que es la guerra financiera y económica del neoliberalismo globalizador.

Cobrar conciencia de la misma, nos permite ver hasta qué punto la guerra y la paz del siglo XXI también por la inmensa fuerza de este otro tipo de guerra son distintas de las anteriores y nos plantean de una manera que no se presta a dudas, el reto de que luchar por la paz implica necesariamente –y téngase la ideología que se tenga– luchar por otra organización de la vida y el trabajo.

El neoliberalismo viene de Friedrich August von Hayeck y de Milton Friedman, con éste como tutor de los Chicago Boys, y con ellos, el principal asesor del tirano Pinochet. Ambos economistas dieron por muerta la ley del valor de Ricardo y otros clásicos, y preconizaron la reducción al mínimo de los impuestos a los ricos y de los servicios a los pobres. Friedman, escribió un artículo puritano titulado: “El deber de los negociantes es hacer negocios”, y en él quiso confirmar que no tienen ningún otro deber. Esa era su moral. Su pensamiento –como el de Hayeck— fue recibido con clamoroso entusiasmo por corporaciones y multimillonarios, que de sus tesis derivaron las nuevas políticas de “adelgazamiento del Estado” y del “Mercado Libre”.

Las fórmulas matemáticas que emplearon y de cuyo rigor se enorgullecían, tenían efectos secundarios directos e indirectos, centrales y laterales, buscados y no buscados, que necesariamente llevaban al enriquecimiento colosal de los super-ricos y super-poderosos. Ambos teóricos de “los ricos y los poderosos” obtuvieron “resultados” monetaristas y matemáticos descosificados, pensando y afirmando que correspondían a los conocimientos científicos más avanzados, y que de aplicarlos bien se iba de seguro a implantar “el milenio americano” y de paso a resolver los problemas del mundo.

Los principales actores de la globalización neoliberal reforzaron la unión estrecha de todos sus promotores y dispusieron que el “Complejo empresarial-militar-político y mediático” fuera el núcleo simbiótico para la toma de decisiones y la puesta en marcha del proyecto que “haría grande a América” y la colocaría por encima de todos con un poder Mundial unipolar. Las más variadas empresas e instituciones financieras, bancarias, políticas, militares, mediáticas de los países que participaran activamente en él proyecto serían los nodos de un entramado global, que abriría sus puertas al mercado libre, y aprovecharía las “inversiones libres de impuestos” y “los préstamos de intereses impagables”, para crear un inmenso entramado global con gobiernos que harían de los tratados de libre comercio su “nueva y verdadera Constitución” tendiente a legitimar y legalizar todo tipo de acumulaciones del gran capital, dejando por supuesto, que a los gobiernos neoliberales y a los negocios organizados se agregara por arriba el “poder en la sombra” de “los ricos entre los ricos”, y por abajo “el acicate del crimen organizado” en el que muchos de sus vástagos de sangre, egresados de Harvard y otras universidades ya eran de “la familia”, todo mientras en el mundo de la luz trabajarían con la mayor eficiencia y eficacia los empresarios, administradores, ingenieros y técnicos de élite, y los gobernantes, diplomáticos y políticos carismáticos, defendidos por un excelente comando militar del mayor ejército del mundo, y por servicios de seguridad superiores a los muy afamados ingleses, todos ellos auxiliados por funcionarios y empleados de alto nivel, y por las élites políticas del poder democrático y neoliberal, con sus enlaces en las distintas regiones y actividades de la nación y del mundo, bajo el “poder en la sombra” y en la luz. Para la realización eficiente y eficaz de sus objetivos muchos de sus ayudantes estarían altamente capacitados para manejar las técnicas de comunicación, de información, de mensajes y de organización, y otros estarían adiestrados en las luchas electrónicas, en la realidad virtual, en la publicidad de la democracia al estilo americano, aplicada como modelo global entre las variantes que se requirieran, pero que en todo caso contribuyeran a que la gente pensara que la solución a sus problemas es luchar por ese tipo de democracia y con ella y sus “representaciones”.

El doble manejo tecno-científico del poder en la sombra y del poder en la luz con el complejo empresarial-militar-político y mediático y sus múltiples agencias, permitiría dominar tanto “la realidad” como “el teatro”, tanto la verdad como la ilusión en sus rasgos clásicos y contemporáneos. Al mando del proyecto institucional –abierto o “reservado” por razones de seguridad— se encontraría desde luego el complejo empresarial—militar-político—y—mediático.

El llamado “Poder en la Sombra” no sólo se integraría por quienes efectivamente dominan, y lo encabezan que son los grandes billonarios de antigua sepa y los de nuevo ingreso en la especulación o la tecnología, sino se contrataría e invitaría a asesores y expertos del más alto nivel, así como a los potenciales candidatos a ocupar los más altos puestos públicos, del Presidente de la República para un poco abajo.

En la sombra de arriba a abajo, “el crimen organizado” se encargaría –con destacados banqueros —entre otras actividades— del “lavado de dinero” del comercio clandestino y de la administración de los “paraísos fiscales” que se ubicarían principalmente en Londres y Nueva York, pero también en Suiza, las Islas Bahamas, Panamá y varios países más. Sus contribuciones serían de la mayor importancia para el enlace de actividades que estarían a la luz de todos, y de otras que deberían permanecer en la oscuridad. Por su conducto no sólo se manejarían gigantescas sumas para la evasión de impuestos de los de arriba que de por sí se reducirían al máximo con las reformas neoliberales a las leyes fiscales; sino también circularían las fabulosas sumas que se emplean para armar y aprovisionar a los terroristas “moderados” que están destruyendo las infraestructuras y estructuras del Medio Oriente y el Sur de Asia, desde Afganistán hasta Siria pasando por Irak y Libia, lo que se hace no sólo por razones económicas como la posesión de recursos petroleros; o por la multimillonaria venta de armas y municiones que la industria militar produce, y que son motor de toda la economía, sino por razones estratégicas como las que se dan con el necesario control del Medio Oriente entre Europa y Rusia, o al otro extremo del mundo con el Mar de China, o que desde antes ya se dieron con el control de Europa del Este y los desprendimientos de la exURSS y de los países invadidos por ella como Polonia y Checoeslovaquia, o enfrentados a ella como Yugoslavia.

En la sombra también, pero con los de más abajo —impresentables—, el “crimen organizado”, al estilo de las corporaciones extendería sus redes, y dispondría de los recursos necesarios para organizar guerras como la de “los luchadores por la libertad” en Yugoeslavia, o como “La Primavera árabe” en el Norte de África, en las que destacan las de Egipto y Libia. “El crimen organizado” también tendría como actividades permanentes –con o sin el auxilio de las fuerzas civiles y militares- el hacerse cargo de las guerras de los terroristas y del narcotráfico, así como de la expulsión de comunidades, pequeños y medianos campesinos y propietarios de los sitios, terrenos, territorios, bosques y fuentes de agua de cuyos suelos y subsuelos se adueñan las corporaciones en su política de “acumulación primitiva”, “desposesión”, o despojo que con los “tratados de libre comercio” se han legitimado, tolerado o auxiliado, tanto en el terreno legal como en el legal-y-criminal, en que se juntan a escondidas gobierno y crimen organizado.

A este respecto es necesario darse cuenta que las anteriores actividades de la guerra neoliberal globalizadora se complementan con otras dos de la mayor importancia; una, que podríamos llamar la guerra blanda, y otra, que es la tradicional de los golpes de estado y las intervenciones militares, que cuando es necesario los acompañan o suplantan. La guerra blanda hegemónica se da en un proceso histórico de desestructuración del Estado-Nación metropolitano o dependiente en lo que concierne a sus instituciones, organizaciones y empresas públicas, centralizadas, descentralizadas y autónomas. Las armas y municiones de la guerra blanda que se emplea cada vez con mayor frecuencia son fundamentalmente financieras, con variadas combinaciones de las políticas de colusión, cooptación y corrupción, y de las acciones legales e ilegales, así como de aquellas de que se encargan destacamentos del crimen organizado y hasta grupos de gobernantes y sicarios que implantan las reformas estructurales con todo tipo de violencias contra los bienes y personas de los pobres a despojar.

En los estados del Sur o de la periferia del mundo –como México- e incluso en algunos estados desarrollados, el proceso de des-estructuración del Estado tiende a seguir los siguientes pasos: 1º. Una reforma fiscal que disminuye la carga impositiva de los sectores de altos ingresos y que se complementa con `procedimientos varios para la exención o la evasión legal o ilegal de impuestos, 3º. Un tratado de libre comercio con distintos compromisos que tienden a favorecer a las corporaciones frente a los medianos y pequeños productores nacionales, 4º La desaparición del Banco Central y la pérdida de control de la política monetaria y crediticia que deja de estimular a los empresarios nacionales, y de controlar entre otros el valor de las divisas, nuevo objeto de saqueo por las corporaciones que devalúan la moneda a la hora de las compras y la revalúan a la hora de los pagos entre otras especulaciones que llevan a crisis espectaculares de los precios como la de recia en Europa y la de Venezuela en América Latina, 5º. La lenta o abrupta desaparición de la banca gubernamental de fomento industrial, 6º. La disminución o cancelación de estímulos a cooperativas y empresas económico-sociales, 7º.La privatización y desnacionalización de los servicios de salud, educación y seguridad social, 8. La privatización y desnacionalización de las fuentes e industrias energéticas del petróleo y la electricidad, así como de empresas mineras y portuarias, 9º.El creciente desequilibrio en el gasto público y el consiguiente endeudamiento externo del gobierno federal y de los gobiernos de estados, municipios y ciudades hasta un punto en que intereses y principal son impagables 10º. En ese punto o un poco antes los prestamistas adquieren el derecho a supervisar la disposición y el uso del presupuesto nacional, y de los presupuestos de los distintos niveles de gobierno. 11º. La disposición de los créditos para adquirir bienes de consumo con exclusión de los de producción, en una política de doble negocio en que los prestamistas venden sus productos con lo que prestaron, 12º. La creciente entrega de recursos naturales del suelo y el subsuelo, de los mantos acuíferos y las playas, y de los sitios turísticos que pasan a manos de las corporaciones extranjeras mineras, agrícolas, industriales, comerciales y a sus cadenas con sucursales y empresas subrogadas, 13º. La solicitud de préstamos “buitre” para pagar intereses devengados e impagos, 14º. Las sucesivas y crecientes crisis financieras y monetarias que provocan fugas de capitales nacionales que superan el monto total del endeudamiento externo con los países prestamistas. 15º. La congelación y reducción de salarios directos e indirectos, mediante la privatización de servicios antes públicos, mediante la fijación de salarios mínimos de calculada depauperación, mediante procesos inflacionarios incontrolados, con lo que todas las medidas señaladas hacen víctima de las políticas neoliberales y localizadoras a la inmensa mayoría de la población, a unos por el despojo de sus tierras y recursos naturales, y otros por la reducción o anulación de salarios. 16º. El crecimiento derivado y sostenido de la población que se halla por debajo de la línea de la miseria, el aumento de la morbilidad y la baja de la esperanza de vida l7o. El consecuente crecimiento de la represión y el auge la corrupción así como de las desigualdades entre los ricos que se vuelven más ricos y los pobres que se vuelven más pobres, hechos que se señalan una y otra vez en la academia y los medios y a los que no se presta la menor atención por los gobernantes nativos, con la idea de que “así es la vida”, o que “así es el capitalismo ”, y con la explicación de que semejante situación se da por “exceso de población”, o como efecto de la crisis mundial que limpia de culpa al gobierno nacional, o porque hay quienes nacieron para ganar y otros para perder; o porque los que sólo ven lo malo es porque son fracasados o se quedaron fuera del presupuesto y no ven lo bueno de la vida 18º La política neoliberal globalizadora da lugar a derogación de facto o mediante actos ilegales que parecen legales de los derechos constitucionales, de los derechos sociales y de los proclamados derechos humanos individuales que excluyen el derecho a no morirse de hambre y otros parecidos 19º. La creciente vinculación de gobierno organizado (o desorganizado) y crimen organizado o mafioso, se denuncia y comprueba por jueces nacionales e internacionales sin el menor efecto de sanciones, frenos o cambios de política 20º. El creciente predominio de la acumulación por desposesión y despojo de las tierras comunales y los pequeños propietarios del campo junto con la ausencia de créditos para el campo y el libre ingreso sostenido de semillas transgénicas, un crimen legal global permitido por el derecho nacional e internacional, que obliga a los campesinos a ser clientes permanentes de las corporaciones, pues las semillas que venden no se reproducen y el campesino pierde el control de la agri-cultura y sólo puede entrar en contacto con la tierra si se vuelve cliente de la corporación, 21º..El deterioro y la extinción de servicios públicos de salud, educación, seguridad social, etc. 22º. El desempleo creciente de personal no calificado, calificado y especializado y el surgimiento de la generación “nini” que no tiene ni educación, ni trabajo, ni futuro, 23ª.La proliferación del narcotráfico y otros delitos contra la propiedad y la persona, junto con la impunidad abierta y ostensible, e incluso ostentosa de los altos funcionarios que delinquen abiertamente, 24º. La destrucción o debilitamiento de las antiguas organizaciones populistas y la criminalización de las que genuinamente representan a los ciudadanos, empleados, trabajadores y campesinos. 25º. La mutilación política, moral, social, cultural, económica de los partidos políticos que pasan de ser instituciones de luchas programáticas e ideológicas, a convertirse en meros recursos para obtener empleos de elección popular; y que como partidos políticos se enfrentan a la alternativa de prometer la solución de problemas sociales y nacionales y no cumplir o bien de no ofrecer nada que no estén autorizados a pedir, con lo que abiertamente pierden incluso el papel que originalmente les tenía asignado el estado de ser mediadores de las demandas de la ciudadanía, y de colaborar en las políticas de conflicto y consenso. Ni eso tienen y en su interior la des-estructuración intelectual, política y moral es el mayor estrago que la guerra financiera del neoliberalismo globalizador causa en sus integrantes y en una inmensa parte de la población, cuyas protestas y enojos, más que impulsados por una ideología político-social y orientados por un programa de acción pública nacional e internacional, viven y luchan pensando cuáles son las luchas que debe dar y las que no debe dar, cuándo, donde con quienes darlas y no darlas con tal de obtener puestos en el partido o en el gobierno, y reconocimientos y subsidios para el partido. Los estragos afectan a la oposición de izquierda y derecha y dan pie a que para obtener posiciones o puestos se junten aquí y allá una y otra con lo que se extiende la des-estructuración ideológica, programática y ética, por más que algunos de sus miembros den amplias muestras de valentía, de no robarse ni haberse robado nada, y de ser fieles a sus antiguas ideologías. El fenómeno da origen a lo que alguien llamó “inmediación violenta” y es como una derrota de países, partidos y ciudadanos, de campesinos sin tierra ni uniones, de obreros sin qué comer ni sindicatos que los defienden, de jóvenes sin juventud ni vida, que son los que más resisten y entre los que surgen los nuevos movimientos emancipadores con varios de ellos – como los de l968, o como los del 26 de julio en Cuba , o como los de los indios mayas zapatistas en el Sureste mexicano, que aportan nuevos valores y metas a la emancipación revolucionaria o radical que hace suyas las banderas de la Libertad, de la democracia con pueblos soberanos, de la justicia personal y social, de la autonomía de las regiones insertas en los estados nacionales, del respeto a todas las razas y religiones o creencias laicas, y a la democracia con el poder soberano de los pueblos y los trabajadores, metas y valores que en Occidente vienen de los profetas y cristianos de Israel, y que más recientemente con la teología de la liberación hacen suyas las metas socialistas y del comunismo no estatal sino del que se emparienta con sus clásicos marxistas con la solidaridad de comunidades y comunas que luchan en una sociedad considerablemente distinta en sus medos y relaciones de producción y de emancipación.

Mientras tanto en el sistema de dominación y acumulación actual se da una situación de desarrollo cero, de democracia cero, y algo muy semejante a la situación de los países que antes perdían la guerra en los campos de batalla y ahora también pierden las batallas en el campo financiero y sus enramados de corrupción y represión, con consecuencias muy graves en la moral pública que anda muy baja, y como destrozada por la corrupción y la represión estructural que acompaña a este modelo de variada guerra, que en el corto plazo sólo genera como respuesta , entre pequeños movimientos y grupos insumisos de crecimiento exponencial, una nueva moral de lucha, cooperación, compartición, libertad y democracia.

El hecho es que mientras eso ocurre en la inmensa mayoría de los países de la Tierrra se esbozan dos mundos emergentes, uno en que aparece la crisis de globalización misma y en que por todo el mundo surge una nueva extrema derecha que combina el autoritarismo de los líderes musolinescos que con la organización de bases de apoyo y algo parecido y distinto de las camisas negras. Que surge de buena parte de las clases trabajadores depauperadas y en los propios países metropolitanos. El fenómeno se da cada vez más en Europa y a últimas fechas en los propios Estados Unidos. Con su aparición vienen viejas amenazas de declarar a los países dependientes como Estados Fallidos o como Estados Canallas, y a ellas se añade la derogación de los Tratados de Libre comercio y la emigración de los capitales industriales a su lugar de origen dizque para dar empleo a sus trabajadores, y si se van las empresas industriales con ese supuesto fin ni por asomo se piensa en que se vayan las corporaciones petroleras, mineras y muchas otras que explotan los recursos naturales renovables y no renovables.

Trazar el perfil de las tendencias —en estas condiciones— es particularmente difícil, aunque por lo pronto se advierte que tanto el capitalismo neoliberal como el capitalismo de Estado están en crisis o tienden inevitablemente a la crisis. Para analizar esta crisis y pensar en términos de alternativas que sean útiles a una nueva lucha por la paz en el siglo XXI será necesario tomar en cuenta varios hechos que no son agradables, que incluso son incómodos y que tendemos a descalificar o negar consciente o inconscientemente.

Enuncio algunos de los principales, cuyo conocimiento “en activo” pienso que debe ser la tarea de la comunidad científica internacional organizada y no organizada, en su lucha por la paz.

Hoy la lucha por la paz debe estar vinculada a la lucha por el conocimiento de la grave crisis por la que atraviesa un sistema cuyo atractor principal es la maximización de poder, de riquezas y de utilidades. Al análisis profundo de las soluciones necesarias y posibles tendrá que preceder un reconocimiento y denuncia de los graves problemas de ecocidio que nos amenazan y en los cuales destacan 1º. El peligro de una guerra nuclear en una situación, que en estos días se encuentra en condiciones parecidas a las de la Guerra Fría con la movilización militar promovida los Estados Unidos y la OTAN en las fronteras de Polonia con Rusia, y con el desconocimiento por el presidente electo de Estados Unidos de la unidad territorial de China, políticas ambas que debería detener cuanto antes la nueva administración norteamericana, a reserva de acordar medidas más duraderas con las potencias nucleares para que saquen del tablero la “Guerra de destrucción mutua asegurada”, hoy varias veces más peligrosa que cuando fue definida así desde la segunda mitad del siglo pasado

En 2º lugar es necesario destacar que los peligros del cambio climático, y otros fenómenos de destrucción de la tierra y de la biósfera, lejos de ser una “creencia” con fieles y descreídos son consecuencia de un fenómeno que no puede ser resuelto por un sistema cuyo atractor principal es la maximización de utilidades, riquezas y poder.

En 3er. Lugar es ineludible plantear como problema científico central la organización de un mundo en que prevalezca, con la democracia y el respeto a las diferencias de religión, sexo, edad o raza, -en que prevalezca la soberanía de los pueblos, de los trabajadores, las comunidades y los ciudadanos, objetivo que en Occidente surgió desde la revolución francesas, y para el que no sólo tenemos la praxis o práctica de la creación histórica en Cuba y en La lacandona de los indios

La lucha por la paz hoy implica no dar por terminada la gran batalla liberadora que en el mito inició Prometeo. Implica recordar al mismo tiempo aquel otro mito en que al abrir Pandora la caja que contenía todos los males del mundo quedó sin embargo la esperanza, esa virtud teologal que mueve montañas.

Y al llamado de las emociones será necesario añadir en nuestra lucha la necesidad de investigar histórica y empíricamente, con la teoría crítica de las ciencias de los sistemas complejos, autorregulados y creadores, con ambos, el mundo moral organizado como fuerza emancipadora en la lucha, la cooperación y la compartición.

Pablo González Casanova

Pablo González Casanova: Sociólogo y ex rector de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).

El calendario político europeo reciente ha venido marcado por el ya famoso “Brexit”, la repetición de las elecciones presidenciales en Austria que se saldó con la victoria del ecologista Alexander Van der Bellen frente a la ultraderecha de Norbert Hofer y el reciente rechazo a la reforma constitucional propuesta por Matteo Renzi en Italia.

No satisfechos con este último semestre, las consultas electorales previstas en países que representan aproximadamente el 40% de la economía europea, junto a otros hechos de envergadura, condicionarán los derroteros a seguir en el corto plazo y a medio plazo pueden llegar a marcar el ser o no ser de la Unión Europea.

Francia afronta en mayo unas elecciones donde los votantes deberán escoger principalmente entre extrema derecha (Frente Nacional), derecha extrema (Republicanos) y derecha de toda la vida (socialdemócratas). Cada partido ha elegido a los candidatos más a la derecha que ha podido encontrar. Junto a la ultra Marine Le Pen, Los Republicanos presentan a un conservador declarado admirador de las políticas de Margaret Thatcher, François Fillon, y Manuel Valls,  el ministro que aprobó por decreto la mayor y más protestada reforma laboral, intenta hacerse con la candidatura de los socialistas.

Previamente, en marzo, Holanda celebrará sus elecciones generales, donde actualmente encabeza los sondeos el Partido de la Libertad (PVV), liderado por el xenófobo Geert Wilders, que se presenta con un programa electoral de una sola página para el periodo 2017-2021 titulado “Holanda es de nuevo nuestra” en el que se recogen 11 puntos prioritarios, la mayoría de los cuales se centran en lo que Wilders denomina “desislamización” del país.

Tanto Francia como Holanda son miembros fundadores de la Unión, y sus candidatos de extrema derecha ya han anunciado que en caso de llegar al poder someterían a referéndum la permanencia en la Unión. Según muchos analistas políticos, muy difícilmente la UE aguantaría una nueva salida de un país miembro.

Por su parte, la crisis en Italia no hizo más que comenzar con el fracaso de Renzi en el referéndum, por lo que Italia, al menos teóricamente, debería enfrentarse a unas nuevas elecciones. Este caso es diferente: la posibilidad de que el Movimiento 5 Estrellas (Movimento 5 Stelle, M5S) pudiera alcanzar el poder frena esta opción. De momento, ya han impuesto a Paolo Gentiloni, aristócrata romano y ministro de Relaciones Exteriores del gobierno Matteo Renzi, como nuevo primer ministro. Y al igual que su antecesor, no ha sido elegido en las urnas. En Italia la democracia da miedo. Y en Europa da la sensación de que sólo preocupan los populistas de extrema izquierda, como despectivamente insultan diariamente los medios oficiales a las opciones políticas que defienden medidas sociales más justas y con un mayor reparto de la riqueza. Mientras tanto, la extrema derecha no parece sufrir esta persecución mediática.

En septiembre de 2017 Alemania tendrá elecciones parlamentarias. Los expertos tienen la vista puesta principalmente en los estados federales de Mecklemburgo-Pomerania Occidental y Berlín, donde los euroescépticos del partido Alternativa para Alemania (AFD) pueden obtener el mayor número de votos.

Además, durante el otoño de 2017 se esperan elecciones en Croacia, Hungría, Rumanía, Lituania y la República Checa. Países donde también existe una alta probabilidad de que se produzca un gran avance de los partidos euroescépticos y de extrema derecha.

Pero durante el próximo año no sólo tenemos elecciones en la UE. En marzo se espera el final de la política expansiva del Banco Central Europeo. Si a esto unimos las posibilidades de que la Reserva Federal de Estados Unidos revise al alza los tipos de interés, el problema bancario de la Unión se pondrá todavía más caliente. Recordemos la comprometida situación actual de la banca Italiana, con la Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena a la cabeza, y la mucho más problemática situación del Deutsche Bank; banco calificado de Riesgo Sistémico y con urgente necesidad de recapitalización debido a la doble burbuja inmobiliaria y crediticia que padece.

En el mismo mes de marzo se espera la invocación por parte de la primera ministra británica, Theresa May, del artículo 50 del Tratado de la Unión, dándose así el inicio oficial de las negociaciones para la salida del Reino Unido. Todo esto, si la resolución judicial pendiente no lo impide. Tal y como está la economía británica, europea y mundial, bien pudiera darse que el tribunal designado decida parar el desarrollo de estos acontecimientos y esperar momentos menos comprometidos.

A todo esto súmese que en Bruselas da la sensación de que no haber vida inteligente. La Comisión Europea sigue empecinada en provocar la ira de los ciudadanos con sus políticas antidemocráticas. Como ejemplo, la última idea brillante que acaba de lanzar la comisaria europea de Mercado Interior, Elzbieta Bienkowska, es dejar exento el gasto militar a la hora de calcular el déficit público. ¿Cómo se justifica que se pueda “perdonar” el déficit que genere el gasto militar y no el gasto necesario en salud, educación, creación de empleos, asistencia a los más desfavorecidos, etc.?

Después de años de recortes y crisis lo que sería increíble es que los ciudadanos siguieran apoyando las opciones políticas tradicionales. El colapso del bipartidismo está siendo monopolizado por la extrema derecha con un programa político y social basado en un nacionalismo excluyente y xenófobo frente al ideal de convivencia que otrora defendió la Unión Europea. La inacción del sistema ante esta situación, al igual que ocurriera en los años 30 del pasado siglo, supone una muestra vergonzante de lo poco que les preocupa a las élites europeas estas opciones políticas. Probablemente porque es visto como una solución en su intento desesperado por mantener las tasas de valorización de los capitales.

Por el contrario, la toma del poder de partidos llamados despectivamente populistas de extrema izquierda, o la simple posibilidad de revueltas que pudieran encender la llama de conflictos mayores, sí preocupa y mucho. Esta es una de las causas del importante ascenso de la represión política, social, policial y judicial que se vive en toda Europa.

Luis Enrique Casais Padilla

Luis Enrique Casais Padilla: Doctor en Economía Internacional y Desarrollo, Actuario Matemático de Seguros y Licenciado en Economía por la Universidad Complutense de Madrid. 

El presidente de China, Xi Jinping, pidió a la comunidad internacional unirse para alcanzar la paz global duradera y construir una comunidad de destino compartido para la humanidad ante los crecientes desafíos que encaran hoy todas las naciones.

En un discurso pronunciado en la oficina de la Organización de Naciones Unidas (ONU) en Ginebra, Suiza, Xi expuso su visión del futuro de la humanidad y abogó por un mundo de paz perdurable, con base en la prosperidad común, y un desarrollo abierto, limpio e inclusivo.

Enfatizó en que este milenario país ha estado y seguirá estando comprometido con la defensa de la paz mundial, porque ‘durante varios milenios, la paz ha estado en la sangre de nosotros los chinos y ha formado parte de nuestro ADN’, reiteró.

En ese sentido, reflexionó que China pasó de ser un país pobre y débil a convertirse en la segunda economía más grande del mundo, no comprometiéndose con la expansión militar o con el saqueo colonial, sino con el trabajo arduo de su pueblo y sus esfuerzos por defender la paz.

China nunca buscará la hegemonía, la expansión o las esferas de influencia, reiteró.

De acuerdo con Xi, que se encuentra en Suiza cumpliendo una visita de Estado de cuatro días desde el domingo y que brindó un alentador discurso en la inauguración de la Reunión 47 del Foro Económico Mundial en la ciudad de Davos, el desarrollo de China ha sido posible gracias al mundo y a la vez, esta nación ha contribuido al desarrollo del mundo.

El mandatario chino dio la bienvenida a todos los países a ‘subirse a bordo del tren rápido del desarrollo de China’.

Al respecto resaltó que su país ha proporcionado a otros países más de 400 mil millones de yuanes (58 mil 400 millones de dólares) en ayuda de 1950 a 2016 y que desde el inicio de la crisis financiera internacional, China aportó como promedio más de 30 por ciento del crecimiento global anual.

De igual modo adelantó que en los próximos cinco años, China importará ocho billones de dólares en productos, atraerá 600 mil millones de dólares en inversión extranjera, destinará 750 mil millones de dólares a la inversión en el exterior y los turistas chinos realizarán 700 millones de visitas al extranjero.

Expuso que los datos antes mencionados son un ejemplo de que el gigante asiático se mantiene sin cambio en su compromiso de alentar las asociaciones.

Xi insistió en que Beijing defiende una política exterior independiente y de paz y que está listo para ampliar la amistad y la cooperación con todos los demás países sobre la base de los Cinco Principios de la Coexistencia Pacífica.

Hemos formado asociaciones de diferentes tipos con más de 90 países y organizaciones regionales y construiremos un círculo de amigos en todo el mundo, expresó.

Según divulga la prensa local, el presidente dijo que China luchará por construir un nuevo modelo de relaciones entre grandes países con Estados Unidos, una asociación estratégica integral de coordinación con Rusia, una asociación de paz, crecimiento, reforma y civilización entre civilizaciones diferentes con Europa y una asociación de unidad y cooperación con los países BRICS.

Afirmó su compromiso invariable con el multilateralismo, proceso que catalogó como una manera efectiva de preservar la paz y promover el desarrollo.

Elogió el aporte universalmente reconocido durante décadas de la ONU y otros organismos internacionales al mantenimiento de la paz mundial y al sostenimiento del desarrollo.

También defendió que cada país tiene derecho a elegir de manera independiente su sistema social y su camino de desarrollo y urgió prohibir por completo y destruir totalmente las armas nucleares.

Combatir el terrorismo es la responsabilidad compartida de todos los países, manifestó, y pidió no sólo atender los síntomas de ese flagelo, sino eliminar sus causas de raíz.

Para alcanzar el llamado de la paz duradera también incorporó como imprescindible el rechazo al proteccionismo comercial y al aislamiento, y celebró el Acuerdo de París como un hito en la historia de la gobernanza climática.

Prensa Latina

CNN has put together a report entitled Who is Survivor at Inauguration.

The CNN report focusses on who would be in charge if the incoming president, vice president and Congressional leaders were the object of a terrorist attack.

While security is in place and there is no specific, credible threat, a quirk in America’s rules for succession raises questions about who would be in charge if an attack hit the incoming president, vice president and congressional leaders just as the transfer of power gets underway. CNN’s Brian Todd reports.

This CNN report is notoriously “suggestive”. Is it intended to inform US public opinion or does it constitute a rather unsubtle propaganda ploy, which presents a scripted scenario of political assassination at the Inauguration on January 20th?

“Who is the ‘designated survivor’ at inauguration” intimates that the president-elect could be killed?

The report also intimates that if “Disaster” were to occur following the killing of the president, vice president and Congressional leaders, Obama Cabinet Members would so to speak regain control of the White House (see CNN titles below)

What is the purpose of this twisted report which was broadcast live on January 17th, 2017. Is there a hidden agenda? 

We invite our readers to view this controversial CNN report. You can comment on the Global Research Facebook page.

Michel Chossudovsky, GR Editor 

 

Video Copyright CNN, 2017

I was about to write a detailed and favorable review of Greg Palast’s book, Billionaires & Ballot Bandits when a friend sent me a request to “share” Palast’s Facebook LIVE broadcast of Palast’s documentary exposing “exactly how Trump and his cronies attacked the voting rights of a million minority voters to steal the White House.”

Let’s see, Trump won the presidency by winning 84% of geographical America, losing only the black, hispanic, and white liberal vote; yet he stole the election by disenfranchising one million African Americans. These blacks don’t live in flyover America. They live in the 500 counties that went for Hillary. 2,600 counties went for Trump.

Here is the map. It tells the story: http://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/

I am disappointed with Palast, a good investigative reporter, but I understand his frustration.

Palast, despite his virtues, has the failing of so many of those on the left-of-center. They are required to hate “conservatives” and anyone identified as one, whether justified or not. The only thing in Palast’s book about voter suppression with which I disagree is his gratuitous, unexplained designation of Pat Buchanan as “a pinhead bigot.”

How exactly do we understand Palast’s misunderstanding of Pat Buchanan? Buchanan put his solid career with Republicans on the line when he ran against them and the jobs offshoring globalist corporations. Buchanan ran as a candidate fighting to protect the jobs of black and white working class Americans.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Buchanan was correct when he said that the so-called “free trade deals” were designed to send American jobs offshore and to dismantle the ladders of upward mobility that had made the US an opportunity society. Buchanan was totally correct. Globalism is a device for the enrichment of the one percent and the impoverishment of everyone else. Nothing else can be said for globalism.

Few have fought harder for the jobs of the working class than Pat Buchanan and I. Yet, some on the left-of-center call us “Reaganite fascists.” It makes you wonder who the left-of-center works for. The globalist corporations?

Now we have Donald Trump trying to restore the jobs of middle class Americans, fighting the class war for them against the Republican and Democratic oligarchs, and Greg Palast is writing that Trump stole the election! For who, from who, Greg?

Obviously, Trump stole the election from the CIA, from the military/security complex, from the offshoring global corporations that concocted the Trans-Pacific and Trans-Atlantic parnterships that make US global corporations immune to the laws of the sovereign countries in which they do business. If the election was stolen, which it was not despite the best efforts of the Ruling Establishment to steal it for Hillary by demonizing Trump, it was stolen from the CIA and those who are ruining the economic prospects of Americans.

Finally, we get a president independent of the ruling oligarchy, and Palast joins the CIA and Ruling Establshment in their effort to deep-six Donald Trump.

It is disappointing to see the left-of-center crowd performing as if on cue as faithful servants of the ruling elite.

If a country ever needed a real left-wng, the US surely does.

But there is not one. The left-wing’s causes have shrunk down to little more than transgender rights, homosexual rights, lesbian rights, female rights, illegal alien rights, and the persecution of white heterosexual males for opposing these rights. As Jeffrey St. Clair asked the other day, what about the working class?

The “left” demonizes and delegitimizes. Even the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence have been turned into documents of white supremacy. Thomas Jefferson, who happened to live in a time when the work force consisted of slaves, stood for the people against the interests. Nevertheless, the left delegitimizes him as “a slave owning serial rapist.”

Donald Trump stands for the people against the offshoring interests and the military security/complex. One would think the left would support a president so fiercely opposed by the CIA, but, no, Trump is delegitimized as a racist elected by a racist electorate. The hate card overwhelms common sense. Everyone but blacks, hispanics, native Americans, illegals, and the left are racists.

This is not a program that connects with the people and leads to reforms.

It is not unlikely that Trump will prove to be another disappointment. Even if he is sincere, the organized interest groups are more powerful than the president. As Nomi Prins has shown, even the bankers alone can prevail over the White House. As Robert F. Kennedy reveals in his memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis, a lesser president than John F. Kennedy would have been shoved by the military/security complex into war with the Soviet Union. Would the world still exist if Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or Obama had been in JFK’s place?

The easiest way for a president to “lead” is to accommodate the agendas of the powerful interest groups. Is this what the left wants Trump to do? If not, why is the left helping the interest groups to force Trump into this role?

For nearly five days, the Islamic State terrorists have been advancing on the positions of the Syrian army in Deir Ezzor in the west of Syria.

Yesterday, terrorists surrounded the nearby air base which is the government troops’ last stronghold in north-eastern Syria. ISIS is reported to be using vehicles loaded with explosives and suicide bombers.

It is not a coincidence that the IS is conducting such a large-scale offensive on Deir Ezzor on the eve of the meeting in Kazakhstan’s capital Astana to discuss a lasting ceasfire in Syria. In case of success in Astana, the Syrian army could then concentrate on fighting ISIS, which would lead to bad consequences for the terrorists. Using a pause in the clashes between terror groups and government forces, the Islamic State decided to capture the part of the city and the air base controlled by Damascus.

Moreover, the terrorists’ interests comply with the aims of the U.S. and some Middle East countries which back the militants and oppose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his allies. Thus, in December, 2016 Washington deliberately halted the assault of its allies on the ISIS-controlled city of Raqqa to let ISIS set up a large-scale offensive on Palmyra and capture it.

Today, the Islamic State is trying to renew combat in Syria. The terrorists may even start cooperating with radical groups which won’t participate in the negotiations, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, for example. Further provocations to prevent the meeting in Astana may also take place.

Despite this, the cooperation between the negotiation’s participants is becoming closer. Yesterday, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said that Ankara, being a guarantor of the peace process along with Russia, has helped lay the groundwork for the negotiations between the Syrian government and the armed opposition. The armed opposition will be represented by those leaders of the armed groups who have agreed to join the truce.Thanks to this, the two sides can discuss the issues of a broader ceasefire agreement, improving the humanitarian situation and a long-term political settlement.

The Astana meeting, unlike the failed Geneva negotiations, could foster a long-awaited peace in Syria, no matter how ISIS and Western and Middle East countries eager for war attempt to impede the process.

In another press briefing after his last hurrah, Obama hyped America’s fantasy democracy, its press agent media serving up fake news for powerful interests while suppressing vital truths, and maybe for last official time bashing Russia – among other issues discussed.

Obama: “…(I)t is in America’s interest and the world’s interest that we have a constructive relationship with Russia. That’s been my approach throughout my presidency.”

Fact: In the post-Cold War era, Obama and his neocon infested administration did more than the Clintons and Bush/Cheney to create and sustain adversarial bilateral relations – irreparable with him in office, hopefully possible to change under Trump, though very much in doubt with powerful dark forces allied against him.

Obama: “…Putin…escalat(ed) anti-American rhetoric…return(ing) to (a Cold War) adversarial spirit…hammered home when Russia went into Crimea and portions of Ukraine.”

Fact: Washington obstructed Russia’s good faith efforts for cordial bilateral relations – not the other way around.

Fact: No “Russian aggression” exists, not now or earlier. Putin didn’t invade Crimea or other “portions of Ukraine.” Obama lied claiming otherwise.

Obama: Sanctions were imposed on Russia “because the independence and sovereignty of…Ukraine (was) encroached upon, by force, by Russia.”

Fact: In February 2014, Washington ousted Ukraine’s democratically elected government, replacing it with illegitimate Nazi-infested putschists – a flagrant violation of international law.

Fact: US (and EU) sanctions on Russia are illegal. Security Council members alone may impose them, not individual or groups of countries on other nations.

Obama: “…Russia continues to occupy Ukrainian territory and meddle in Ukrainian affairs and support military surrogates who have violated basic international law and international norms.”

Fact: False on all counts! Donbass freedom fighters reject fascist rule – as should everyone. They deserve universal support in their struggle for democratic rights.

Obama blamed Putin for US START II violations. Earlier he announced Washington’s intention to spend a trillion dollars (likely much more) over the next 30 years, upgrading its nuclear arsenal – instead of taking steps to reduce and ultimately eliminate it altogether, cooperatively with Russia and other nuclear powers, to save humanity from the scourge of possible mass annihilation otherwise.

Obama: “(I)t is important for the United States to stand up for the basic principle that big countries don’t go around and invade and bully smaller countries.”

Fact: America bullies, threatens, terrorizes, rapes and destroys one country after another. Among world powers, no nation works harder for peace and stability than Russia.

Obama: “America (plays a) vital role…around the world in preserving basic norms and values, whether it’s advocating on behalf of human rights, advocating on behalf of women’s rights, advocating on behalf of freedom of the press.”

Fact: No nation in world history did more harm to more people over a longer duration than America. None are more contemptuous of democratic values and rule of law principles – none more guilty of crimes of war and against humanity, none a greater threat to its survival.

Obama lied about supporting a smooth transition of power. He and other pro-Hillary forces have gone all out to delegitimize Trump, denigrating him as a Kremlin agent, a threat to national security, wanting him undermined, impeached, or prevented from serving by more sinister means – the stuff commonplace in banana republics or despotic monarchies.

Will it work? On January 20, Trump will be inaugurated as America’s 45th president. How long he’ll serve is another matter entirely.

A likely more tumultuous and dangerous period than currently approaches.

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.

Notes

¹ “Kankyo kaigi Okinawa taikai – ‘Kankyo-ken’ kakuritsu no giron o,” Okinawa taimusu, 24 October 2016.

² Between 1982 and retirement in 2008, Yamashiro was an official in the Okinawan prefectural government, employed in various sections involving base workers, unexploded ordinance, and taxation.

³ “Henoko protesters detained by US military,” Ryukyu shimpo (English), 24 February 2016.

⁴ “’Keitokuho de futari taiho’ shinjigatai futo kosoku, naze,” editorial, Okinawa taimusu, 24 February 2016

⁵ Urashima Etsuko, “Medoruma Shun shi ga futo taiho,” Shukan kinyobi, 8 April 2016, pp. 7-8.

⁶ All Okinawa Council, et al., “Joint submission to United Nations, Human Rights Council, “Violation of freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly in Okinawa, Japan,” 11 December 2015, in Hideki Yoshikawa and Gavan McCormack, “Okinawa: NGO Appeal to the United Nations and to US military and government over base matters, December 2015 and December 2016,” The Asia-Pacific Journal – Japan Focus, December 2016.

⁷ On this complex process, see my ”Japan’s Problematic Prefecture – Okinawa and the US-Japan Relationship,” The Asia-Pacific Journal – Japan Focus, 1 September 2016.

⁸ Details in Okinawan media, July-August 2016, See especially “Takae doji chakko mubo na keikaku wa akiraka ni,” Okinawa taimusu, 28 August 2016,”Heripaddo koki tanshuku, Nichibei ryo seifu wa mori mo kowasu no ka,” Okinawa taimusu, 29 August 2016 and (24,000 trees felled) “Letter of concern and request, Inscription of Yambaru forest as a world natural heritage site,” 1 December 2016, in Yoshikawa and McCormack, op. cit.

⁹ To this author it was reminiscent of the “speedo” campaigns to complete construction of the Burma-Thailand railway in 1942. State policy (kokusaku) in both cases was unchallengeable, and whatever was necessary to accomplish it was deemed legitimate.

¹⁰ Watanabe Go, “Okinawa, han kichi undo rida Yamashiro gicho no koryu　tsuzuku, ‘kyoken hatsudo’ no haikei wa?” Aera, 13 December 2016； See also, “Yamashiro gicho o saitaiho, komu shikko bogai, shogai yogi de,” Okinawa taimusu, 21 October 2016.

¹¹ “4 Activists protesting US base relocation in Okinawa arrested,” Mainichi shimbun, 30 November 2016). Arrested with Yamashiro were Inaba Hiroshi, 66, from Ginoza together with Kinjo Takemasa, 59, and Kobun Sasaki, 40, both from Nago.

¹² Watanabe, cit.

¹³ “Cabinet: No need for Tsuruho to apologize over ‘dojin’ issue,” Asahi shimbun, 22 November, 2016

¹⁴ “Abe’s instruction of Diet ovation for SDF criticized,” Japan Times, 27 September 2016.

¹⁵ The one exception to this was a prominent national politician and member of the House of Councillors, Fukushima Mizuho, who was allowed a brief interview on 20 December. (”Okinawa kunrenjo ‘henkan shikiten’ no kage de kogi rida horyu 2 kagetsu cho,” Chunichi Shimbun, 23 December 2016).

¹⁶ “‘Kutsushita no sashiire mitomete’ ‘pantsu to issho’ Okinawa kenkei ni 100 nin ga uttae,” Okinawa taimusu, 12 December 2016.

¹⁷ “Koryuchu no Yamashiro gicho e, kutsushita o sashiire jitsugen, Okinawa kenkei ga mitomeru,” Okinawa taimusu, 21 December 2016.

¹⁸ According to Fukushima, quoted in note 13, above.

¹⁹ For list of incidents of “Violence, Detention, and Arrests in Henoko, Okinawa in 2014-15,” see Yoshikawa and McCormack, op. cit.

²⁰ “Kuni ‘hochi kokka’ de yusaburi,” editorial, Ryukyu shimpo, 25 October 2016

²¹ “Statement against wrongful detention in front of the Camp Schwab gate by riot police of Okinawa prefecture,” quoted in Yoshikawa and McCormack, op. cit.

²² “Okinawa, Nagosho de keisatsu de 50 nichi ijo mo koryu sarete iru Yamashiro Hiroji o shakuho seo”(We demand release of Yamashiro Hiroji and others from police detention!) see Okinawa taimusu and Ryukyu shimpo of 17 December, and see Peace Philosophy.

²³ “Yamashiro Hiroji san ra no shakuho o,” (“Free Hiroji Yamashiro”)

Notes

¹ “Kankyo kaigi Okinawa taikai – ‘Kankyo-ken’ kakuritsu no giron o,” Okinawa taimusu, 24 October 2016.

² Between 1982 and retirement in 2008, Yamashiro was an official in the Okinawan prefectural government, employed in various sections involving base workers, unexploded ordinance, and taxation.

³ “Henoko protesters detained by US military,” Ryukyu shimpo (English), 24 February 2016.

⁴ “’Keitokuho de futari taiho’ shinjigatai futo kosoku, naze,” editorial, Okinawa taimusu, 24 February 2016

⁵ Urashima Etsuko, “Medoruma Shun shi ga futo taiho,” Shukan kinyobi, 8 April 2016, pp. 7-8.

⁶ All Okinawa Council, et al., “Joint submission to United Nations, Human Rights Council, “Violation of freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly in Okinawa, Japan,” 11 December 2015, in Hideki Yoshikawa and Gavan McCormack, “Okinawa: NGO Appeal to the United Nations and to US military and government over base matters, December 2015 and December 2016,” The Asia-Pacific Journal – Japan Focus, December 2016.

⁷ On this complex process, see my ”Japan’s Problematic Prefecture – Okinawa and the US-Japan Relationship,” The Asia-Pacific Journal – Japan Focus, 1 September 2016.

⁸ Details in Okinawan media, July-August 2016, See especially “Takae doji chakko mubo na keikaku wa akiraka ni,” Okinawa taimusu, 28 August 2016,”Heripaddo koki tanshuku, Nichibei ryo seifu wa mori mo kowasu no ka,” Okinawa taimusu, 29 August 2016 and (24,000 trees felled) “Letter of concern and request, Inscription of Yambaru forest as a world natural heritage site,” 1 December 2016, in Yoshikawa and McCormack, op. cit.

⁹ To this author it was reminiscent of the “speedo” campaigns to complete construction of the Burma-Thailand railway in 1942. State policy (kokusaku) in both cases was unchallengeable, and whatever was necessary to accomplish it was deemed legitimate.

¹⁰ Watanabe Go, “Okinawa, han kichi undo rida Yamashiro gicho no koryu　tsuzuku, ‘kyoken hatsudo’ no haikei wa?” Aera, 13 December 2016； See also, “Yamashiro gicho o saitaiho, komu shikko bogai, shogai yogi de,” Okinawa taimusu, 21 October 2016.

¹¹ “4 Activists protesting US base relocation in Okinawa arrested,” Mainichi shimbun, 30 November 2016). Arrested with Yamashiro were Inaba Hiroshi, 66, from Ginoza together with Kinjo Takemasa, 59, and Kobun Sasaki, 40, both from Nago.

¹² Watanabe, cit.

¹³ “Cabinet: No need for Tsuruho to apologize over ‘dojin’ issue,” Asahi shimbun, 22 November, 2016

¹⁴ “Abe’s instruction of Diet ovation for SDF criticized,” Japan Times, 27 September 2016.

¹⁵ The one exception to this was a prominent national politician and member of the House of Councillors, Fukushima Mizuho, who was allowed a brief interview on 20 December. (”Okinawa kunrenjo ‘henkan shikiten’ no kage de kogi rida horyu 2 kagetsu cho,” Chunichi Shimbun, 23 December 2016).

¹⁶ “‘Kutsushita no sashiire mitomete’ ‘pantsu to issho’ Okinawa kenkei ni 100 nin ga uttae,” Okinawa taimusu, 12 December 2016.

¹⁷ “Koryuchu no Yamashiro gicho e, kutsushita o sashiire jitsugen, Okinawa kenkei ga mitomeru,” Okinawa taimusu, 21 December 2016.

¹⁸ According to Fukushima, quoted in note 13, above.

¹⁹ For list of incidents of “Violence, Detention, and Arrests in Henoko, Okinawa in 2014-15,” see Yoshikawa and McCormack, op. cit.

²⁰ “Kuni ‘hochi kokka’ de yusaburi,” editorial, Ryukyu shimpo, 25 October 2016

²¹ “Statement against wrongful detention in front of the Camp Schwab gate by riot police of Okinawa prefecture,” quoted in Yoshikawa and McCormack, op. cit.

²² “Okinawa, Nagosho de keisatsu de 50 nichi ijo mo koryu sarete iru Yamashiro Hiroji o shakuho seo”(We demand release of Yamashiro Hiroji and others from police detention!) see Okinawa taimusu and Ryukyu shimpo of 17 December, and see Peace Philosophy.

²³ “Yamashiro Hiroji san ra no shakuho o,” (“Free Hiroji Yamashiro”)

Em 12 de janeiro, dois dias depois de seu discurso de despedida, o presidente Obama deu vida ao maior deslocamento de forças terrestres na Europa Oriental desde o fim da guerra fria: um longo comboio de tanques de guerra e outros veículos blindados estadunidenses, proveniente da Alemanha, entrou na Polônia.

Por Manlio Dinucci*

Trata-se da 3ª Brigada blindada, transferida para a Europa desde o Fort Carson no Colorado: composta de cerca de 4.000 homens, 87 tanques, 18 obuses, 144 veículos de comabte Bradley e centenas de  Humvees. Todo o armamento foi transportado para a Polônia por via rodoviária e 900 vagões ferroviários.

Na cerimônia de boas-vindas na cidade polonesa de Zagan, o embaixador dos EUA Jones disse que “na medida em que cresce a ameaça, cresce o deslocamento de forças militares dos EUA à Europa”. De que “ameaça” se trata, esclareceu o general  Curtis Scaparrotti, chefe do Comando europeu dos Estados Unidos e ao mesmo tempo Comandante supremo aliado na Europa: “As nossas forças estão prontas e posicionadas para o caso em que seja necessário contrastar a agressão russa”.

A 3ª Brigada blindada ficará em uma base em Zagan por nove meses, quando será substituída por uma outra transferida dos EUA. Através dessa rotação, forças blindadas estadunidenses serão permanentemente deslocadas para o território polonês. Daí suas subdivisões serão transferidas, para treinamento e exercícios, a outros países do Leste, sobretudo Estônia, Letônia, Lituânia, Bulgária, Romênia e provavelmente também a Ucrânia, ou seja, serão contiuamente deslocadas para as proximidades da Rússia.

Um segundo contingente dos EUA será posicionado no próximo mês de abril na região oriental da Polônia, no chamado “Suwalki Gap”, um pedaço de terra plana ao longo de uma centena de quilômetros que, adverte a Otan, “seria uma porta de entrada perfeita para os tanques de guerra russos”. Assim, é ressuscitada a parafernália propagandística dos EUA/Otan da velha guerra fria: o argumento dos tanques de guerra russos prontos para invadir a Europa. Agitando o espectro de uma inexistente ameaça do Leste, chegam à Europa os tanques de guerra estadunidenses.

A 3ª Brigada blindada se junta às forças aéreas e navais instaladas pelos Estados Unidos na Europa na operação “Atlantic Resolve”, para “proteger os aliados da Otan e os parceiros em face da agressão russa”. Operação que Washington lançou em 2014, depois de ter deliberadamente provocado, com o golpe da Praça Maidan, um novo confronto com a Rússia. A principal artífice dessa estratégia na administração Obama foi Hillary Clinton, visando a romper as relações econômicas e políticas da Rússia com a União Europeia, prejudiciais aos interesses estadunidenses.

Na escalada anti-Rússia, a Polônia desempenha um papel central. Por isto, receberá em breve dos EUA mísseis de cruzeiro com longo raio de ação, com capacidade penetrante anti-bunker, que podem ser equipadas com ogivas nucleares. Já está em construção na Polônia uma instalação terrestre do  sistema de mísseis Aegis dos Estados Unidos, semelhante à que já está em funcionamento em Deveselu, na Romênia. Esta também dotada do  sistema MK 41 da Lockheed Martin, em condições de lançar não somente mísseis antimísseis, mas também mísseis de cruzeiro equipáveis com ogivas nucleares.

Em Varsóvia e outras capitais do Leste – escreve o New York Times – há, porém, “forte preocupação acerca de um possível acordo do republicano Trump com Moscou que “minaria todo o esforço feito”. Um pesadelo atormenta os governantes do Leste que baseiam a sua sorte na hostilidade para com a Rússia:  o de que voltem para casa os tanques de guerra enviados pelo democrata Obama.

 Manlio Dinucci

Artigo original em italiano :

Carrarmati Usa schierati in Polonia

Publicado em Il Manifesto

Tradução de José Reinaldo Carvalho para Resistência

 

Manlio Dinucci é jornalista e geógrafo. .

I hope that President Obama commuted Manning’s unjust sentence not as a sop to transgenders, but as a sign that a bit of humanity still remains in the outgoing war criminal president. Manning did his duty and reported US war crimes by releasing the astounding video of US troops murdering innocent people and journalists walking along a street and then murdering a father and his two young children who stopped to help the wounded left on the street by the US helicopter gunship or drone or whatever the murder device was.  The video reveals US troops playing video kill games with real people. 

Manning’s reward was to be held for two years in solidary confinement in torture-like conditions, which little doubt left Manning fundamentally impaired.  This illegal and unconstitutional treatment was followed by a kangeroo trial in which Manning was convicted and sentenced to 35 years in prison for doing his duty.

Julian Assange, also falsely accused and mistreated, must not turn himself over in exchange for the commutation of Manning’s sentence, or he will suffere the same fate.  Any truth-teller who falls into the hands of the US government is doomed. The US government hates nothing worse than it hates the truth.

Obama’s failures as president would fill an encyclopedia.  Obama might have destroyed the Democratic Party by his failure to commute the sentence of falsely charged and falsely convicted Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.  Indeed, Obama could have ordered a US Justice Department investigation that almost certainly would have resulted in prison sentences for the Republican Alabama politicians, Republican US attorneys, Republican federal judges and Republican operative Karl Rove who participated in one of the most obvious frameups in human history.

More than 100 Democratic and Republican former attorneys general and officials condemned the prosecution of Siegelman as politically-inspired prosecutorial misconduct.  Yet Obama did nothing.

By doing nothing for Siegelman, Obama demonstrated to every Democrat that they were on their own if they won elections in Republican political strongholds.

Don Siegelman is the only person in the history of Alabama to have been elected to serve in all of the top four statewide elected offices.  He was very popular and did extraordinary good for the people and state of Alabama. That the Republicans were able to remove from office and imprison the most decent man in Alabama public life despite eight years of a Democratic President and Department of Justice is a surefire indication that no Democratic politician can trust the Democratic Party to come to his aid when he comes under attack from the Karl Rove Gang.

Three U.S. Intelligence Agencies (CIA, NSA and FBI) claim that IT-Systems of the Democratic National Committee were “hacked” in an operation related to the Russian government. They assert that emails copied during the “hack” were transferred by Russian government related hackers to Wikileaks which then published them.

President Obama disagrees. He says those emails were “leaked”.

Wikileaks had insisted that the emails it published came from an insider source not from any government. The DNC emails proved that the supposedly neutral Democratic Party committee had manipulated the primary presidential elections in favor of the later candidate Hillary Clinton. This made it impossible for the alternative candidate Bernie Sanders to win the nomination. Hillory Clinton, who had extremely high unfavorable ratings, lost the final elections.

The President of the United States disagrees with those Intelligence Services. He says that the DNC emails were “leaked”, i.e. copied by an insider, and then transferred to Wikileaks. (At the time around the leaking the DNC IT-administrator Seth Rich was found murdered for no apparent reason in the streets of Washington DC. The murder case was never solved.)

Here is President Obama in his final press conference yesterday (vid @8:31):

First of all, I haven’t commented on WikiLeaks, generally. The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether Wikileaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC emails that were leaked.

The DNC emails “that were leaked” – not “hacked” or “stolen” but “leaked”.

One wonders if this is a parting shot is primarily aimed at the involved Intelligence Agencies led by James Clapper and John Brennan. Or is dissing Hillary Clinton and her narrative the main purpose?

The presidential judgement could change the political pressure towards a new cold war with Russia if the mainstream media would pick it up and discuss it. But the media are widely invested in the “hacking” claims (and even create their own ones from hot air). They are also furthering the  anti-Russian narrative. We therefore can not expect that they will report this presidential parting shot at all.

With just two days until President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration and an unprecedented divisiveness grips America and much of the world. Never in modern history has an incoming president been confronted by such hate, vehement fear mongering, propaganda, and undue negativity. The foul stench of something decidedly wrong now permeates Washington D.C., and everybody can smell it. Fake dossiers, an empowered generation gnashing their teeth, all of Hollywood boycotting? If Satan were being inaugurated less people would be in a tizzy. And maybe this is the point.

Russian President Vladimir Putin made the case better than anyone this week when he said “Trump’s attackers are worse than prostitutes”. Demonized like no leader in history, Putin understands all too well the depths to which his western opponents will sink to further their agendas, and it is that agenda that is at the crux of all the anti-Trump fiasco. Much has been made of the evident mutual respect Trump and Putin exhibit.

The “fake news” that is western mainstream media today has created meme on top of viral meme propagandizing a so-called Trump-Putin “bromance”, but somehow the negativity of such a potential friendship has not caught fire, at least not in the way the necons and far left of America wanted. Trump and Putin have a sort of armor coating that protects from slings and arrows like this. I think that most people understand inherently something that Mr. Trump said on Twitter recently:

“Having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. Only “stupid” people, or fools, would think that it is bad!”

Trump, by his own PR team’s admission, is a genius on Twitter. Unlike 99% of celebrities and almost all politicians, the president-elect understands real time engagement and the credibility it affords. The man simply comes off as genuine, but more importantly as a typical American who just happens to be rich. This statement is the most telling and intelligent foreign policy remark in half a century. It begs the question; “Exactly who told you America and Russia should be fighting?” My question for readers is exactly this. The answer is pointedly obvious, don’t you agree?

Taken from the perspective of “who is against and why”, Donald Trump is a fascinating case. Assuming he is right, and that American needs to be made great again, the people opposing clearly want the opposite. Let’s look at what is the biggest rub against him, or the allegation he is sexist, or racist. Excuse me, that’s pretty much it isn’t it? His opposition harps and harps about his wanting to solve the “illegal aliens” problem. Focus on “illegal” if you will. As for allegations he is some kind of sexist pig, there is no more proof than there was for Barack Obama fanny watching and flirting with everything in a skirt (or Hillary Clinton pant suit). Then there is the Russia connection, the fake dossier, and Obama administration intelligence personnel briefing the world using “maybe” as hard evidence. Back Mr. Trump’s Twitter assertion, “What kind of fools believe a friendship with Russia is bad?”

On Friday thousands of so-called anti-Trump protestors will try and muck up a presidential inauguration. What should be a celebration of America’s ultimate right to choice, will be marked by whatever Machiavellian mischief those who supported this anti-Russia war can contrive. Trump’s supporters will no doubt be hurt at how far their countrymen will go to perpetuate disastrous policies and foreign relations. But what is most sickening for me is the aggressiveness, the outright meanness, selfishness, and the blatant stupidity of some of my countrymen. Even before taking office, Trump has not only Tweeted about a pragmatic approach to US-Russia relations, he’s stood up to some of the most powerful corporations and lobbyists on Earth.

First the Carrier deal promised hundreds of Americans jobs, and a trend toward “buy American” again. Then Ford promised to cancel a Mexico plant and to invest $700 million in a Michigan factory. Then When Toyota announced plans for a Mexico plant to ship cars to the US, Trump said “no”, a huge tax would follow. Next, Fiat Chrysler announced plans to invest $1BILLION in Michigan and Ohio plants, adding 2000 jobs. Then Trump hit German carmakers upside their heads promising a 35% for their Mexico endeavors in favor of US plants. These and others of his campaign promises are being kept before he sets foot in the White House! My question now is; “What kind of fools are against Trump if he can repair America’s industries and create high paying jobs?”

Finally, Donald Trump has sent the message clearly that NATO is obsolete. A military organization to defend against “nobody” is something to be done away with. The people of America and all NATO nations pay trillions of dollars to defend against an enemy that never attacks? Our anti-Trump Cold Warriors and empowered special interests will argue of course: Russia, Iran, ISIL, China and tiny North Korea are deadly threats! On those accounts NATO is first and foremost useless, for ISIL has killed from Paris to Brussels to Berlin, Turkey, and anywhere they saw fit to murder. As for Russian aggression, the assertion of this is moronic. What would Russia do with more land and more mouths to feed? Vladimir Putin’s people do not need more land or resources, and Europe has nothing to offer beyond a billion people under various forms of socialism. Russia invade Europe? Greece to Moldova, the people should only hope so.

If Satan were being inaugurated, only Trump supporters would complain. What’s more, even though they are called names like “redneck”, “deplorable”, “racist”, and woman beaters, I am sure their protests would be more civilized and classy. Of course if Satan had been elected, rich movie starts and big shot pop singers could have shined brightly January 20th, but the Devil did not win. Thank goodness for Donald Trump.